Folks, I am going to apologize before I get started here. I packed my copy of My Antonia in a box . . . somewhere . . . because I am moving in 23 days.
Therefore, I am going to have to start this discussion simply off the top of my head. Matty, when you read this, please feel free to add on or completely erase and start over after you have finished yelling at your screen and slamming your head into your desk.
So. My Antonia. I have read this book a sum total of three times in my life, and this time I loved it. I think I'm more informed because I have now lived in the Midwest*, and I understand the imagery and the language, and the lonely-feel so much more.
Let's talk about the tone and feel of this book. How do you feel coming away from it? I feel lonely and alienated and a little sad, because of Cather's gift with language, yes; but also because of the descriptions of those relationships which just slip away.
Let's also discuss vision. How does the way in which characters see each other change? How does awareness of differences suddenly inform their thoughts about each other?
And let's also talk about the biblical imagery. What does Cather mean by it?
Sorry again, guys -- this is all I got, until I unpack that particular book in January.
Write on!
Melly
*But not for much longer, because I am moving!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Drawing a book out of a hat
Matt and I were discussing the possibilities of this month's book, due to new blog by-laws and the time constraints of getting it read by Dec. 1.
We came up with a list. I wrote the names of the individual books on little slips of paper and drew one out of my husband's hat.
The list was pretty impressive. Twelve in total. Some on Matt's side I haven't read, and I daresay some on mine he hasn't read -- but that's the point here, isn't it? To relax, read a book you might not otherwise have picked up (or conversely revisit with an old book-friend) and discuss it, even if it's just to say what you liked and what you didn't. Believe me, we welcome all opinions here.
This month's book is (drumroll, please) My Antonia by Willa Cather. It's not too long, and quite an interesting read.
Enjoy, and we'll see you back here December 1!
We came up with a list. I wrote the names of the individual books on little slips of paper and drew one out of my husband's hat.
The list was pretty impressive. Twelve in total. Some on Matt's side I haven't read, and I daresay some on mine he hasn't read -- but that's the point here, isn't it? To relax, read a book you might not otherwise have picked up (or conversely revisit with an old book-friend) and discuss it, even if it's just to say what you liked and what you didn't. Believe me, we welcome all opinions here.
This month's book is (drumroll, please) My Antonia by Willa Cather. It's not too long, and quite an interesting read.
Enjoy, and we'll see you back here December 1!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Let Us Now Priase Famous Men
I've known a few other folks who've read this book, and have seen some real differences in opinion. Some thought it was just beautiful, some really loved it's content, some thought it was pretentious, others thought it was just a dressed-up screed. So, then, a few questions to get us conversing. Answer which ones you will, as you will:
1--What's your gut reaction here? I mean that in senses both broad and narrow.
2--Agee and Evans originally had an assignment from a magazine--Fortune, to be exact--to investigate sharecroppers and write a magazine-length story. It obviously turned into something much bigger and grander, and was never published in Fortune.. Nevertheless, the journalistic impulse is still there, in a mutated way. What do you make of the shifts in genres here? Sometimes it reads like a play, sometimes like a piece of journalism, sometimes like a novel, sometimes like a poem. Why does the book need to be written from so many different aspects, in so many different forms, to accomplish Agee's purpose?
3--Building off that last question, what does Agee seem to think the truth of the book is, the truth of these people's lives is? It's hard to tell when he's being journalistic and when he's being a novelist (which was his other trade). Which reveals the reality of the situation of the sharecropper better, fiction or ostensibly truthful journalism? What does this tell us about how we understand our own contemporary problems?
4--What do we call this book? How do we label it?
5--Do the photographs work with Agee's text or not? Is there tension between what they present? If, indeed, this is so, then why do Agee and Evans agree to pair them?
6--To my reading, this is a book with a very big dose of that great bugbear, liberal white guilt. Does this negatively affect the book? Or is it absolutely necessary?
Looking forward to a nice discussion, and hope my selection wasn't too out of left field for everyone!
1--What's your gut reaction here? I mean that in senses both broad and narrow.
2--Agee and Evans originally had an assignment from a magazine--Fortune, to be exact--to investigate sharecroppers and write a magazine-length story. It obviously turned into something much bigger and grander, and was never published in Fortune.. Nevertheless, the journalistic impulse is still there, in a mutated way. What do you make of the shifts in genres here? Sometimes it reads like a play, sometimes like a piece of journalism, sometimes like a novel, sometimes like a poem. Why does the book need to be written from so many different aspects, in so many different forms, to accomplish Agee's purpose?
3--Building off that last question, what does Agee seem to think the truth of the book is, the truth of these people's lives is? It's hard to tell when he's being journalistic and when he's being a novelist (which was his other trade). Which reveals the reality of the situation of the sharecropper better, fiction or ostensibly truthful journalism? What does this tell us about how we understand our own contemporary problems?
4--What do we call this book? How do we label it?
5--Do the photographs work with Agee's text or not? Is there tension between what they present? If, indeed, this is so, then why do Agee and Evans agree to pair them?
6--To my reading, this is a book with a very big dose of that great bugbear, liberal white guilt. Does this negatively affect the book? Or is it absolutely necessary?
Looking forward to a nice discussion, and hope my selection wasn't too out of left field for everyone!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
October's Book
We had some nice conversation (and productively divergent opinions) about Melissa's selection for August. Let's continue the good and work towards picking up more momentum with my selection for October, James Agee's Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.
It is hard to say what this book is; it is not a novel. It is not journalism. It is not an essay. It is not history. It is not poetry. It is not a drama. Yet it is somehow all of these things at once. It is a book of many different and disparate parts, but, like the many different and disparate parts in a symphony, they all work together.
I will warn you: it is not a short book, yet it is not particularly difficult to read. But, it demands that you take it slowly, that you chew each morsel fully before you swallow it and, even after that, you still are left wondering sometimes what it was you just ate, what flavour you just tasted. It is an immensely sad book. It is a book full of liberal white guilt, yet also a book full of pride and power and strength. I come from white trash, and thus it is my book, yet it also deeply foreign to me. It is respectful and exploitative, it is a book of the artist as teller of truth and lies.
Let us read it together, and discuss it together the first week of October.
It is hard to say what this book is; it is not a novel. It is not journalism. It is not an essay. It is not history. It is not poetry. It is not a drama. Yet it is somehow all of these things at once. It is a book of many different and disparate parts, but, like the many different and disparate parts in a symphony, they all work together.
I will warn you: it is not a short book, yet it is not particularly difficult to read. But, it demands that you take it slowly, that you chew each morsel fully before you swallow it and, even after that, you still are left wondering sometimes what it was you just ate, what flavour you just tasted. It is an immensely sad book. It is a book full of liberal white guilt, yet also a book full of pride and power and strength. I come from white trash, and thus it is my book, yet it also deeply foreign to me. It is respectful and exploitative, it is a book of the artist as teller of truth and lies.
Let us read it together, and discuss it together the first week of October.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Almost Moon
Our first discussion! Hooroo! As a reminder, just add a comment to get things rolling. Feel free to ask questions (I’ve got a few) make comments, or even ask about stuff that confuses you.
I just reread The Almost Moon, and it really drew out the scholar in me. It just makes me want to think. I find it remarkably compelling. It seems that for every statement I make about the novel, there are three questions, and they just keep forming. And so to begin this discussion, I present to you a number of statements and questions. Let the discussion unfold.
Most of the time, writers do not kill a main character in the first chapter. Were you surprised? What else surprised you?
What inspired me to choose this novel was the dynamic of ugly/grotesque with the beautiful/rapturous. It makes a reader uncomfortable. There is a liminality (definition below) of the two states and between the two states. What do you make of these characters on the brink?
Speaking of being on the brink, Helen doesn’t know where she’s going (either literally or metaphorically) – all she knows is where she doesn’t want to be. What does this state entail for her?
One thing I noticed was a distinct separation of roles within one character, e.g., Clair is not seen as an intellectual person by her daughter, only a “broken mother.” She is only seen as an intellectual, and (coincidentally?) as a mentally ill person, by her friend the neighbor. When Helen sees Clair’s intellectual persona, it appears as an aberration – something her mother does, occasionally, but not part of who her mother is. How does this splitting affect Helen? Clair?
It’s often joked that most women become their mothers. Is Helen becoming her mother? In what ways are they similar? How are they different? Has Helen shaped her adult self in response to her mother?
Let’s talk about relationships. What do you see in the relationships in the novel? Mother and daughter, female friendships, male-female friendships, husband and wife, daughter and father. What’s missing?
Dichotomies (such as the dynamic between weak and strong, and the argument between crazy and sane) really only function in opposition, and there is a lot of opposition in this novel. Who functions in opposition? To whom? How?
How do gender roles (i.e., traditional male-female roles and dynamics) come into play in the novel? Who is weak? Who is strong? Who is crazy? Who is sane? Who is beautiful? Who is ugly?
While discussing Clair and Helen, let’s not forget her other parent – how did Helen’s father impact the lives of his wife and daughter?
On our facebook page, Jason mentioned the situation Clair is in. What do you make of the elderly character(s) in the novel.
Liminality, a good working definition from Wikipedia: “a psychological, neurological, or metaphysical subjective, conscious state of being on the "threshold" of or between two different existential planes . . . The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One's sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed - a situation which can lead to new perspectives. People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.” From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality)
I just reread The Almost Moon, and it really drew out the scholar in me. It just makes me want to think. I find it remarkably compelling. It seems that for every statement I make about the novel, there are three questions, and they just keep forming. And so to begin this discussion, I present to you a number of statements and questions. Let the discussion unfold.
Most of the time, writers do not kill a main character in the first chapter. Were you surprised? What else surprised you?
What inspired me to choose this novel was the dynamic of ugly/grotesque with the beautiful/rapturous. It makes a reader uncomfortable. There is a liminality (definition below) of the two states and between the two states. What do you make of these characters on the brink?
Speaking of being on the brink, Helen doesn’t know where she’s going (either literally or metaphorically) – all she knows is where she doesn’t want to be. What does this state entail for her?
One thing I noticed was a distinct separation of roles within one character, e.g., Clair is not seen as an intellectual person by her daughter, only a “broken mother.” She is only seen as an intellectual, and (coincidentally?) as a mentally ill person, by her friend the neighbor. When Helen sees Clair’s intellectual persona, it appears as an aberration – something her mother does, occasionally, but not part of who her mother is. How does this splitting affect Helen? Clair?
It’s often joked that most women become their mothers. Is Helen becoming her mother? In what ways are they similar? How are they different? Has Helen shaped her adult self in response to her mother?
Let’s talk about relationships. What do you see in the relationships in the novel? Mother and daughter, female friendships, male-female friendships, husband and wife, daughter and father. What’s missing?
Dichotomies (such as the dynamic between weak and strong, and the argument between crazy and sane) really only function in opposition, and there is a lot of opposition in this novel. Who functions in opposition? To whom? How?
How do gender roles (i.e., traditional male-female roles and dynamics) come into play in the novel? Who is weak? Who is strong? Who is crazy? Who is sane? Who is beautiful? Who is ugly?
While discussing Clair and Helen, let’s not forget her other parent – how did Helen’s father impact the lives of his wife and daughter?
On our facebook page, Jason mentioned the situation Clair is in. What do you make of the elderly character(s) in the novel.
Liminality, a good working definition from Wikipedia: “a psychological, neurological, or metaphysical subjective, conscious state of being on the "threshold" of or between two different existential planes . . . The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One's sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed - a situation which can lead to new perspectives. People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.” From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Short Fiction Collections
So, the following question came my way from one of the Literati: "Are collections of short fiction . . . acceptable?"
We're a democracy, so let's put it to a discussion and a vote. Just post your thoughts and/or vote below.
We're a democracy, so let's put it to a discussion and a vote. Just post your thoughts and/or vote below.
First Book!
What: The Almost Moon
Who: Alice Sebold
When: Discussion opens August 1, 2010
Where: Um, here.
Why: Sebold's writing is haunting and poetic, the story is compelling, and I like how she turns a few rules of fiction on their head.
Until August 1!
Who: Alice Sebold
When: Discussion opens August 1, 2010
Where: Um, here.
Why: Sebold's writing is haunting and poetic, the story is compelling, and I like how she turns a few rules of fiction on their head.
Until August 1!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)