“How many a man has dated a new era in his life from the reading of a book.”–Henry David Thoreau

Have you read the Pulitzer Prize winning novelist Richard Ford’s books The Sportswriter, Independence Day, or Women with Men (Three Stories)?  I haven’t.  And it’s a shortcoming I intend to rectify as soon as I can.  Sounds lame, doesn’t it, to start an article with what I haven’t read, and a promise to do better next time?  But perhaps you’d feel inclined to bear with me if I tell you that my sudden determination to read this fine writer comes from the encounter with my reading self (for that’s what this reading experience is, an encounter with the parts of oneself that read as much as with the text).  And the book he has written which calls into account my reading self is his new book, Canada (2012).

Though the book has this simple title, a good part of it is about the life and development (suddenly broken into by the crime of his parents) of an American boy, Dell Parsons, who lives in Great Falls, Montana in the Upper Northwestern United States.  The title may lead you to expect a sort of travelogue adventure, but unless you are prepared for the parallel trip through an interior space of mind, heart, and soul as it is taken by a teenage boy, then your expectations count for nought.  Dell’s growing up is a transmutation of materials in the human psyche basically reserved for gentle, slow changes, but in him they are propelled into a violent growth of his awareness of adults and of people in general.  Since he has lived the earlier years of his life secluded within his nuclear family (two parents, two children), travelling from army base to army base for his father’s job and making no friends, Dell is as close as can be imagined to a societal tabula rasa or “blank slate,” upon which something is to be written.  And his parents’ robbing of a bank and the later interaction with a mysterious Canadian who takes care of him when his parents go to jail jolt Dell into various interactions with the small number of people around him (and a few strangers); Dell learns some life lessons from these confrontations, and articulates them in the strangely adult voice of a young man who has been forced to grow up sooner than he is comfortable with, longing as he does for a regular school to go to, friends to play chess with, normal social interactions.  Even his twin sister, Berner, does not provide him with the closeness we feel him so desperately needing.

One of the most shocking things about the story is the very ordinariness of the characters.  Dell’s average parents decide to rob a bank to settle a debt threatening his father and the family, and threatening them not with foreclosure or shortage of supplies but with death if they don’t comply.  Dell tries to account for this strange action of his parents by attempting to figure out how they must’ve been other than the people he always imagined them to be, in fact to align them in his mind more satisfactorily with what becomes their new “fate.”  For that’s what one of the subjects of the book is, and not in any high-flown literary sense, but in a perfectly ordinary everyday sense:  what fate can be said to be when one didn’t see or feel it coming, even intuitively.

Over time, as Dell ponders and then puts out of his mind this original life-changing event, he learns to adjust his thinking to accomodate his parents’ change.  By then, he is up in Canada, having been whisked to safety from out of the hands of the U. S. juvenile authorities by a friend of his mother’s, who sends him to be taken care of by her own brother, Arthur Remlinger, the naturalized Canadian (originally from the U. S.) who gives him a job and largely ignores him until his own twisted plans for the boy mature.  Dell is precipitated into further strange events by Remlinger’s actions, and these events are the source of much of the life philosophy articulated in the voice of the older Dell near the end of the book, which he tries to pass onto his students without revealing the events in his own life which have led to this philosophy.  In an unusual gambit for someone addicted to reading and chess, Dell finally decides that there are few hidden meanings in life, that what is real is what one experiences outright.  This is what forces the reader into a conflict with his/her reading self:  the subject is not just how we read literature, but how we read life.  As a corollary of this theory of obviousness, Dell articulates what has by the end become one of the main themes of the book:  “Remlinger had told the truth when he said I would learn something valuable.  I learned that things made only of words and thoughts can become physical acts.”

In the lit. biz., these sorts of “words and thoughts” are known as “performative words” by some (like marriage vows), as “speech acts” by others.  But Dell’s “words and thoughts,” those foisted upon him by other people intent upon their own lives and seeing him only as a child to be discounted or used as the case commands, are more direct than marriage vows in that Dell is forced to take part in their fulfillment when he wasn’t party to their making.

I hope I haven’t made this book sound terribly dry with my own philosophizing and interpretation, for it is anything but dry.  It is 420 pages long in hardback, but I was able to read it in one week by setting aside about 1 1/2 hours a day for it, usually in the evening, or even breaking up the time over the course of a day.  It “reads” very fast.  None of the topics I’ve discussed here appear in the book overtly in the sense that the language is kept to the simple language that might be expected to be understood by an articulate if naive teenager; the understanding, it gradually becomes obvious, is that of the perspective of an older man.  Some of the time, there is comparison of how things have changed societally and politically in the U. S. and Canada since 1960 or so, how the mundane lives of the characters have been impacted by national events.  But this doesn’t become preachy or obscure, only matter-of-fact.  As well, Dell (and later on, Dell and other characters) discuss and debate how much and whether the U. S. and Canada are different, and this topic is one which is left to be judged by the reader (Ford produces the usual mention of his research books on the topic at the end of the book).

So, if you’re looking for more than just that ephemeral summer beach read, and want a book which will provide you with material to think about in the privacy of your own reading self (or in company discussion with your friends, the choice is yours), give this one a whirl.  I can almost promise you that you won’t be disappointed, unless you are very hard to please indeed.

2 Comments

Filed under Articles/reviews

“The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober.”–William Butler Yeats

Ah, today is Friday!  Drink day!  At least, for those of us who are in this part of the globe, it’s Friday and for those of us who can’t drink much because of having too much avoirdupois, it’s that magical time once a week–you probably have your own–when we can indulge in getting just a little pie-eyed for the sake of posterity.

“For the sake of posterity?” you say.  “Pshaw, and nonsense!  How does posterity benefit from your drinking habit?”  Please do not call it a habit.  I can take it up or take it alone–I mean leave it alone, what am I saying?  But really, if I am to continue doing what I do and publishing what I hope is at least one well-considered post a day, I need a break.  And what better to share it with than my favorite tipple?  Are you all agog?  Do you want to know what it is?  Well, you may not be agog exactly, but for the sake of completeness and what some of you may come to decide is after all a good recipe, I’m going to share this.  Stop reading if you’re not interested, and pick up tomorrow, when I hope to have another purely literary post for you.

The first thing that is absolutely essential to this drink is that you really, really like the taste of cranberry juice, because the overall taste is one of cranberry juice that got into trouble with the law and never recovered its sanctity.  A year or few ago, a friend found out that I liked the taste of cranberry juice mixed with Campari (which also tastes of cranberry), and gave me the general recipe for a Negroni, which is a gin-based drink featuring Campari.  I don’t have that exact recipe ready to hand, but I do have a variation, which is what I’m using today.  Don’t worry if you basically hate gin; so do I, but I like it fine when it occurs this way:  1 part dry gin, 1 part Campari, 1 part vermouth Rosso (sweet vermouth).  It’s even better if you increase each part to 2 parts, because then you get more of what you like (cranberry heaven a bit askew).  Pour over lots of ice in a tall glass, stir, and enjoy!

I do realize that people are much more conscious these days of what drinking does that’s not beneficial, and I admit that this problem exists, but “Moderation in all things” is a good rule of thumb.  And if you’re just the average casual drinker who likes only the occasional drink, and are being reproached by teetotalling friends, you can always quote Sir Richard Burton, who is reported to have said, “I have to think hard to name an interesting man who does not drink.”  Granted, he was highly prejudiced (as well as highly soused sometimes, according to some reports), but even though you can be interested by watching an ant push a crumb across a table when you’re tipsy (whether you’re an entomologist or not), there’s much to be said for the subsequent release of tension (assuming that you’re a peaceable drinker.  If you’re not, forget this whole post!).  So to those of you who are trying my recipe and those of you who are doing your own thing, I say “Cheers!”  And to you abstainers, I still say “Cheers!”  I’m in a rosy mood, and there’s room for us all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Other than literary days....

“The more he talked of his honor the faster we counted our spoons.”–Ralph Waldo Emerson

Or, as the American poet Emily Dickinson has it, “He preached upon ‘Breadth’ till it argued him narrow–/The Broad are too broad to define/And of ‘Truth’ until it proclaimed him a Liar–/The Truth never flaunted a Sign–/Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence/As Gold the Pyrites would shun–/What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus/To meet so enabled a Man!”

Or, how about Shakespeare’s Hamlet and his reference to Ophelia’s protestations?  “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”?

All of these quotes are ways of saying the same thing in different circumstances, which is basically that when someone boasts, brags, or repeatedly or emphatically states that something is so, the human mind cannot help but swing to the opposite statement, by way of balance.  This may be part of our self-protecting sense that nobody is perfect, nor is any stance or thing in our ordinary lives, and so we long to restore the equilibrium with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Yet what do you do if and when you are aware that someone doubts your probity unjustifiably, that in fact you are suspected of a fraud or a lie?  What do you do?  If they question you, the matter can be set right as long as you keep your head and answer them as truthfully as possible, at least so it would seem.  Yet if they look askance at you but say nothing, your case is much harder to bear:  you know you are suspected unfairly, yet cannot speak because it would seem more surely to involve you in knowledge of a crime, misdoing, or shortcoming.  The best thing (as far as I have seen, having lived through this sort of thing more than once in a life that so far I like to think has basically been a truthful one) is probably just to grin–only figuratively speaking, of course–and bear it.  People will think what they will think, and more often than we are perhaps aware of, either friends or acquaintances speak for us in a voice of moderation, or the suspicious themselves get tired of what they’re thinking and change their minds for the better, if only we keep a straight course, and refuse to let ourselves be shaken by their doubt (we’re not all hapless Billy Budds, after all!).

In the spirit of honesty, then (and I have been asked this question by a reader, a personal friend who was too shy to leave a recorded comment) I answer the question, “How can you remember so many quotes, and who said them?”  And my answer is, “I don’t.  There are myriads of reliable quotation books out there, of which I’ve seen a few.  My favorite one is Bartlett’s Book of Familiar Quotations, edited in the sixteenth edition by Justin Kaplan, though I think there are now later editions of this famous work out.  Another fine guide organized in a friendlier and less formal way is Robert Byrne’s The 2,548 Best Things Anybody Ever Said.  The quote from Emily Dickinson comes from The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, edited by Thomas H. Johnson.  The latest edition I have of this is from 1960, though for all I know now, other additional poems attributable to ‘the Belle of Amherst’ may have surfaced since then.  This information would be something a specialist could provide.  Finally, the remark about Billy Budd is a reference to Herman Melville’s work Billy Budd, Foretopman, a work which can make anyone who feels paranoid about being misunderstood feel even more so, and for this reason I’d advocate reading it when you’re in an optimistic mood about your place in the world.”

And this is my post for today!  Late in the day, I know, to be doing a post, but the topic came to me ready-made by the friendly enquiry, and my feeling that I should probably not lay claim to being a human quote source.  Until tomorrow, keep your hat on the hook, and your shoes under the table (whatever that expression means–I know it’s meant to signify good advice back in the country, but why I don’t know).  shadowoperator

1 Comment

Filed under What is literature for?

“Experience teaches you to recognize a mistake when you’ve made it again.”–Unknown

And that’s what I’ve been doing today, making mistake after mistake, and not always sure that I didn’t make the same one twice.  Today, I’ve been trying to embed something from Scribd into WordPress.com, only to find that for some reason I (is it only I?) couldn’t get the instructions to work right.  So, finally I put the previous post up as a pdf (a review article I wrote 2-3 years back for thedeepening.com, a site ever to be commended); you can visit my WordPress.com site and click on it at your leisure on the Home page.  Some days, it just doesn’t pay to be a computer idiot!  shadowoperator

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles/reviews

“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”–Derek Bok

“The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things….”  So Lewis Carroll noted, and so it is today.  Yesterday, I wrote a blog which featured the word “kill” in the title quote; it was from Mark Twain, the well-known, no, the famous American humorist (1835-1910).  One of his comic remarks about duelling was this, and I quoted, sure that no one would miss the point:  “I thoroughly disapprove of duels.  If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.”  My point (and one of his, about duelling) was this:  when people conventionally fought duels, they followed a strict formula of challenge, acceptance, making nice formally through seconds until it was time (usually the next morning or at another set time and place, by a river, in a park, in a “quiet place” where they were unlikely to be disturbed), and then shooting at each other, often with the intention to kill.  (I’m the one who feels really ignorant, explaining Twain’s joke!)  Twain’s remark was a sort of funny tautology, meant to be appreciated for its apparent contradiction which led to precisely the same result:  that is, a corpse.  At least, a verbal one.

Now to the result of my post on WordPress:  it was accepted by WordPress, but when it went through to Twitter, the joke and my (not totally dry) philosophical examination of the issue were not properly listed.  Of course, the title was too long for an average tweet, but the whole thing could’ve been properly featured if only it had said, “Show summary,” where the rest of it could’ve been given.  Conversations with various people, however, have given me to understand that part of the problem may’ve been that Twitter has an automatic filtering procedure for the length of the tweet, and that possibly the word “kill” set off alarms.  But why?  Is it because these days so many people are busy actually killing each other than they have no time to read the real sense of the essay I wrote, and missed Twain’s humor (and the little modest bit of my own that was included)?  And that the rest of us have to police ours and others’ remarks so thoroughly that a witty remark can no longer function as what it is?  Or am I just an over-educated blob who has no sense of what real life issues are?  (I obviously hope you won’t conclude this last to be the real answer.)

Just ask yourself, though, was I on a plane, threatening myself or someone else, or trying to interfere with a train’s safe departure, or in a public place waving a gun?  No, I was not.  If the pen truly is mightier than the sword, then I would just like to stand up for people’s rights to read and make their own decisions, and furthermore, the necessity of educating people adequately so that no one becomes so austere and humorless that they can’t distinguish between a well-meant and (I thought) properly provocative essay or article and a violent manifesto.  Mark Twain did, and wanted us to share in his perceptions.  Remember Mark Twain–The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Life on the Mississippi, Pudd’nhead Wilson, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Letters from the Earth, and other works?  That’s the Mark Twain we’re talking about.  If you haven’t read him yet, don’t let me scare you away with the thought that he’s troublesome–of course he is, as any true humorist can be.  But he’s also well worth the trouble of acquaintance.  Shadowoperator

Leave a comment

Filed under What is literature for?

I may or may not be in WordPress and Twitter both–just testing system (for second time)!

Leave a comment

Filed under What is literature for?

“I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.”–Mark Twain

Yes, it’s a matter of intention vs. action, isn’t it?  Mark Twain points up in a comic way something related to a much disputed philosophical issue, as might be illustrated by one of the differences between the followers of Emmanuel Kant (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals–a mouthful, isn’t it?) and those of John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism).

As Kant’s introducer, Marvin Fox, remarks in the Introduction to Kant’s work (stay with me here), “Kant arrives at the conclusion that the supreme principle of morality can be formulated in this manner:  ‘Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a Universal Law of Nature.’  He defines the term ‘maxim’…as the ‘subjective principle of volition’….We must note with care that the categorical imperative is directed toward the maxim, the principle behind the action, rather than toward the particular act itself….Only the maxim can be judged morally.”

Taking the opposite tack, Mill says, “I submit that he who saves another from drowning in order to kill him by torture afterwards does not differ only in motive from him who does the same thing from duty or benevolence; the act itself is different.”  He goes on to clarify (if not to make murkier) the distinction between motive and intention (or motive and “morality”)–“The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention–that is, upon what the agent wills to do.  But the motive, that is, the feeling which makes him will to do so, if it makes no difference in the act, makes none in the morality:  though it makes a great difference in our moral estimation of the agent, especially if it indicates a good or a bad habitual disposition–a bent of character from which useful, or from which hurtful actions are likely to arise.”  Got that?  This footnote (for this is part of a footnote) appears only in the 1864 edition and was dropped after that.  It does seem to imply, doesn’t it, that even accidental bad outcomes from good intentions may be estimated as otherwise than good, doesn’t it?

Anyone able to shed a gentler and more able light on this issue is encouraged to do so–I for one find it a real conundrum, apt to make me break into the Monty Python “Philosopher’s Song.”  But seriously, I’d like to hear from someone about this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Literary puzzles and arguments

“The covers of this book are too far apart.”–Ambrose Bierce

Have you ever been really enjoying a book, on the one hand, and on the other wondering how much longer it was going to go on?  It’s not quite the same as boredom with the thing (if it were that, you’d probably just put it down), yet you still find your self counting the pages, getting impatient with the author for not “gripping” you as you deserve, or perhaps deserting it temporarily for some shorter read which promises instant gratification.

This feeling I’m describing can oppose or strangely go along with the contrary feeling you get when finishing such a book (maybe even a book published in volumes), that you are sad to see it finally go, and that it’s been a world for you to live in which is now taken away from you until you have a chance to read the book again.  This is especially true of long reads like A Dance to the Music of Time by the British author Anthony Powell (a book which spans a major part of the main character’s long life in the 20th century, and is composed of twelve, yes twelve, well-respected volumes)–read it and laugh, don’t weep, because it’s very often a witty book.

It took me a year or more, reading a short number of pages each night at bedtime, to read all twelve volumes.  I often turned from it in frustration, to read a few pages or chapters of some mystery or fantasy or science fiction novel which made more modest claims in the literary world, but I conversely felt safe because I knew I had a world just waiting for me to come back to it and take it up again.  Such reads, sometimes resented in the reading, have later turned out to be some of my favorite books to share and discuss with others in retrospect.  So the next time you’re looking for that special book to take to the beach, or to fill a dull moment, don’t just grab the shortest and flimsiest reading experience you can find, assuming that it doesn’t matter.  Why not try developing a long-lasting relationship with a good, long, serious or humorous (or both) read that will carry you well into autumn if you read a little of it now and then?  You may be surprised to discover just how rewarding an experience this can be!  shadowoperator

Leave a comment

Filed under What is literature for?

“Exit, pursued by a bear.”–A stage direction from Shakespeare (“The Winter’s Tale”)

Yes, okay, so this is a stage direction in Shakespeare’s play, not the narrative which takes its place in a short story or novel (both surround and bracket dialogue).  But many writers, notably Hemingway and his imitators and models have indicated that the same sort of stage-direction narrative terseness is desirable in fiction writing, both by their practice and their theory, and so it has largely been for most of the 20th century and even into the 21st.  In particular, Hemingway eschewed the use of copious amounts of “ly” adverbs and spritely and numerous adjectives.  The most obvious exception in Hemingway’s work is in one of the Nick Adams stories, when Nick is making love to a young Native American girl of his acquaintance; the episode is sparingly told until the most passionate moments, when Hemingway uncharacteristically strings together a whole series of emotive “ly” adverbs to describe the sexual actions of the two young people.

So why, then, these things being so (I imagine you being interested enough to ask), do I use “ly” and other adverbs perhaps to excess in my own writing?  Am I uninformed, tasteless, or simply trying to make trouble?  I plead guilty to only the third.  While admiring Hemingway and others for all they’ve accomplished and all they’ve added to our literary heritage, I decided to row my own boat, as it were.  As Hegel noted, history is composed of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and regardless of what one thinks of this in philosophical terms (the Greek tragic chorus knew a similar dramatic form in their strophe, antistrophe, and epode), so literature in general often returns upon itself, imitating older forms and skipping over the ones just before it in time, or sometimes achieving something entirely new from setting two older things in opposition or combination.  Though florid and “purple” prose has been made fun of for centuries, and that kind of prose is not what I’m aiming for, I yet retain an affection for fiction which points the way occasionally by adding those extra descriptive words.  Part of what we come to literature for is in fact the variety of forms, styles, and concepts we find there.  So I’m hoping that as you read through my books (and I hope you will), that you will agree that sometimes additional description has its place.  And bless the notion of literary variety:  vive la différence!

Leave a comment

Filed under What is literature for?

“The biggest sin is sitting on your ass.”–Florynce Kennedy

Yes, it’s been a hot day, and I’ve been sitting on my ass, in the air conditioning, all day, with nary a truly literary thought in my head.  All the same, though, I haven’t been totally idle.  I’ve been making it possible for people to read and contact me on Twitter.  Twitter won’t carry the full post, of course, which tends to be rather long while Twitter is something like 140 characters.  Still, I think I understand correctly that you can access the post through Twitter.  So, keep in touch, and remember that if you don’t want to be mistaken for spam, don’t write from your company computer with 150 links on it; how’s about the PC or Mac?  shadowoperator

Leave a comment

Filed under Full of literary ambitions!