| 個人檔案The Reluctant Grownup相片部落格清單 | 說明 |
|
|
10月17日 sweet salty kate made me do it1) You are facing an epic journey. You may choose one companion, one tool and one vehicle from any book or film to accompany you. Or just one of the three. It's up to you. What do you choose? Samwise Gamgee is my companion. But not as played by my buddy Sean Astin, who needed to tone down the melodrama a titch. I'd like the time travel machine from . . . a Heinlein novel with a name I can't recall! And for my tool, I'd take Glenda the Good Witch's wand because, y'know, wands are useful things when adventuring. 2) You can escape to the insides of any book. Where do you go, and why? The Moon's A Balloon by David Niven. It's his memoirs, and dude was his life fun! In the golden age of Hollywood! He was quite a rake . . . and one I'm afraid I never would have heard of had I not picked up his book from the freebie shelf in a hostel in Sydney, Australia. 3) You can bring one literary character into your current life. Who do you choose, and why? Thursday Next, from the Jasper Fforde novels. She can dive into books, and she could show me how! 4) Peter Mayle's A Year in Provence is my go-to book. I could read that book fifty-seven times in a row without a break for food or a pee and not be remotely bored. In fact I’ve already done that but it wasn’t fifty-seven times. It was sixty-four. 5) Of all the literary or film characters that made an impression on you as a kid, who was the most enviable? I always wanted to be one of the teenagers in a Christopher Pike horror teen fiction novel. They seemed so free and cool. I just gave all of my Christopher Pike to the goodwill, and even though they were trashy and I never re-read them I really think that was a mistake. It makes me feel ill when I think about it. 6) Of all the literary or film characters that made an impression on you as a kid, who was the most frightening? This is a tough question, I didn't scare much as a kid. But I do remember a horror movie where a guy paints plaster over his victim's face, until all that's left is her nose for breathing, and then he sloooooowly covers that up, and she writhes and dies. THAT haunted my dreams, and I don't even know how I was permitted to see it as a kid! 7) Every time I read Unless, Carol Warner Shields, I see something in it that I haven’t seen before. 8) It is imperative that Margaret Maron's Deborah Knott mystery novels (set in North Carolina!) be made into a movie.
Now. I am already picketing Hollywood for this—but if they cast Sandra Bullock as Deborah, I will not be happy. I will,
however, be appeased if they cast an unknown. 9) Ian McEwan's Atonement is a book that should never be made (or should have never been made) into a film. 10) After all these years, the people-eating scene in the book/movie The Road still manages to give me the queebs. (not THAT many years, I guess, but still . . .) 11) After all these years, the reconciliation scene between Lizzie and Mr. Darcy in the book/movie Pride and Prejudice still manages to give me a thrill. 12) If I could corner the author Carol Warner Shields (alas, she has died and it can never happen!), here’s what I’d
say to them one minute or less about their book, Unless: I frequently think or say the phrase: the comfort of the perfectly chosen word. And also: a watercolor blob that means mother. And so many other gems. This book is one of my life companions, and I am so glad you created it. 13) The coolest non-fiction book I’ve ever read is Having Faith, Sandra Steingraber. Every time I flip through it, it makes me want to save the world from toxic wastes! 8月10日 Having Faith by Sandra SteingraberIt's hard for me to review this book, for two reasons. Reason number one - my kid is crying for my attention right now. Reason number two - I'm still trying to figure out what the book means to me, and how I am going to change my life in response to having read it.
In brief, then, and with later thoughts perhaps to follow, Having Faith is a tandem exploration of a mother's experience of pregnancy and early childhood, and an ecologist's exploration of the toxic world in which we women are forced to grow and raise (and often lose) our children. The first of my much-cherished myths that Sandra explodes is that there are pristine places left in the world. The second is that there are thresholds for toxins, and as long as our bodies' levels remain under the threshold, we remain uncompromised by them.
I'm nursing my child at the moment (literally - typing 1 handed), and so the takeaway fact that rings in my brain is that my breastmilk is so laden with toxins, it would not meet FDA approval for sale on the market. This is a virtual garauntee - she has gathered evidence from several segments of the population, urban and rural, even indigenous peoples. When I feed my child, I am unburdening my body of a lifetime of toxic chemicals, stored in the fat cells that mobilize to make my milk, and sullying his. There are no life changes that I can make at this point to improve this situation. There are no choices to be made on the personal level that can significantly improve this situation, even if from birth we were planning for our future reproductive periods - not dietary changes, not homesite changes, not purchasing only organic food and Seventh Generation cleaning products. It has to be a global change. This is not a groundbreaking conclusion, but she drives it home.
I want to read more on this. I should, before I try to discuss it any further. At the moment, though, what it's telling me is that just putting my kid in cloth diapers, feeding him breastmilk, handwashing our dishes in non toxic soap, and composting and recycling a lot of our trash is not doing enough. The U.S. government spends millions of dollars on keeping women updated on seafood warnings - which fish are safe to eat in which quantities during which stages of reproductive life - instead of working (with any kind of urgency) on improving the ocean conditions which cause our fish to be toxic. That won't change, unless there is pressure for it to change. And the pressure has to come from "the little people," like me. Like Steingraber. Like Jack.
As for the literary angle - well, the interdisciplinary appeals to me. I love novels by poets, history books by novelists, poems by historians. Academic works can be dry - the scholar wrings his writing like a rag, trying to squeeze out all personality and subjectivity, declaiming "I Am Authority, Objective, Transparent." I much prefer the scholar who does not try to obfusticate (what a word there, eh??) his individuality and personal bias. I think it ends up being a truer work. With constant reminders of subjectivity, we are not tricked into thinking that what we read is an absolute, without slant. So, for that reason, along with her scholarship, I also love this work. She is a poet. Her description of embryo implantation is transcendent. She lifts the process of organogenesis to the light like a crystal, making it transparent as glass, making it shine, which is a tricky proposition when dealing with the lay-people. Aw heck, I can list my strained metaphors for you all day, but why waste time reading them, when you can read hers? Which are much better.
I'm a practical person, so I know that I'm not going to march right out and change the world. But there are things I can do. Her words have been ringing in my head for over a month now, and I don't think they'll leave me. They will inform my future career and scholarship choices, I think. And my parenting choices. I'll keep breastfeeding, because in doing the cost-benefit analysis, I think that breastfeeding still comes out as the best choice for my babies. But it will be nice if, when Jack, or Jack's children, or Jack's grandchildren are looking at their hungry newborns, they won't have to do a cost-benefit analysis on breastfeeding. It will be a purer activity one day. That is my wish. 6月27日 Book Review - Guards! Guards!Terry Pratchett is officially a fantasy writer, but is more a Jonathan Swift than an Anne McCaffrey. Which is to say, his books got BITE. Pratchett's Discworld series are the only ones I've read - they make up the bulk of his body of work - and they are positively delightful. They are the thinking person's fantasy novel, both escapist and thought-provoking. You didn't think that was possible, did you?
So, Guards! Guards! (hereafter GG, because I have to press the shift key too many times to write that *&^%$ title out) is one of his earlier novels about Discworld, though I've read most of the later ones first. That's the first convenient thing about Discworld novels - each stands alone, making it easy to read them in whatever order you choose. The second convenient thing is these books are funny. Like, laugh out loud funny. It makes for a quick read. It rarely takes me more than a day or two to read one of these, because in addition to laughs (tons of slapstick humor, a visual comedy that Pratchett has a knack for describing) they also have great pace.
Each of the novels selects a particular human foible to exploit. GG is about the mob mentality - in it, the protagonist's country is taken over by a dragon - yes, a fire-breathing non-English speaking dragon, who demands (through his interpreter) gold to lie upon and maidens to eat once monthly. The people of the country initially proclaim outrage, but then quietly accept the interloper. Soon they forget what life was like pre-dragon king, and their biggest worry becomes agreeing on a definition for "maiden" and then finding a good store of those for the king's lunch. No one is brave enough to challenge him. . . except the protagonist and his band of unlikely heroes. These heroes include Vimes, drunkard captain of the City Watch (the city's police); Lady Sybil Ramkin, fearsome plum-in-her-mouth aristocrat and stall-mucking animal tamer; Carrot Ironfoundersson, a 6 foot 6 inch man with a pure heart and vicious uppercut; Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler, a sausage salesman; and The Librarian, a character who is (as the name would indicate) the keeper of the wizard university's magical library, and also a huge orangutan.
The reason Pratchett's satire works so well is because he sends up human behavior in general. He is not targeting liberals, or conservatives, or Christians, or Hindus, or vegetarians, or big government, small government - nothing specific like that. He targets bad behavior, plain and simple. A reader could tie many of his novels to past and present world events, but they aren't thinly veiled attacks on real people or ideologies. They are just exposing the human tendency toward lazy thinking, lazy doing. Despite his unflinching portrayals of the way people are, the satire is so fun to read is because he writes with such affection for the human race (and the dwarf race, the troll race, and the various other fantastic species he writes about). He exposes the evil motives of the mass of men, and doesn't pull punches about the disastrous consequences of human frailty. Yet somehow, once you've finished one of his books, you're still rooting for people to succeed. His imagined world is flawed, just like ours, but you still love to be in it. The heroes always win, the villains get their due, and you feel kinship to them all. His characters are caricatures (with fantastic, perfectly chosen names), but they have depth, complexity, and energy that make them feel real, and they are people (dwarves, etc.) who you love to spend time with. Pratchett is a fan of life in general. And I am a fan of Pratchett.
4/5 **** (one of these days I'll review a book I don't like.) 6月22日 Book Review - The RoadAt once beautiful and horrific, The Road by Cormac McCarthy will keep you up at night for two reasons. The first is the nightmare world he sketches. The second is the beautiful relationship between the father and son who are almost the sole living people in that world. Setting aside for a moment the subject matter of the book, I’ll first praise the writing style. Sentences are poem-like in their brevity and punctuation, but it reads like prose. It takes a few pages to settle down into the rhythm, but is undeniably gripping. Each word carries enormous weight. Yet all that white space on the page presents a richly detailed narrative. I’m in awe of the man. McCarthy has said that he was inspired to write this book by a trip he took years ago to El Paso with his young son. (McCarthy is now nearly 74. His son is 8.) McCarthy is a writer of Westerns and gothic horror (frequently the two combined in one), so it is not difficult to believe that as he looked out of his hotel room over the city of El Paso, with his young son asleep in the nearby bed, he imagined a horrific fate for the city. He says (I’m paraphrasing from the Oprah Winfrey interview he gave a few weeks ago) he wondered what El Paso would look like in 50 or 100 years, and imagined fires on the hills around him. And he thought of the little boy living in that future. He dedicated The Road to the boy. The narrative follows an unnamed father and son on a harrowing march through a wintry landscape. They are in the American South, but it is a dead world, decimated by some undisclosed manmade catastrophe. There is no food, no plant or animal life (except one briefly glimpsed starving dog), no safe shelter from the cold. There is no sun. The sky is ash, the air is ash, and ash is slowly filling up their lungs. The boy was born into the burned landscape. His mother, devoid of hope, killed herself a few years later. The father remembers the living world of the past and cannot do the same, though he carries a gun with two bullets at all times – a last resort. They walk, sometimes on the road, sometimes in the gray dead trees next to it, heading towards the coast, hoping it holds something better, warmer. The father is constantly searching for food, for viable water, for (life-saving) shoes, while trying to avoid marauding bands of brutal cannibals who steal and eat, well, whatever flesh they find. He works tirelessly to preserve his son’s life and spirit. Through their conversations we learn of the boy’s pure heart despite the constant moral dilemma of survival in a brutal world; the open and loving relationship between the two; and the messianic faith the father has in his son, in the boy’s ability to survive until the world is green again. He calls it “carrying the fire,” and the boy dutifully repeats the mantra. Every second the two are in imminent danger of death by starvation, thirst, murder, hypothermia. McCarthy has never been hesitant to brutalize his main characters, and the reader has no assurance that these two will make it to the end of the novel. The end of the novel. How could it possibly end? The world is dead. There is no hope for salvation. The father is coughing up blood, and it seems clear that if he dies the son will not survive. It’s hard to read to the finish. But there is a purpose to this work. It is not a heavy-handed “this is what will happen if the human race keeps on fighting.” It is not simply a love story between father and son. It is not just a testament, to the idiocy of human war and to the strength of the human will to live. It’s something more. I’m still trying to figure it out, but for now I’ll say it is an exploration of a given situation, a series of conditional statements. If the world is burned, if all sources of food and water are gone, if only a handful of people are left, and if a father and son are stranded here, what would happen? I don’t think this is a morality tale. I think it’s a question asked and answered beautifully. McCarthy chose the set of circumstances based on a nightmare vision he had out a hotel room window in El Paso, but I don’t think the circumstances themselves are the point. I will re-read this novel over and over in my life, I already know. The initial read wasn’t as forceful a blow to my consciousness as certain other novels have been, ones that burst into my brain like flares and die out just as quickly. It’s a more gentle intrusion that’s led to a sustained exploration of ideas. I have to give this 5/5 stars. I really hope you find time to read it yourselves. Here is the website devoted to the book. A lengthy exploration from the NY Review of Books. The Brit's take - a lot of this review is about his famous spare language. 5月15日 Oracle Night, Paul AusterHow does narrative impact real life? How does real life impact narrative? What is time, and how does fiction exist within it - or outside it? Paul Auster's eleventh novel is a soup of fictional plots - at one point we are reading the summary of a novel that the character of a novel that Paul's first person narrator is writing is reading. Read that sentence ten times, and it still won't make sense, and it's not just my bad grammar. Despite the fact that an absentminded reader may need flashcards or diagrams to track what is the "host" story and what is a "sub" story (not least of which reason being some characters appear in multiple fiction levels), Oracle Night is a very readable novel that races to the finish - Auster's typical pace, from my experience reading Leviathan and Timbuktu, both of which I preferred. His narrator, Syney Orr, is a writer who has been recovering from a long illness, and at the start of the novel is finally feeling well enough to begin writing something himself. His inspiration is a fresh blue notebook bought on a morning walk, and because events spiral out of control from that moment of purchase - the "moment in question" is how he refers to it - we at first may believe that this is going to be a fantasy story about a magical notebook. Actually, it is a story about how people deal with life changing experiences, such as a debilitating illness or a troubled marriage - people in general, writers in particular, given our narrator's profession. Everything that happens to Sydney ends up in his "magical" blue notebook, either cloaked in loosely based fiction or written out as deliberate autobiography. We never get to read what Sydney writes; we're only offered his paraphrasing - in fact, he is the only one to ever read any of what he writes in the blue notebook. Strangely enough, though, what he writes sometimes ends up happening in his real life. And his real life begins to sound like a work of fiction. Putting aside that Sydney's life is, of course, a work of fiction, it's an interesting idea. Of course it can be (has been) argued that all of life is a fiction - our self awareness, self representation, even our own unarticulated memories are constructed. But it is asking us to make quite a leap to suggest that a novel's events can begin to intrude on its author's real life, in the almost mystical way they tend to do in this novel. What happens to Sydney, his wife, their close friend, starts to feel unreal, outrageous. By writing his novel in the first person, Auster has given us Sydney's eyes to look through, and his incredulous reactions to the eerie and bewildering events of his life lend some credibility to them - he is our ambassador, he keeps us onboard. Conversely, Auster has also chosen to write the bulk of his backstory in achingly long footnotes - he never wants us to forget that we are reading a book. When Auster's Sydney describes being at once in a room at a party and also mentally "in" a story he had written about the same room earlier, we totally get it. Like him, we are simultaneously absorbed in Sydney's world, and outside it - never being allowed to forget that he is not real, and we are reading him. So what is the takeaway? In one episode, Sydney writes out the transgressions of a loved one, and then rips the pages out and tears them to pieces - a physical manifestation of forgiveness, of literally obliterating an age old grievance. In another, he feverishly writes a rant about a horrifying news article he read in order to get it off his mind. Is that what writing is for? Exorcising demons? Clearing and organizing thoughts? Exploring? In a way, this novel is about using writing as a tool for staying sane (how apropos for a blogger to consider!) The ending, then, is puzzling one - Sydney's writings, recorded in the blue notebook, are discarded. He sobs in grief and joy, happy to be alive. He rises unburdened from the bed and walks to the hospital to visit his wife. Writing has served its purpose, but only the act of writing has value: the result of that act, the words on the page, are dangerous, destroyed. Of this act of destruction, says a trusted advisor, a fellow writer; "All you need is a different notebook." This novel has a bittersweet, but largely positive, ending. All loose ends are tied, but in a satisfyingly not-trite way (anybody know a word for "not-trite?") Paul Auster writes with easy grace, and this writing theme is just one of many that could be discussed. Ideas about marriage, forgiveness, betrayal, and freedom are explored in the host story, echoed in the sub stories. It's somewhat dense, unnecessarily so, but definitely worth the read. There are so many tacks one could take with this novel - it's one that begs for a book group, for a re-reading, for a 10 page essay. I'm afraid, however, I've bored you long enough, so I'll give it my rating: it may be soupy, but it's damn good soup. 4/5 THUMBS UP. Here is what John Homans of NY Magazine had to say. Here is Blair Mahoney from The Modern Word. A British-based Paul Auster website, with some nice pictures of the man. Not a bad looking person, for a shy writer! |
|
|