It's... a good book, but it's definitely a bit odd. You can hear J.K. Rowling's tone as you knew it in the Harry Potter books, but she's talking about child abuse and masturbation and drug use.
So that's kind of weird.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Bookshop picks
Today I had a bit of time coming home from errands, and so I stopped at my local Barnes & Noble.
Some good things on offer:
Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene
A book about moral philosophy & ethics. Stuff I love to think about, even if I sort of hate arguing about it. Once I was driving around in a car with someone, and we were pretending that we were in a spaceship, and I made a choice in my fictional role that started a huge argument about moral philosophy. We started fighting in character, but it quickly became evident that we were really fighting about our beliefs. At the end of the drive we stopped the "game", but it was clear that we were both pissed.
To The Letter by Simon Garfield
To be honest I'm not that keen on "History of (random thing)" books. They're interesting to read once, but I generally don't buy anything that I think (or know) I'm only going to read once. So maybe when this hits the library, it looked really interesting.
Hyperbole and a Half by Allie Brosh
If you haven't read Allie's blog by the same name, stop reading my blog and get over there. Read the entire thing. Twice. Allie Brosh is a genius storyteller and has written some of the funniest, truest stuff on the internet. I almost bought this book, but I didn't. I almost flipped through and read the new, never-before-published stories, but I didn't.
This is a book to be savored. To be read on a day off of work with no chores, no homework, nothing but you and a warm blanket and lots of laughing. I won't buy this book until I know I have the chance to really delight in it all by itself.
The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
There used to be a great paperback (or was it hardback?) green edition of this that was billed as a 5-part trilogy anthology. THis is part of the "Build yourself a classical library" series that Barnes & Noble is doing. It's a nice edition, but I'm not sure it's appropriate. I would prefer the older design. The thing with these classical copies is that they look like they would hold up to abuse pretty well.
If your copy of Hitchhiker's Guide isn't totally tatty, then what are you doing? Are you even reading it?
Here's the "classic" table that I was talking about. Some of the stuff is what you'd expect; Gray's Anatomy, The Bible, TKAM. Some of it is expected but sort of annoying: I don't want all of Jane Austen's books parked together in one volume. Ditto the Brontes.
They're all hardback, with gilded page edges and marbled endpapers. It's all very fancy. And it suits even a modern book like Wicked, but I had to laugh at the doubled-up Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
Not that they're not good books, but I love my little paperback that I can shove in my pocket for anytime, anywhere dinosaur action. Why have a shelf copy? It's just not a book that you take off the shelf and sit down in your armchair and read.
The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery
When I picked this up, I was wondering if it was going to be more philosophy about the Hedgehog's Dilemma, but actually, it's a novel about a bunch of zany people who live in a French hotel.
I'd read that, for sure.
The Mysterious Death of Miss Jane Austen by Lindsay Ashford
As I may or may not have mentioned here, I'm pretty much done with alternative Jane Austen books, and I certainly won't be buying any without reading them first because the market is flooded with so much nonsense. This looked pretty good as I thumbed through it, but I'll wait for the library copy.
And speaking of the library... I stopped there on the way home and came up with J.K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy which has been on my list for quite some time.
Some good things on offer:
Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm by Philip Pullman
Oh my god, Philip Pullman put together a collection of fairy tales! And they have little annotative notes and historical info from him following each story! Philip Pullman is magic. AND this beautiful copy has deckled edges!
A book about moral philosophy & ethics. Stuff I love to think about, even if I sort of hate arguing about it. Once I was driving around in a car with someone, and we were pretending that we were in a spaceship, and I made a choice in my fictional role that started a huge argument about moral philosophy. We started fighting in character, but it quickly became evident that we were really fighting about our beliefs. At the end of the drive we stopped the "game", but it was clear that we were both pissed.
To The Letter by Simon Garfield
To be honest I'm not that keen on "History of (random thing)" books. They're interesting to read once, but I generally don't buy anything that I think (or know) I'm only going to read once. So maybe when this hits the library, it looked really interesting.
Hyperbole and a Half by Allie Brosh
If you haven't read Allie's blog by the same name, stop reading my blog and get over there. Read the entire thing. Twice. Allie Brosh is a genius storyteller and has written some of the funniest, truest stuff on the internet. I almost bought this book, but I didn't. I almost flipped through and read the new, never-before-published stories, but I didn't.
This is a book to be savored. To be read on a day off of work with no chores, no homework, nothing but you and a warm blanket and lots of laughing. I won't buy this book until I know I have the chance to really delight in it all by itself.
The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
There used to be a great paperback (or was it hardback?) green edition of this that was billed as a 5-part trilogy anthology. THis is part of the "Build yourself a classical library" series that Barnes & Noble is doing. It's a nice edition, but I'm not sure it's appropriate. I would prefer the older design. The thing with these classical copies is that they look like they would hold up to abuse pretty well.
If your copy of Hitchhiker's Guide isn't totally tatty, then what are you doing? Are you even reading it?
Here's the "classic" table that I was talking about. Some of the stuff is what you'd expect; Gray's Anatomy, The Bible, TKAM. Some of it is expected but sort of annoying: I don't want all of Jane Austen's books parked together in one volume. Ditto the Brontes.
They're all hardback, with gilded page edges and marbled endpapers. It's all very fancy. And it suits even a modern book like Wicked, but I had to laugh at the doubled-up Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
Not that they're not good books, but I love my little paperback that I can shove in my pocket for anytime, anywhere dinosaur action. Why have a shelf copy? It's just not a book that you take off the shelf and sit down in your armchair and read.
The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery
When I picked this up, I was wondering if it was going to be more philosophy about the Hedgehog's Dilemma, but actually, it's a novel about a bunch of zany people who live in a French hotel.
I'd read that, for sure.
As I may or may not have mentioned here, I'm pretty much done with alternative Jane Austen books, and I certainly won't be buying any without reading them first because the market is flooded with so much nonsense. This looked pretty good as I thumbed through it, but I'll wait for the library copy.
And speaking of the library... I stopped there on the way home and came up with J.K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy which has been on my list for quite some time.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Like, Uh, Whatever. Yeah.
Let me first say that I don't understand Twitter at all. I mean, AT ALL. I had a twitter at one point. I tried following people, and making tweets. It just didn't make any sense to me. Sure, sometimes Mindy Kaling or somebody writes a hilarious one-liner. But the rest of it was just this garbled mash of conversations and retweets and other stuff that didn't make any sense or have any real context. I don't see how twitter works or provides any value inside its own system. The only time I ever see tweets as being interesting is when they are taken outside of a twitter feed, and given their own stand-alone place...
This is just the lead-in to the fact that I'm about to link to a buzzfeed article that is all about tweets. Maybe you've seen it already: This Guy's Live-Tweets of his Neighbor's Breakup Are Hilarious And Heartbreaking. This is twitter tweeting a narrative, which is interesting to me on two levels. At first, it's a new form of communication and storytelling, this "live tweeting". He assigns roles to each character, decides which sentences and actions to include to tell the story:
He even includes himself, the narrator, and his vote for the girl in this situation:
So there is that.
The second part that I found interesting was the words that the couple were using, the way that their argument progressed. We just have to trust Ayers as a faithful reporter of what was actually said, but I think, sadly, that at this point in our digital communication we are all guilty of the following garbage:
And the very end of their fight...
Ambiguity. The crime of ambiguity. We can text "yeah, yeah" and "whatever" until our thumbs bleed, because it makes us seem involved while we're really just too tired or scared or lost to actually commit to something. And I don't mean committing to another person or an apartment (Oh, Guy, seriously, what is your damage?) but committing to an idea, to a belief. Hold yourself to a standard. Stand up and be decisive, even in small things. Have an opinion. Decide what you want and stick to it. The guy refuses to commit to labels and to address Rachel's wants when it's somehow inconvenient for him, and then turns around and demands that she spell out where their relationship is now that he's refused to give her any clarity. She responds with "fucking whatever", which is a huge, lazy, defeated brush-off. Neither one will just say clearly. Do they not know what they want? Do any of us?
We have all these words. Why don't we use them? Why doesn't he say "I don't want to move in with you, I'm sorry." And then, she could say "Well that makes me feel ____". And maybe they would still break up in the end.
This happens a lot when we text. I find myself saying "ha", or "yeah, yeah" which could be a brush off, a tease, a dismissal, or just plain laziness. I used to know someone who said "indeed" on AOL IM back in the day. He said it so often that I started to suspect that he wasn't really paying attention to what I was saying (he wasn't) and worse, "indeed" is so patronizing (and that was sort of true, too).
My thoughts aren't complete on their whole exchange. Maybe it's because I'm a girl that I struggle when I see conversations play out like this. It's part of the vocabulary of growing up, and trying to figure out what people are really saying to you. Remember when we were younger, and we had a crush on someone, and we'd dissect their every word?
"He said "Hey" to you?"
"Oh my god, was it a "Hey", or was it more like "Hey"?"
Or worse, someone would say an actual sentence to us, and we'd have a bunch of grammar to dissect and pick over as well.
What is this? When we're young, we dig for meaning where there isn't any. Then, when we're older, we refuse to make the effort of giving meaning to our words when it's really, really necessary. Did we get lazy? Is it all this texting and tweeting? Or are we just training ourselves to be less precise over time? We don't have to marry in order to secure our fortunes anymore, so we can fall back on any old thing: any new job, any new person, any new life. We don't have to take a stance.
Are we getting pizza? (I'm scared to eat alone or be alone and I am uncomfortable and need to change the topic).
Seriously? (I refuse to admit that you might have a point because it offends me, so I demand that you justify it. Alternatively, you have just made an outrageously offensive and/or broad statement that is overgeneralizing or avoiding the issue at hand. Probably because you're a huge jerk/bitch).
I was reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix today, and there was the point where Harry decides not to tell Ron and Hermione that Umbridge is basically torturing him with the weird pen. Then, about a chapter later, he changes his mind and decides to be open with Ron after Ron is open with him. I thought "Way to go, dude!"
It's a hugely frustrating plot point when people keep things from one another for no reason at all. In The Eye of the World the main character, whatever the hell his name was, decides not to tell his crazy creepy dreams to the one person he knows could help him, all because he has some stubborn prejudice against her. While that keeps with his character, it also makes the reader hate him as a character. I always end up white-knuckling the pages, screaming "Just tell her about the devil trying to kill you, you stupid moron!"
She, meanwhile, fully suspects/knows what's up.
It even frustrates me a bit in Austen, when the whole plot hingers on the fact that people are too delicate to mention something ("Hey, sister, why are you crying to the point that you are probably going to get sick and die? Oh, I can't mention anything. Damn. Welp, what kind of flowers would you like at your funeral?") that would basically resolve the whole thing in 5 minutes. Remember Pride and Prejudice? Everyone is waiting for Bingley to propose to Jane, including Elizabeth, yet Elizabeth won't leave them alone in the room and has to be basically tricked into allowing private, honest communication between the pair of them.
So, what's this all about?
Communication, what has happened to it?
Why did society insist upon ambiguity? Why, when we share all our lives so openly on Facebook, are we so incapable of really sharing what we really think? Was "Guy" saying those things because his true thoughts would hurt Rachel? Or was he just floating along without any thought at all? Why don't we all demand clarity? Is it because we're afraid that the truth will hurt us? (Probably, it will). And really, who would even make a quill pen that could write into someone's flesh? What is the point of that?
Other than to remind us not to tell lies?
This is just the lead-in to the fact that I'm about to link to a buzzfeed article that is all about tweets. Maybe you've seen it already: This Guy's Live-Tweets of his Neighbor's Breakup Are Hilarious And Heartbreaking. This is twitter tweeting a narrative, which is interesting to me on two levels. At first, it's a new form of communication and storytelling, this "live tweeting". He assigns roles to each character, decides which sentences and actions to include to tell the story:
Lights another cig. -guy #roofbreakup
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
He even includes himself, the narrator, and his vote for the girl in this situation:
This guy is four cigs deep right now. #roofbreakup #teamrachel
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
So there is that.
The second part that I found interesting was the words that the couple were using, the way that their argument progressed. We just have to trust Ayers as a faithful reporter of what was actually said, but I think, sadly, that at this point in our digital communication we are all guilty of the following garbage:
"Yeah but what is, like, living together? Like what's an apartment mean? You know what I'm saying?" -guy #roofbreakup
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
"Look I'm not a guy who's into labels, Rachel. You knew that getting in." -guy #roofbreakup
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
And the very end of their fight...
"So what does this mean?" -guy #roofbreakup
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
"It means fucking whatever fuck I'm tired." -girl #roofbreakup
— Kyle Ayers (@kyleayers) November 17, 2013
Ambiguity. The crime of ambiguity. We can text "yeah, yeah" and "whatever" until our thumbs bleed, because it makes us seem involved while we're really just too tired or scared or lost to actually commit to something. And I don't mean committing to another person or an apartment (Oh, Guy, seriously, what is your damage?) but committing to an idea, to a belief. Hold yourself to a standard. Stand up and be decisive, even in small things. Have an opinion. Decide what you want and stick to it. The guy refuses to commit to labels and to address Rachel's wants when it's somehow inconvenient for him, and then turns around and demands that she spell out where their relationship is now that he's refused to give her any clarity. She responds with "fucking whatever", which is a huge, lazy, defeated brush-off. Neither one will just say clearly. Do they not know what they want? Do any of us?
We have all these words. Why don't we use them? Why doesn't he say "I don't want to move in with you, I'm sorry." And then, she could say "Well that makes me feel ____". And maybe they would still break up in the end.
This happens a lot when we text. I find myself saying "ha", or "yeah, yeah" which could be a brush off, a tease, a dismissal, or just plain laziness. I used to know someone who said "indeed" on AOL IM back in the day. He said it so often that I started to suspect that he wasn't really paying attention to what I was saying (he wasn't) and worse, "indeed" is so patronizing (and that was sort of true, too).
My thoughts aren't complete on their whole exchange. Maybe it's because I'm a girl that I struggle when I see conversations play out like this. It's part of the vocabulary of growing up, and trying to figure out what people are really saying to you. Remember when we were younger, and we had a crush on someone, and we'd dissect their every word?
"He said "Hey" to you?"
"Oh my god, was it a "Hey", or was it more like "Hey"?"
Or worse, someone would say an actual sentence to us, and we'd have a bunch of grammar to dissect and pick over as well.
What is this? When we're young, we dig for meaning where there isn't any. Then, when we're older, we refuse to make the effort of giving meaning to our words when it's really, really necessary. Did we get lazy? Is it all this texting and tweeting? Or are we just training ourselves to be less precise over time? We don't have to marry in order to secure our fortunes anymore, so we can fall back on any old thing: any new job, any new person, any new life. We don't have to take a stance.
Are we getting pizza? (I'm scared to eat alone or be alone and I am uncomfortable and need to change the topic).
Seriously? (I refuse to admit that you might have a point because it offends me, so I demand that you justify it. Alternatively, you have just made an outrageously offensive and/or broad statement that is overgeneralizing or avoiding the issue at hand. Probably because you're a huge jerk/bitch).
I was reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix today, and there was the point where Harry decides not to tell Ron and Hermione that Umbridge is basically torturing him with the weird pen. Then, about a chapter later, he changes his mind and decides to be open with Ron after Ron is open with him. I thought "Way to go, dude!"
It's a hugely frustrating plot point when people keep things from one another for no reason at all. In The Eye of the World the main character, whatever the hell his name was, decides not to tell his crazy creepy dreams to the one person he knows could help him, all because he has some stubborn prejudice against her. While that keeps with his character, it also makes the reader hate him as a character. I always end up white-knuckling the pages, screaming "Just tell her about the devil trying to kill you, you stupid moron!"
She, meanwhile, fully suspects/knows what's up.
It even frustrates me a bit in Austen, when the whole plot hingers on the fact that people are too delicate to mention something ("Hey, sister, why are you crying to the point that you are probably going to get sick and die? Oh, I can't mention anything. Damn. Welp, what kind of flowers would you like at your funeral?") that would basically resolve the whole thing in 5 minutes. Remember Pride and Prejudice? Everyone is waiting for Bingley to propose to Jane, including Elizabeth, yet Elizabeth won't leave them alone in the room and has to be basically tricked into allowing private, honest communication between the pair of them.
So, what's this all about?
Communication, what has happened to it?
Why did society insist upon ambiguity? Why, when we share all our lives so openly on Facebook, are we so incapable of really sharing what we really think? Was "Guy" saying those things because his true thoughts would hurt Rachel? Or was he just floating along without any thought at all? Why don't we all demand clarity? Is it because we're afraid that the truth will hurt us? (Probably, it will). And really, who would even make a quill pen that could write into someone's flesh? What is the point of that?
Other than to remind us not to tell lies?
Monday, November 18, 2013
John Lennon, you get it
Today while cleaning I found an unsent letter from earlier this year, in which I quoted John Lennon:
Often when I find letters that past-me wrote, I turn them out as one might an embarrassing old journal where one simply talks about boys and how sad one is. (How awkward!) To tell the truth though I keep those things, humiliating as they are, for posterity. Even if it's crap, it's my crap, and the least one can do is grow and learn and never be a sad person again.
This letter I found is a good letter, written by a good person. I like who I was in that moment, and the resolve I possessed and the hope I had for the future. I don't want to disappoint past-me when she was so optimistic, so I keep this letter to remind myself to be better, and to live up to my own expectations.
There are two basic motivating forces: fear and love. When we are afraid, we pull back from life. When we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. we need to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory and our imperfections. If we cannot love ourselves, we cannot fully open to our ability to love others or our potential to create. Evolution and all hope or a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who embrace life.
Often when I find letters that past-me wrote, I turn them out as one might an embarrassing old journal where one simply talks about boys and how sad one is. (How awkward!) To tell the truth though I keep those things, humiliating as they are, for posterity. Even if it's crap, it's my crap, and the least one can do is grow and learn and never be a sad person again.
This letter I found is a good letter, written by a good person. I like who I was in that moment, and the resolve I possessed and the hope I had for the future. I don't want to disappoint past-me when she was so optimistic, so I keep this letter to remind myself to be better, and to live up to my own expectations.
Monday, November 11, 2013
More from Sei Shonagon
I'm sorry. These just make me laugh so much.
I used to date someone who had sliding doors in his apartment, and if I ever had to get up in the night to use the toilet (which of course, I ALWAYS did because it was such a hassle) I had to try to open this stupid sliding door as quietly as possible and it would stick on the wood grooves and end up thumping along. I would be standing there in the pitch black, trying to hoist this stupid door so it wouldn't stick, opening the smallest hole possible so I could squeeze through, then trying to shut it quietly so the light from the bathroom wouldn't come through, then repeat it all over again trying to get back into the room.
Why didn't I just sleep on the couch, I will never know.
Meanwhile, all the doors in everyone else's apartments would glide open and close like it was no big deal.
I'm not kidding - empress teishi can be a real slave driver. Busting my onigiri if you know what I mean
— Sei Shonagon (@shonagon_sei) October 16, 2013
Silk kimonos, yamato-e paintings, waka poetry... retweet if ur a real #90skid and by that I mean 990s
— Sei Shonagon (@shonagon_sei) October 21, 2013
@yokoono The other ladies in waiting get really annoyed when I do this, so thank you for the suggestion! :D
— Sei Shonagon (@shonagon_sei) November 3, 2013
I used to date someone who had sliding doors in his apartment, and if I ever had to get up in the night to use the toilet (which of course, I ALWAYS did because it was such a hassle) I had to try to open this stupid sliding door as quietly as possible and it would stick on the wood grooves and end up thumping along. I would be standing there in the pitch black, trying to hoist this stupid door so it wouldn't stick, opening the smallest hole possible so I could squeeze through, then trying to shut it quietly so the light from the bathroom wouldn't come through, then repeat it all over again trying to get back into the room.
Why didn't I just sleep on the couch, I will never know.
Meanwhile, all the doors in everyone else's apartments would glide open and close like it was no big deal.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Lies of Locke Lamora
The Lies of Locke Lamora, by Scott Lynch
I mentioned this in my last post. It took me one week to read the first book, largely because I had school and work and some personal life stuff taking up a great deal of my time.
I finished on Tuesday, and it is now Thursday. I am over halfway through the second book (Red Seas Under Red Skies).
The Lies of Locke Lamora made me laugh. I really really laughed. Lynch's comedic timing is perfect. He could deliver a line that, without the previous paragraph, without the build of the character delivering that line, wouldn't be funny. The line, by itself, could be bitter or desperate (I have one in mind in particular, spoken by someone facing very probable death, or at least a whole pile of serious trouble) but in the context and where it landed on the page, was incredibly funny.
Funny, without losing any of that bitterness or desperation.
The characters are cavalier without being flippant or irresponsible. It's a trope that swashbuckling lower-class heroes have some sort of genius capability, that they are omni-competent or that their stoic bravado must be broken down over the course of the novel. Usually by a caring woman.
Lynch's characters are human, so very human. Of course they have strengths. Of course they are swaggering and capable and talented. But I started losing count how many times the main character cries, or vomits, or succumbs to physical weakness, or in some way exhibits a real human reaction to the violence around him. You love him for it. And the moments where he does hang on, and does exert himself beyond his character mean all the more for it.
Cheers, I've got 20 minutes to make a sandwich and read what I can before work.
I mentioned this in my last post. It took me one week to read the first book, largely because I had school and work and some personal life stuff taking up a great deal of my time.
I finished on Tuesday, and it is now Thursday. I am over halfway through the second book (Red Seas Under Red Skies).
The Lies of Locke Lamora made me laugh. I really really laughed. Lynch's comedic timing is perfect. He could deliver a line that, without the previous paragraph, without the build of the character delivering that line, wouldn't be funny. The line, by itself, could be bitter or desperate (I have one in mind in particular, spoken by someone facing very probable death, or at least a whole pile of serious trouble) but in the context and where it landed on the page, was incredibly funny.
Funny, without losing any of that bitterness or desperation.
The characters are cavalier without being flippant or irresponsible. It's a trope that swashbuckling lower-class heroes have some sort of genius capability, that they are omni-competent or that their stoic bravado must be broken down over the course of the novel. Usually by a caring woman.
Lynch's characters are human, so very human. Of course they have strengths. Of course they are swaggering and capable and talented. But I started losing count how many times the main character cries, or vomits, or succumbs to physical weakness, or in some way exhibits a real human reaction to the violence around him. You love him for it. And the moments where he does hang on, and does exert himself beyond his character mean all the more for it.
Cheers, I've got 20 minutes to make a sandwich and read what I can before work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)