Shopping

Killed some time today at two local mega chain bookstores.  I escaped with only one purchase: Acacia by David Anthony Durham.

I noticed that Barnes and Noble has been cutting back on their inventory.  I know its horrible to say but I actually like this particular Barnes and Noble.  The store certainly feels more open and roomier which is nice but isn't a bookstore supposed to be crammed full of books?

Finally, I saw for the first time the US cover of Patrick DeWitt's The Sisters Brothers.  I heard a lot about this book last year when it was winning every award under the sun, but I wasn't won over enough to give it a shot.  That cover has pushed me over the edge.  I see a lot of talk on genre sites about cover art, layout and design, but it's a topic that hardly ever comes up in 'literary' conversations.  I don't think the people that put work into cover design get enough credit, regardless of genre.  In DeWitt's case, the picture is cool but the font which kinda makes a border is was really grabs me.  Of course, I'll have to find a copy without that "Man Booker Prize" notice, but these things can be worked around.

Make Room for Equality and Reality in your Imagination

Okay, where to start?  An apology would probably make the most sense, but that's not really my style.  This line of thought started when I read some excellent posts on Terry Weyna's blog.  I was reading about the controversy brought about by Saladin Ahmed and Ari Marmell when they pose the thought that Games of Thrones is too white.  Game of Thrones, the book--a series, which I haven't read--was first published in 1996 which makes asking if the book is too white a bit like wondering if the sky is too blue.  Assuming it is too white; how exactly do you plan to fix it?

Ahmed and Marmell make some excellent points that I fully agree with considering my limited knowledge of the works discussed: the bad guys seemed to be universally a bit brown; conversely the closer one comes to lilly white the more we come to see the good guys; thus it was more of an issue with the title that bothered me concerning Ahmed's article.  (Even then it stands to reason that Ahmed used an sensationalist title to draw attention, because you know, the media does that.)  But again, the book was written sixteen years ago, that, and if the preceding comment about skin tone and good and bad is indeed how Martin feels I'm still not sure there is anything wrong with that.  

I didn't make my thoughts very clear in the comments on Terry's blog; I was planning on going back to do so but felt I sounded too argumentative so I figured if I'm gonna start some shit I'll do it in my own space; mere decency as I like Terry...  I'm not arguing the absurdity of the black, white / bad, good idea or the apparent ignorance and surprising anger that many, I'm guessing non-whites, have when someone like Ahmed shines a light on the matter.  My contention is in the modern idea that I feel was the undercurrent of Ahmed's article: that all things need to be equal, tolerant, and representative of today's world even in secondary world fiction, to appease all people.  Well, since that is how the real world works I guess such an idea makes perfect sense... (Said with absolutely no sarcasm at all.)

This is a discussion on the New York Time review of books that I found interesting concerning young adult fiction and it's growing popularity among not just young adults, but readers of all ages.  Some of the opinions stated make me roll my eyes, others still make me nauseated.  If you can honestly read Mr Stein's thoughts and not find them pretentious, elitist, high and mighty, or at the least divisive then you probably shouldn't waste your time with my blog anymore as we don't have much in common.  While there is nothing wrong with Proust and Beckett there is equally nothing wrong with a host of writers that aren't white men that history has condemned to only be remembered by their last names.  Which brings me to the thoughts of Ms Flake.

The title, "There Need to Be More Nonwhite Protagonist" is all well and good, but after reading what was written I felt, "There Need to Be More Nonwhite Writers" would have better served Ms Flake's argument.  She talks of the importance of youth being able to identify with characters in books and need for them to be able to walk into a book store and look at a cover and a blurb and think 'that kid's story kinda echoes my life.'  I couldn't agree more and would gladly second all of her thoughts, except that title still bothers me.  I felt Flake had the same underlying feeling as expressed by Ahmed that nearly suggest that it is the duty of writers, or publishing to fill this need of there being more non white writers.

I can't believe that it is the responsibility of Janet Evanovich or Steven King to lead the charge in the proliferation of books that focus more heavily on people of color.  I think most of the advice out other on writing is rather silly, but 'write what you know' seems to hold up well.  No one faults Toni Morrison for not writing about caucasian Australians nor does anyone hit up Gabriel Garcia Marquez for his continued use of Central and South American characters, and it needs to be explicitly said that Morrison and Marquez (more or less, for both) compose fiction that is written in our world and historical times or reality, as opposed to George Martin who primarily writes in a secondary world of his own device where he apparently comes under fire for supposedly reinforcing real world stereotypes--knowingly or not--in a world he has made up.  

Just today, I came across this fun bit on CNN concerning racism and public reception of The Hunger Games movie.  Honestly I don't even know where to start.  Peterman says all the right things and I agree.  I admit that agreeing with her flies in the face of much of what I've previously said, but at least I'm up front and give full disclosure concerning my possibly hypocrisies.  Just because of the reaction of a few people to the black characters in The Hunger Games movie was wholly negative doesn't mean I don't hope that movie studio continue the trend in casting blacks.  I only hope than studios are never forced to do so.  Just as I hope writers are not trying to shoe-horn characters that don't belong in a given story just to make their book's world resemble the most recent census in the country they live.  Also of interest and related to The Hunger Games uproar dealing with black actors is EA's--the world's largest video game publisher--recent flak about allowing, simply giving players the choice, players to state their sexual preference in certain games where players create their own character.  Considering some of the heat EA has taken you'd think EA introduced the world, or at least the video game world, to homosexuality.  I've linked to one article but if you want an eye-rolling good time google "EA gay characters." 

I'll admit that I haven't hit the nail on the head yet (if I had, this post would have been much shorter with substantially less reliance on outside references).  The factual, moral separation of some writer's characters solely by skin tone is just as wrong as forcing gender equality, fair representation of homosexuals, or a positive showing of people of color upon the same writer.  Writing fiction is a creative endeavor: in short, one is allowed to create a racist, bigoted world if they choose.  This may surprise many, but you--the reader--don't have to read these books...  When writing becomes dictated by an outside force i.e. Cuba's government or even something as relatively tame as rabid fan, reader expectation it ceases to be as creative as it could be and begins to rely on work-arounds and inorganic material.  If a writer chooses to censure themself for any reason, that's fine, but don't force it on them. 

Post like this make me happy that I have absolutely no standing in book publishing world as I think I'll forgo the shitstorm of vitriol and negativity that a more high-profile person might incur.  That said: am I crazy?  

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

"Do not be deceived, Wormwood.  Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys." Pg 40

Here's a book that's hard to classify: Christian theology, comedy, satire, fantasy, philosophy, a poor effort of a novel, a collection of comedic essays; The Screwtape Letters will fit under just about any heading a new bookstore has to offer.  How to read and interpret the book is perhaps just as varied.  If you are looking for a story in the typical narrative sense you maybe let down, or at the least could find room for improvement.  No matter what your intentions in reading the book--and those intentions will probably change the further along one goes--I think it best to take things in small chucks, a letter at a time, in a effort to give yourself a moment to appreciate all that the author has given and to digest the absurdities that will come to mind after reading has planted certain seeds of thought.   

Screwtape is an Undersecratary in the Lowerarchy of the service to "Our Father Below."  He is also mentor to his nephew, a tempter to a young English man near the time of world war II.  The "Letters" are all one-sided and we have to infer much of what Wormwood, Screwtape's nephew, relates as we never see his letters.  What we do learn is that devils, or perhaps, the nature of temptation is never satisfied.  Screwtape is never happy with Wormwood, not when things go his way, or when he wants to share some small success, there is always more to be done.  While temptation from the Christian path may be the theme of the book, what Lewis writes could just as easily be applied to near anything that threatens to steer people away from what they want in life from alcoholism to laziness.

There is a little narrative in the book following the young man around as he finds a woman of interest, lives in fear of the war and it's bombings, finds the Church and owns up to his doubts, but more interesting than this is the duplicity that Lewis expresses when writing about these various topics.  Screwtape writes (a bit too competently for a devil in my mind, but who is to say demons can't be well educated--perhaps, even English professors?) from a perspective that readers will not be accustomed to hearing from.  "The Enemy" is not who we are conditioned to believe it is and the point of view is so startling unique and the intelligence and insight revealed for all Screwtape's points and arguments make it extremely difficult to objectively see some of the absurdities that are otherwise so transparent in discussions of faith.  

Another interesting point of duality is that in which Screwtape is trying to corrupt and Lewis trying to teach: by way of Lewis being the author, both happen at the same time.  The result isn't so much tongue-in-cheek humor, but more often than not laugh out loud funny.  "When two humans have lived together for many years it usually happens that each has tones of voice and expressions of face which are almost unendurably irritating to the other.  Work on that."  Surely that describes no long standing marriage I've ever heard of.  His thoughts on education and temptation are not only comically insulting but mark the point in which many people refuse personal responsibility and turn to--and sometimes blame--faith or other 'worldly' forces.  "It is funny how mortals always picture us (devils) as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out."  

Screwtape, acting as Lewis, is very tough on the church: clergy and members and the complacency of each, multiple denominations and the ignorance among their followers, and he is most hard on the Church of England.  Screwtape is difficult to get a solid fix on (as Lewis tells us in the opening forward).  There are times he encourages extremism, in all areas except faith, of course, yet he continually ask that Wormwood employ subtlety and misdirection as his primary weapons in securing his 'patient's' soul.  "Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick.  Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signpost,."  The difficulty in discerning the sermon from the satire is not the only fun part.       

I usually never spend this much time writing about a book that already has such great exposure but whether or not you're a believer Lewis succeeds on multiple levels with this novel in making the reader not only think but posing interesting insight into a host of ideas and questions that will always give the human mind cause for concern: marriage, love, death, morality, and many more.  It's not Narnia and there certainly is no obvious heavy-handed Christian pandering (subtly and misdirection remember).  The Screwtape Letters is perhaps as easy or difficult of a read as you wish it to be.  If only church were as entertaining or half as thought provoking…    

The Month in Review and of Things to Come

I went to a beer festival yesterday; which was fun, but I drew the short straw which meant I had the honor of being the DD, which is less fun, though necessary.  In the end I was kinda happy about it as the beer festival tours don't really have much to offer me.  Sure there was a bunch of stuff that I wanted to try, but nothing that I can't get my hands on elsewhere.  Three hundred beers in one place is awesome and if you are trying to refine your palette or get a handle on your preferences it's well worth the money, but all-in-all I think my friends and I have put together better quality tastings with substantially less beers but a much higher quality.  The DD ticket was $10 so I saved $25; I'm okay with that.

I read Catching Fire and Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins this month.  I'm also still plugging away at Daniel Martin by John Fowles.  I love the latter but it is slow slow slow.  I don't say that as a bad thing, just a thing.  

My reading output thus far this year has been pitiful, but I'm telling myself I'll come on strong later.

Surprisingly little to say for March.  I feel sure there is more to share but nothing else comes to mind.  I'll try to be more interesting in April.

Random Thoughts on The Hunger Games Trilogy

Let me start off by saying if you haven't read this series--and you should--you don't want to read the rest of this post.  I'm usually not one for spoilers but this isn't exactly one of my usual commentaries so; you've been warned.  

I read The Hunger Games last fall and really liked it.  I read Catching Fire and Mockingjay this past week: awesome and 'blah' respectively.  I also saw the movie last weekend and I think I only enjoyed it because of my familiariy with the book.  

Linda, a co-worker of mine, read all three books in the past ten days or so and we've been talking.  She would define herself as a grandmother first, followed by parent and wife.  We're best friends, I see her for forty hours a week and we have the same taste in everything (except that I've never had a girlfriend she's approved of, but that's a different story).  So Linda calls me last week as she's starting Mockingjay and I'm about half way through Catching Fire.  It was 10:30 at night which is an odd time for her to be up as I know she's an early riser.

"She's a damn Whorebeast and I hate her."  This isn't exactly an odd way for either of us to start a conversation but I was still a little bit confused.

"Who?"

"Katpiss!  I can see the multiple layers of Whore-dirt under her nails."

"Mmm, Whore-dirt."

That will be my defining memory of these books. 

The conflicted love interest aspect of the books never worked: Gale's prescence in the first two was so small that it wasn't believable that Katniss would ever consider him.  

Prim came out-of-nowhere in Mockingjay to be an assertive character.  It wasn't bad just odd, she developed a voice and backbone and personality a bit too easily, especially considering the circumstances.  The word "Mockingjay" was annoyingly overused.  Speaking of repetition…

In Catching Fire I couldn't believe there was another Game.  I kept thinking, "Surely we're not doing this again."  But we did.  And then a third time in Mockingjay.  

Oh, and Mockingjay could have been a hundred pages short and no worse for wear.  

Did anyone else feel like Godzilla was unleashed in Mockingjay when EVERYONE starting dying?  And boy oh boy was that ending rushed (perhaps the book wasn't too long, rather the right material didn't have enough time dedicated to it).

Where else can you get amazing commentary like this?  Surely you can tell how much I enjoyed reading these books.  (You have to love it to get this worked up.)  

It's easy to tear these books to shreds if a reader feels inclined to do so, but it's easier to get caught up in the characters lives and start guessing who will die next.  These are must read books and they only take five or six minutes each to read should you happen to be one of the six people who have yet to pick them up.    

The Year's first purchase

It took me almost three straight months but I finally got around to buying more books (Not that I need anymore).  My self imposed limit for purchases this year is ten--and I have no expectations of meeting that goal--and today I bought three: The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis and Gardens of the Moon and Memories of Ice by Steven Erikson.  I've felt a pull towards Screwtape for a while that I can't explain and I think I've been collecting Erikson's Malazan books for a few months.  I'm really excited about all three.

I hope this brief post will get me back in the blogging frame of mind.  No more for now.  I have a growler of Allagash Black--which is delicious--and and excellent big book to attack.

The Right Book at the Right Time

So I'm reading Daniel Martin right now by John Fowles; who is a long standing favorite author of mine.  It's huge, the pacing is well controlled and like all other books by him I've read, it's a book you expect to spend some time with as opposed to blowing through in a weekend.  Fowles was English and not of my generation.  It has taken me a while to figure out why I think I have such stumbling blocks with him concerning his writing.

I have a handful of reading disabilities and Fowles syntax is not always 'American' (which is not a fault) added to which he is really good at structuring his words to evoke certain thoughts and feelings in his readers.  My biggest problem in reading anything is seeing what is actually written as opposed to what I want to be there: Fowles gives me fits.  (You should hear me read aloud sometimes: it funny to hear someone else go back and read what was actually written instead of what I read.)  That said, I think he needs about a tenth of the book's overall length before he hits his stride and things start to flow, or perhaps that's just me.

I've spoken before about reading a great book at a time when your mind isn't in it.  Daniel Martin is exactly what I need to be reading right now.  I've been in a rut and this book has made me fall back in love with the use of words and language to achieve a response from a reader.  It's not the greatest thing ever committed to paper; it's merely the right book that I need to be reading right now.

Oh, and while not the greatest thing ever it does happen to be really good.