There has to be a flip side, right?
Books I abandoned without finishing not included. These things I actually polluted my brain with in their entirety. An author gets at least one star for my making it through their crap.
Naked in Death (J.D. Robb) - the first in an apparently wildly successful series that is part cop thriller, part romance, part sci-fi and all suck. Overwrought. Needlessly hysterical. Preposterous. Nonsensical. Unoriginal. Bad sex scenes that just went on and on and on and on. Eve is a joke, right? The "leading man" is a controlling asshole who needs to be on a leash. Stereotypes and caricatures abound. Everything is black and white; gray does not exist. Vomit-inducing, eye-rolling stupidity. (1-star)
Mrs. Dalloway (Virginia Woolf) - I decided to read one of her books because she’s an important author (authoress?) I’d never read before. Unfortunately I’ll never read her again. The most boring book I've ever read. I know it's supposed to be beautiful and like a novelized impressionist painting, but it was dull, dull...god it was dull. I'd glaze over for minutes at a time, hearing the narrator in my ears, but not really listening. It didn't matter. The same old trivialities were brought up, discussed, picked over and studied. To what avail, I don't know. The madman had some potential, but he was made boring as well. No wonder Woolf did herself in if this was her life and how she viewed it. (1 1/2 stars)
Lost Boys (Orson Scott Card) - another author much lauded and unread by me. Never again. Good premise, but it should have stayed a short story. And, hello! Haven't we all seen The Sixth Sense by now? Tedious, slow-moving and dull. Also unfortunately, I now know WAY more about Mormons than I ever wanted to, right down to their magic underwear. (2 stars)
Medium Raw - reading this right after Kitchen Confidential was a mistake. Anthony Bourdain loves being Anthony Bourdain and he really, really wants you to know it. Yawn. Remember when Metallica wrote really great songs, played hard and kicked a lot of ass? They were young, lean, hungry and desperate and it resulted in great work. Now they are fat, happy, art-collecting yuppies and it results in flabby crap (and Bob Seger covers?!). Well guess what, it's not just for metal bands anymore. (2 stars)
The Strange Case of the Composer and his Judge (Patricia Duncker) - I should have known by the title alone that this woman liked to use a lot of words to convey even the tiniest morsel of information. Problem is that many times she used the wrong ones. This author needs a copy of Lynn Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves and the OED, stat! And then there was the stilted dialog, uneven prose, constant harping on the apparent midget stature of the heroine and the go nowhere, do nothing ending. Oh man.
A Dishonorable Mention goes to Legacy (Andrew McGinn) - a comic book (oh, excuse me, a graphic novel) screed about a boy who can't grow up and leave his teen-aged angst behind. Determined at twenty-something to out-cool his parents at any cost he sabotages his father's life's work in search of his own identity only to realize money is really the most important thing in life and decides not to slaughter the cash cow after all. (2 stars)
Well there you go. Don't say you weren't warned.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Best first reads of 2010
Ah, choosing the best and the worst of the year is upon me. This year wasn’t too tough and these are the ones that stuck with me -
The Human Stain - my Philip Roth epiphany. Seriously. I couldn’t believe this was the same guy who wrote Sabbath’s Theater which I tried 3 times to read and couldn’t get past the first chapter or two. Perfectly woven, it is a tale of tangents told with such deliberation and thought that I was in awe of how it came together. Human insights abound in this story, but is devoid of that judgmental tone authors can get. Neither did he overly flatter his subject, but presented him as a human worthy of both scorn and compassion. Roth is a master for all the right reasons. (5 stars)
The Earth Abides - post-apocalyptic literature these days tends to be shrill, overly dramatic and devoid of thought (and largely originality) and makes this book all the more valuable. Told with introspection, it does not go out of its way to shock and awe the reader, but to make her think about the true nature of humanity and what is really important. (4 1/2 stars)
The Angle of Repose - another quiet novel of decades past, this one tells of a man in search of his roots; specifically his grandmother. During her lifetime she was an illustrator of some note as well as a woman of nearly-infinite sense, backbone and loyalty. She and her husband were what we now think of as western pioneers and because of her isolation in various mining camps over the years, the letters she sends and receives are her lifeline. Much is revealed and much is hidden, but in the end the portrait of western life and a proud woman’s individual contribution is uplifting despite not always being especially happy. No wonder it won the Pulitzer. (4 1/2 stars)
The Greatest Show on Earth - I didn’t read this to be convinced that evolution is a fact and I’m not sure how many “history deniers” will be converted by reading it either, but it is a well-presented book. Despite his tendency to be smug and superior, Dawkins knows how to get stay on target and stick to his points. Many examples of why natural selection works and governs all life are given, from the microscopic to entire ecosystems and one would really have to be dense to continue disbelief. Yeah, maybe it is preaching to the converted, but I liked it enough to maybe even read another one. (4 stars)
Dark Star - while this book was just about perfect in its execution, I don’t know if I’ll read another. Mainly it’s because I know how things end. WWII isn’t exactly mysterious and so it makes reading about the private anguish and actions of a single spy agonizingly futile. I mean, it wasn’t as if the plot would set the course of the war onto a different path; nothing this man could do would change a single thing. His initial involvement with the government that controlled him was reasonably benign, but then he was put in impossible situations and left out in the cold. The portrayals were terrific though, understated, but intense just the same. If you like espionage you can’t do much better. (4 1/2 stars)
Runners Up -
Augustus - an excellent portrait of Augustus (nee Octavian) that only occasionally slips into hero worship mode. Reading this changed my overall impression of the man from one of action to one of resignation. Not the best introduction to Imperial Rome since many of the supporting cast members go without much explanation of who and what they are in the grand scheme of things, but there is enough to make the situation understandable. Of course most of the book is devoted to his early life and rise to power, while regrettably his 50 year reign is given much less space. I’d like to have had more context regarding his policies and laws; how they persisted into the future far beyond his lifetime. (4 stars)
Sea of Poppies - a multi-perspective novel of the early Indian trade in opium. Lots of characters and unusual situations made even the quotidian interesting. Unlike many other authors who do multi-perspective stories, Ghosh gave remarkable detail into the person’s background and current situation. This served to really make the reader care about each segment of the story. Also the way each person’s situation came together with the others in the end was very well done and I’m looking forward to the next installment. (4 stars)
Well that’s it for this part. Next will be the best re-reads and the worst of 2010. I don’t think there as many turkeys as last year, but there’s definitely some dreck in there.
The Human Stain - my Philip Roth epiphany. Seriously. I couldn’t believe this was the same guy who wrote Sabbath’s Theater which I tried 3 times to read and couldn’t get past the first chapter or two. Perfectly woven, it is a tale of tangents told with such deliberation and thought that I was in awe of how it came together. Human insights abound in this story, but is devoid of that judgmental tone authors can get. Neither did he overly flatter his subject, but presented him as a human worthy of both scorn and compassion. Roth is a master for all the right reasons. (5 stars)
The Earth Abides - post-apocalyptic literature these days tends to be shrill, overly dramatic and devoid of thought (and largely originality) and makes this book all the more valuable. Told with introspection, it does not go out of its way to shock and awe the reader, but to make her think about the true nature of humanity and what is really important. (4 1/2 stars)
The Angle of Repose - another quiet novel of decades past, this one tells of a man in search of his roots; specifically his grandmother. During her lifetime she was an illustrator of some note as well as a woman of nearly-infinite sense, backbone and loyalty. She and her husband were what we now think of as western pioneers and because of her isolation in various mining camps over the years, the letters she sends and receives are her lifeline. Much is revealed and much is hidden, but in the end the portrait of western life and a proud woman’s individual contribution is uplifting despite not always being especially happy. No wonder it won the Pulitzer. (4 1/2 stars)
The Greatest Show on Earth - I didn’t read this to be convinced that evolution is a fact and I’m not sure how many “history deniers” will be converted by reading it either, but it is a well-presented book. Despite his tendency to be smug and superior, Dawkins knows how to get stay on target and stick to his points. Many examples of why natural selection works and governs all life are given, from the microscopic to entire ecosystems and one would really have to be dense to continue disbelief. Yeah, maybe it is preaching to the converted, but I liked it enough to maybe even read another one. (4 stars)
Dark Star - while this book was just about perfect in its execution, I don’t know if I’ll read another. Mainly it’s because I know how things end. WWII isn’t exactly mysterious and so it makes reading about the private anguish and actions of a single spy agonizingly futile. I mean, it wasn’t as if the plot would set the course of the war onto a different path; nothing this man could do would change a single thing. His initial involvement with the government that controlled him was reasonably benign, but then he was put in impossible situations and left out in the cold. The portrayals were terrific though, understated, but intense just the same. If you like espionage you can’t do much better. (4 1/2 stars)
Runners Up -
Augustus - an excellent portrait of Augustus (nee Octavian) that only occasionally slips into hero worship mode. Reading this changed my overall impression of the man from one of action to one of resignation. Not the best introduction to Imperial Rome since many of the supporting cast members go without much explanation of who and what they are in the grand scheme of things, but there is enough to make the situation understandable. Of course most of the book is devoted to his early life and rise to power, while regrettably his 50 year reign is given much less space. I’d like to have had more context regarding his policies and laws; how they persisted into the future far beyond his lifetime. (4 stars)
Sea of Poppies - a multi-perspective novel of the early Indian trade in opium. Lots of characters and unusual situations made even the quotidian interesting. Unlike many other authors who do multi-perspective stories, Ghosh gave remarkable detail into the person’s background and current situation. This served to really make the reader care about each segment of the story. Also the way each person’s situation came together with the others in the end was very well done and I’m looking forward to the next installment. (4 stars)
Well that’s it for this part. Next will be the best re-reads and the worst of 2010. I don’t think there as many turkeys as last year, but there’s definitely some dreck in there.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Past Caring by Robert Goddard, 1986
Read in 2010
Synopsis: At a lush villa on the sun-soaked island of Madeira, Martin Radford is given a second chance. His life ruined by scandal, Martin holds in his hands the leather-bound journal of another ruined man, former British cabinet minister Edwin Strafford. What’s more, Martin is being offered a job—to return to England and investigate the rise and fall of Strafford, an ambitious young politician whose downfall, in 1910, is as mysterious as the strange deaths that still haunt his family. Martin is intrigued by Strafford’ s story, by the man’s overwhelming love for a beautiful suffragette, by her inexplicable rejection of him and their love affair’s political repercussions. But as he retraces Strafford’s ruination, Martin realizes that Strafford did not fall by chance; he was pushed. Suddenly Martin, who has not cared for many people in his life, cares desperately—about a man’s mysterious death and a family’s terrible secret, about a love beyond reckoning and betrayal beyond imagining. Most of all Martin cares because the story he is uncovering is not yet over—and among the men and women still caught in its web, Martin himself may be the most vulnerable of all.
After this paragraph, spoilers abound, but right now you’re safe. If you’ve never read a Goddard novel, do it. His stories are long, complex and wholly satisfying if not entirely original. I read a lot of thrillers and mysteries, so quite often I can predict how a plot point is going to turn. The thing of it is, Goddard binds his readers to the story with this knowledge not by astounding you every five minutes with some fantastical twist. He doesn’t need smoke and mirrors to keep a reader going. He does it by knowing how to set tension, creating interesting characters that still have surprises up their sleeves and by helping you get ahead of the story and urging the protagonist to catch up. I’ve read his first novel (this one) and his latest (Long Time Coming) and both are equally good; quality, long-arc thrillers spiced with historical detail and real-life characters. I will definitely read more.
Spoilers set to kill.
While only my second Goddard novel, I’m not surprised at how he weaves his tales. This one is long and complex with lots of players, but I loved every minute of it. Edwin’s memoir is so tantalizing as a device and for itself and so was the search for the post-script. As soon as its existence was revealed I knew where it had to be hidden and silently urged Martin to think and could hardly bear his fumbling when I knew where it was all along! It takes a deft hand to tie a reader to the story so completely. The current trend seems to want to only do this with unknowable and unforeseeable twists in the story, but Goddard does it with knowledge, binding you to his protagonists through mutual desire for success.
From Martin’s dissipated self-interest to Eve’s two-faced game playing and Edwin’s ineffectual victimhood the story never felt slack or stale even though I could guess a lot of it. What else but a secret marriage would be Edwin’s undoing? What else could have been Martin’s undoing? Of course Eve was not as she seemed. Alex was on shaky ground to begin with. And of course Elizabeth would always be the long-suffering innocent. The only thing that threw me was Leo’s ultimate purpose. It seemed really strange to me that he’d take out his vitriol and long-distilled hatred on an innocent old woman who had nothing to do with his circumstances. Strange, but the way he morphed from kindly patron to vicious criminal mastermind was very well done. Sure he was a bit of a cliché and the whole gun incident set up the penultimate ending, with Martin’s reward at the end being the capper. Satisfying if not wholly original. I’ll definitely read more of Goddard in future.
Synopsis: At a lush villa on the sun-soaked island of Madeira, Martin Radford is given a second chance. His life ruined by scandal, Martin holds in his hands the leather-bound journal of another ruined man, former British cabinet minister Edwin Strafford. What’s more, Martin is being offered a job—to return to England and investigate the rise and fall of Strafford, an ambitious young politician whose downfall, in 1910, is as mysterious as the strange deaths that still haunt his family. Martin is intrigued by Strafford’ s story, by the man’s overwhelming love for a beautiful suffragette, by her inexplicable rejection of him and their love affair’s political repercussions. But as he retraces Strafford’s ruination, Martin realizes that Strafford did not fall by chance; he was pushed. Suddenly Martin, who has not cared for many people in his life, cares desperately—about a man’s mysterious death and a family’s terrible secret, about a love beyond reckoning and betrayal beyond imagining. Most of all Martin cares because the story he is uncovering is not yet over—and among the men and women still caught in its web, Martin himself may be the most vulnerable of all.
After this paragraph, spoilers abound, but right now you’re safe. If you’ve never read a Goddard novel, do it. His stories are long, complex and wholly satisfying if not entirely original. I read a lot of thrillers and mysteries, so quite often I can predict how a plot point is going to turn. The thing of it is, Goddard binds his readers to the story with this knowledge not by astounding you every five minutes with some fantastical twist. He doesn’t need smoke and mirrors to keep a reader going. He does it by knowing how to set tension, creating interesting characters that still have surprises up their sleeves and by helping you get ahead of the story and urging the protagonist to catch up. I’ve read his first novel (this one) and his latest (Long Time Coming) and both are equally good; quality, long-arc thrillers spiced with historical detail and real-life characters. I will definitely read more.
Spoilers set to kill.
While only my second Goddard novel, I’m not surprised at how he weaves his tales. This one is long and complex with lots of players, but I loved every minute of it. Edwin’s memoir is so tantalizing as a device and for itself and so was the search for the post-script. As soon as its existence was revealed I knew where it had to be hidden and silently urged Martin to think and could hardly bear his fumbling when I knew where it was all along! It takes a deft hand to tie a reader to the story so completely. The current trend seems to want to only do this with unknowable and unforeseeable twists in the story, but Goddard does it with knowledge, binding you to his protagonists through mutual desire for success.
From Martin’s dissipated self-interest to Eve’s two-faced game playing and Edwin’s ineffectual victimhood the story never felt slack or stale even though I could guess a lot of it. What else but a secret marriage would be Edwin’s undoing? What else could have been Martin’s undoing? Of course Eve was not as she seemed. Alex was on shaky ground to begin with. And of course Elizabeth would always be the long-suffering innocent. The only thing that threw me was Leo’s ultimate purpose. It seemed really strange to me that he’d take out his vitriol and long-distilled hatred on an innocent old woman who had nothing to do with his circumstances. Strange, but the way he morphed from kindly patron to vicious criminal mastermind was very well done. Sure he was a bit of a cliché and the whole gun incident set up the penultimate ending, with Martin’s reward at the end being the capper. Satisfying if not wholly original. I’ll definitely read more of Goddard in future.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Sentry by Robert Crais, 2011
read in 2010 as an ARC
Synopsis: Dru Rayne and her uncle fled to L.A. after Hurricane Katrina; but now, five years later, they face a different danger. When Joe Pike witnesses Dru's uncle beaten by a protection gang, he offers his help, but neither of them want it - and neither do the federal agents mysteriously watching them.
As the level of violence escalates, and Pike himself becomes a target, he and Elvis Cole learn that Dru and her uncle are not who they seem - and that everything he thought he knew about them has been a lie. A vengeful and murderous force from their past is now catching up to them ... and only Pike and Cole stand in the way.
After reading this I can’t help but conclude that Crais’s management suggested he shift the focus of his series from Cole to Pike so that it would compete better with the Jack Reacher phenomenon. In some ways it does, but it veers sharply off Crais’s normal story-telling path and he covers some new ground. In this 3rd Pike novel his character is largely left unexplored which is good. Unlike Reacher, I don’t want insight into what makes Pike tick. He’s better left mysterious and unknowable.
The action comes at a break-neck pace in the Pike books. There is little room for thought, planning, reflecting or decision making; it’s all go-go-go. Because Pike doesn’t really seem to have a life, he can devote himself to this Dru character and her weird situation no matter how complex or dangerous it becomes. Funny thing that he recognizes that Cole is the idea man and that’s really the big difference between the two series; Cole is thoughtful where Pike is impulsive. That’s not to say he comes off as dumb, he doesn’t, he just makes a decision so fast that it seems he doesn’t give it much thought. The Elvis Cole chapters show up this difference well.
The plot was convoluted and had a lot of players most of which die. I thought the ending while it did tie everything up, was a bit rushed. I kept looking at the number of pages I had left and wondering how in hell he would get it all done in such a short time. The bit about the bags and how many were delivered was a little tease toward the future, I suspect. Also I thought it was funny that the cat is 23 years old now and still as active and ornery as ever.
If you’re new to Crais’s work, start with the first Joe Pike book, The Watchman, instead of this one, although it’s really not that necessary – Crais does a good job of making the newcomer feel oriented. If you like the Cole character start with The Monkey’s Raincoat and work your way through. They are very different, and somewhat dated now, but a lot of fun.
Synopsis: Dru Rayne and her uncle fled to L.A. after Hurricane Katrina; but now, five years later, they face a different danger. When Joe Pike witnesses Dru's uncle beaten by a protection gang, he offers his help, but neither of them want it - and neither do the federal agents mysteriously watching them.
As the level of violence escalates, and Pike himself becomes a target, he and Elvis Cole learn that Dru and her uncle are not who they seem - and that everything he thought he knew about them has been a lie. A vengeful and murderous force from their past is now catching up to them ... and only Pike and Cole stand in the way.
After reading this I can’t help but conclude that Crais’s management suggested he shift the focus of his series from Cole to Pike so that it would compete better with the Jack Reacher phenomenon. In some ways it does, but it veers sharply off Crais’s normal story-telling path and he covers some new ground. In this 3rd Pike novel his character is largely left unexplored which is good. Unlike Reacher, I don’t want insight into what makes Pike tick. He’s better left mysterious and unknowable.
The action comes at a break-neck pace in the Pike books. There is little room for thought, planning, reflecting or decision making; it’s all go-go-go. Because Pike doesn’t really seem to have a life, he can devote himself to this Dru character and her weird situation no matter how complex or dangerous it becomes. Funny thing that he recognizes that Cole is the idea man and that’s really the big difference between the two series; Cole is thoughtful where Pike is impulsive. That’s not to say he comes off as dumb, he doesn’t, he just makes a decision so fast that it seems he doesn’t give it much thought. The Elvis Cole chapters show up this difference well.
The plot was convoluted and had a lot of players most of which die. I thought the ending while it did tie everything up, was a bit rushed. I kept looking at the number of pages I had left and wondering how in hell he would get it all done in such a short time. The bit about the bags and how many were delivered was a little tease toward the future, I suspect. Also I thought it was funny that the cat is 23 years old now and still as active and ornery as ever.
If you’re new to Crais’s work, start with the first Joe Pike book, The Watchman, instead of this one, although it’s really not that necessary – Crais does a good job of making the newcomer feel oriented. If you like the Cole character start with The Monkey’s Raincoat and work your way through. They are very different, and somewhat dated now, but a lot of fun.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson, 2004
Read in 2010
Synopsis: Benjamin Franklin, writes journalist and biographer Walter Isaacson, was that rare Founding Father who would sooner wink at a passer-by than sit still for a formal portrait. What's more, Isaacson relates in this fluent and entertaining biography, the revolutionary leader represents a political tradition that has been all but forgotten today, one that prizes pragmatism over moralism, religious tolerance over fundamentalist rigidity, and social mobility over class privilege. That broadly democratic sensibility allowed Franklin his contradictions, as Isaacson shows. Though a man of lofty principles, Franklin wasn't shy of using sex to sell the newspapers he edited and published; though far from frivolous, he liked his toys and his mortal pleasures; and though he sometimes gave off a simpleton image, he was a shrewd and even crafty politician. Isaacson doesn't shy from enumerating Franklin’s occasional peccadilloes and shortcomings, in keeping with the iconoclastic nature of our time--none of which, however, stops him from considering Benjamin Franklin "the most accomplished American of his age," and one of the most admirable of any era. And here’s one bit of proof: as a young man, Ben Franklin regularly went without food in order to buy books. His example, as always, is a good one--and this is just the book to buy with the proceeds from the grocery budget.
I can't really tell you why this biography took me a year to finish. Laziness on my part most likely rather than any fault of the author or his subject. After reading the exhaustive work on John Adams by David McCullough, I felt like I should read about Adams's contemporaries and when I noticed this book collecting dust at my mom's house, I took it home. I guess it was the known quantity aspect of the biography that made it slow going for me. In broad strokes I knew how things would turn out; that eventually we'd get France's reluctant backing in the separation from Britain, that we'd win the war and that Franklin's behind-the-scenes efforts to effect both outcomes were constant and often the only efforts.
Franklin the man was a sketch for me though, even if I did somewhat know him through the long tunnel of history. I knew of his scientific and inventing contributions, but didn't know how early on he made some of his discoveries - the popular motif of Franklin as an old man with a kite is way off base. I also had no idea of his origins, how he came to the Colonies or early civic activities and now I feel on better ground. Everything he did was motivated out of a desire for a practical benefit. This might not put him in the same league as theoretical or "pure" scientists, but it does make his contributions feel more lasting.
I also have a better understanding of his attitude toward setting up an independent state and his role in doing so. He was a master of diplomacy and compromise in the face of strong personalities with little patience for the process. His ability to work with others and get the best out of them proved invaluable to not only the Declaration of Independence and the diplomatic missions it spawned, but the Constitution itself - calling it as near perfect as it could be.
Isaacson presents his information in an ostensible chronological format, but often the facts he presents seem to be competing for attention. They come thick and fast and are sometimes difficult to digest before another one comes along. He does, however, try to present all sides of his subject, not just dwelling on the inventor or diplomat. I don't have enough experience with biographies or enough expertise on the academics that are thought of as proper, or research techniques thought of as rigorous, but I did not doubt that Isaacson gave us the facts as he saw them. I was glad for the information at the back about characters and sources.
Synopsis: Benjamin Franklin, writes journalist and biographer Walter Isaacson, was that rare Founding Father who would sooner wink at a passer-by than sit still for a formal portrait. What's more, Isaacson relates in this fluent and entertaining biography, the revolutionary leader represents a political tradition that has been all but forgotten today, one that prizes pragmatism over moralism, religious tolerance over fundamentalist rigidity, and social mobility over class privilege. That broadly democratic sensibility allowed Franklin his contradictions, as Isaacson shows. Though a man of lofty principles, Franklin wasn't shy of using sex to sell the newspapers he edited and published; though far from frivolous, he liked his toys and his mortal pleasures; and though he sometimes gave off a simpleton image, he was a shrewd and even crafty politician. Isaacson doesn't shy from enumerating Franklin’s occasional peccadilloes and shortcomings, in keeping with the iconoclastic nature of our time--none of which, however, stops him from considering Benjamin Franklin "the most accomplished American of his age," and one of the most admirable of any era. And here’s one bit of proof: as a young man, Ben Franklin regularly went without food in order to buy books. His example, as always, is a good one--and this is just the book to buy with the proceeds from the grocery budget.
I can't really tell you why this biography took me a year to finish. Laziness on my part most likely rather than any fault of the author or his subject. After reading the exhaustive work on John Adams by David McCullough, I felt like I should read about Adams's contemporaries and when I noticed this book collecting dust at my mom's house, I took it home. I guess it was the known quantity aspect of the biography that made it slow going for me. In broad strokes I knew how things would turn out; that eventually we'd get France's reluctant backing in the separation from Britain, that we'd win the war and that Franklin's behind-the-scenes efforts to effect both outcomes were constant and often the only efforts.
Franklin the man was a sketch for me though, even if I did somewhat know him through the long tunnel of history. I knew of his scientific and inventing contributions, but didn't know how early on he made some of his discoveries - the popular motif of Franklin as an old man with a kite is way off base. I also had no idea of his origins, how he came to the Colonies or early civic activities and now I feel on better ground. Everything he did was motivated out of a desire for a practical benefit. This might not put him in the same league as theoretical or "pure" scientists, but it does make his contributions feel more lasting.
I also have a better understanding of his attitude toward setting up an independent state and his role in doing so. He was a master of diplomacy and compromise in the face of strong personalities with little patience for the process. His ability to work with others and get the best out of them proved invaluable to not only the Declaration of Independence and the diplomatic missions it spawned, but the Constitution itself - calling it as near perfect as it could be.
Isaacson presents his information in an ostensible chronological format, but often the facts he presents seem to be competing for attention. They come thick and fast and are sometimes difficult to digest before another one comes along. He does, however, try to present all sides of his subject, not just dwelling on the inventor or diplomat. I don't have enough experience with biographies or enough expertise on the academics that are thought of as proper, or research techniques thought of as rigorous, but I did not doubt that Isaacson gave us the facts as he saw them. I was glad for the information at the back about characters and sources.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Kicked to the Curb
So recently I've run out of room on my bookshelves. Even with my reduced book-buying, space is at a premium. So another purge is in the works. I'm revisiting books I haven't read in over a decade and of which I have vague or no memories at all.
First to go was Imperfect Strangers by Stuart Woods. Brings back all the memories I have of why I stopped reading him. Imperfect Strangers is a silly pastiche of Strangers on a Train, but without the psychological insight. Just a book to showcase how much Woods thinks he knows about the upper class, American lifestyle. Lots of references to snooty wines, hotels, restaurants and private planes. The protagonist buys houses on the Vineyard, a winery and lots of other toys. Yawn. And lets not get started on the dialog - who talks like this? One minute he's trying to roughen up a mechanic/pilot's speech by peppering in swears, 'pal' and 'fella' and the next the guy's using the word phraseology. Talk about a tin ear for dialog. And then there's the sappy romance and cut out bad guy. Ugh. Also added another Stuart Woods that hadn't made past purgings.
Next in the Kicked to the Curb Collection are my Phillip Margolins. All legal thrillers of the lowest order. Transparent plots. Thin characters. Repetitive situations (from book to book not just within one). Uninspired prose. Moronic situations and people. I read about 3 chapters of The Burning Man and gave up. All five are on the pile.
A few ARCs I gave bad or mediocre reviews to are in there along with some chick lit that I have no idea what possessed me to buy. A lot of bad novels and genre fiction that didn't stand up to a first reading, never mind re-reading so they go, too.
Now it's just a question of what to do with the books that have been Kicked to the Curb. I know of a used bookstore/book-swap type place that I may visit. The problem is going there won't help with my reclaiming shelf space. I still have tons of books on my want list and my vague interest list (yeah, I have both). It's crazy and so MORE purging will have to be done. Hey...is that a Howard Stern book I see over there?
First to go was Imperfect Strangers by Stuart Woods. Brings back all the memories I have of why I stopped reading him. Imperfect Strangers is a silly pastiche of Strangers on a Train, but without the psychological insight. Just a book to showcase how much Woods thinks he knows about the upper class, American lifestyle. Lots of references to snooty wines, hotels, restaurants and private planes. The protagonist buys houses on the Vineyard, a winery and lots of other toys. Yawn. And lets not get started on the dialog - who talks like this? One minute he's trying to roughen up a mechanic/pilot's speech by peppering in swears, 'pal' and 'fella' and the next the guy's using the word phraseology. Talk about a tin ear for dialog. And then there's the sappy romance and cut out bad guy. Ugh. Also added another Stuart Woods that hadn't made past purgings.
Next in the Kicked to the Curb Collection are my Phillip Margolins. All legal thrillers of the lowest order. Transparent plots. Thin characters. Repetitive situations (from book to book not just within one). Uninspired prose. Moronic situations and people. I read about 3 chapters of The Burning Man and gave up. All five are on the pile.
A few ARCs I gave bad or mediocre reviews to are in there along with some chick lit that I have no idea what possessed me to buy. A lot of bad novels and genre fiction that didn't stand up to a first reading, never mind re-reading so they go, too.
Now it's just a question of what to do with the books that have been Kicked to the Curb. I know of a used bookstore/book-swap type place that I may visit. The problem is going there won't help with my reclaiming shelf space. I still have tons of books on my want list and my vague interest list (yeah, I have both). It's crazy and so MORE purging will have to be done. Hey...is that a Howard Stern book I see over there?
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
American Pastoral by Philip Roth, 1997
Read in 2010
Synopsis: Philip Roth's 22nd book takes a life-long view of the American experience in this thoughtful investigation of the century's most divisive and explosive of decades, the '60s. Returning again to the voice of his literary alter ego Nathan Zuckerman, Roth is at the top of his form. His prose is carefully controlled yet always fresh and intellectually subtle as he reconstructs the halcyon days, circa World War II, of Seymour "the Swede" Levov, a high school sports hero and all-around Great Guy who wants nothing more than to live in tranquillity. But as the Swede grows older and America crazier, history sweeps his family inexorably into its grip: His own daughter, Merry, commits an unpardonable act of "protest" against the Vietnam war that ultimately severs the Swede from any hope of happiness, family, or spiritual coherence.
I'm so glad this wasn't my 2nd attempt at Philip Roth's work, it would have put me off him forever. It must be a generational thing because I didn't get it in the way I'm sure someone my parent's age or my grandparent's age would have. This is not to say I didn't understand it; I did, but the way it was presented was comical and trying in the extreme. It made me feel pity for that generation in their locked in state; unable to flow or to grow with change, wanting everything the same for ever and ever.
Waaahh, my daughter didn't turn out exactly like me. Waaahh, the American Dream is dead. Waaah, politicians are unscrupulous. Waaahhh, war isn't fun. Waaahh, why can't everyone just love and respect 'the greatest generation' and not make us responsible for anything? Waaahh, why can't I be a Jewish WASP? Waaahhh. Ugh. What a horrible follow up read for me on the heels of The Human Stain. I won't give up on Mr. Roth, but this novel was so long, drawn out and simultaneously self-pitying and self-congratulatory that I had to force myself to finish it.
I also found the use of Zuckerman as narrator kind of sloppy. Unless I missed something, Nathan didn't know any of what was told to us until AFTER the Swede's death. How could he have gotten such intimate, firsthand detail from a corpse? Is he a medium? Did he channel the Swede? It's as if Roth forgot the circumstances and just wrote it regardless of continuity problems. Strange.
Synopsis: Philip Roth's 22nd book takes a life-long view of the American experience in this thoughtful investigation of the century's most divisive and explosive of decades, the '60s. Returning again to the voice of his literary alter ego Nathan Zuckerman, Roth is at the top of his form. His prose is carefully controlled yet always fresh and intellectually subtle as he reconstructs the halcyon days, circa World War II, of Seymour "the Swede" Levov, a high school sports hero and all-around Great Guy who wants nothing more than to live in tranquillity. But as the Swede grows older and America crazier, history sweeps his family inexorably into its grip: His own daughter, Merry, commits an unpardonable act of "protest" against the Vietnam war that ultimately severs the Swede from any hope of happiness, family, or spiritual coherence.
I'm so glad this wasn't my 2nd attempt at Philip Roth's work, it would have put me off him forever. It must be a generational thing because I didn't get it in the way I'm sure someone my parent's age or my grandparent's age would have. This is not to say I didn't understand it; I did, but the way it was presented was comical and trying in the extreme. It made me feel pity for that generation in their locked in state; unable to flow or to grow with change, wanting everything the same for ever and ever.
Waaahh, my daughter didn't turn out exactly like me. Waaahh, the American Dream is dead. Waaah, politicians are unscrupulous. Waaahhh, war isn't fun. Waaahh, why can't everyone just love and respect 'the greatest generation' and not make us responsible for anything? Waaahh, why can't I be a Jewish WASP? Waaahhh. Ugh. What a horrible follow up read for me on the heels of The Human Stain. I won't give up on Mr. Roth, but this novel was so long, drawn out and simultaneously self-pitying and self-congratulatory that I had to force myself to finish it.
I also found the use of Zuckerman as narrator kind of sloppy. Unless I missed something, Nathan didn't know any of what was told to us until AFTER the Swede's death. How could he have gotten such intimate, firsthand detail from a corpse? Is he a medium? Did he channel the Swede? It's as if Roth forgot the circumstances and just wrote it regardless of continuity problems. Strange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)