| Six class-conscious
Mercedes drivers arrived at a 14th Street Arts and Crafts
London Club accommodation
leased for the occasion by the host. Once there, we welcomed
intrepid Placitas traveler Dave
Southwick. Dave has traveled to London and actually lived
in the neighborhood where IM's Saturday
occurs. A geologist who
[like most of us] has not read Origin
of Species or played
squash, yet he has
enjoyed handball. The host informed us that Ian McEwan is 58 years of age (Henry was 48), well known English novelist with a degree in writing. The Group made the mistake of intimating that the squash sequence was too lengthy and were promptly corrected with a 28 minute presentation on "The Science and Strategy of Squash" delivered by a member whose identity may be revealed to the careful reader of these reviews. |
| The Haves spoke out: Don: I rambled around on the website and now realize I must be careful what I say as my ramblings end up for all to read. Thus I state: This was a Mitchnerian multi-generational saga in literature, inching along minute by minute through the day. Seldom has so much been written about so little. Personally, "I really enjoyed reading this book" is what I usually say - This time: not smooth, not enjoyed as much. I enjoyed most of my days better than Henry enjoyed this one. He presents the details in the life of a neurosurgeon - it was a slog to read for me. However, the book was consistent in its tone, an engaging vignette - I give it an A- Joel: I went through it fairly fast - a good read. One of the benefits of the book: if in a plane someday the captain calls out over the PA system, "Can anyone perform a transsphenoidal hypophysectomy?" - now any of us can go forward to help out. <Ken: "I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!"> The characters were all realistic, but the father-in-law was stock: heavy drinking poet. Americans think poetry is superficial, but poetry is really getting down to the heart of the matter - different from opening a person's head. I felt it was not a chore to read: A- Dave: Well, I had a little trouble getting rolling with this book - once Henry finally moved away from his bedroom window, the story started moving for me. I could relate my various acquaintances to people in the novel. I know a Grammaticus-type who considers himself the world's leading expert, and is more profound as he proceeds deeper into his cups, before he eventually passes out - to the relief of all. Tidbits of the book applealed to me, once I got into the flow. A- Mike: This was a story of one of our greatest fears as upper middle class: a clash with the lower class. This was a present-day conflict that H.G. Wells described in the future between the Elois and the Morlocks. The story line initially reminded me of Bonfire of the Vanities (Thomas Wolfe) where the upscale investment banker has a hit and run incident in Harlem while lost in his fancy car, and his life unravels from there. Except unexpectedly here, the Morlocks didn't eat the Elois in the ultimate encounter because of a poem that apparently brought forth the Eloi spirit buried within the evil Morlock. Some of McEwan's writing soared to A+ however the plot contrivances distracted me back to a grade of A- [The 17th Century Exequies poem may be found in my notes in RTF.] Tom: What the World needs is more novels with fifteen pages of squash game descriptions. I connected with 85% of the book (not the music part). Middle-aged male realizing he must soon give up squash. The dismantlement of the parent (Sheila and I went back East recently to clear out the house of my father-in-law); the son playing the guitar; the daughter arguing politics; experiences with literature. Plot contrivance: McEwan set out to put all these incidences together, declarlng "I am going to jam all these things into one day." Once you accept that premise, you can go with the flow. As Joel has said, "That's why they call it fiction." A- Ken: As Tom said, most of the relevant comments have been made by the previous members. I expected a boring book on one day, but I never lost interest. I was enchanted by McEwan's superb writing and Henry's desciption of small random events have much more influence on us than the "big" fears (e.g., terrorism). A comple of things that bothered me: the locks and security on Perowne's condo and yet Rosalind strolled in with a couple of thugs? The two events with Baxter seemed farfetched: e.g., Baxter was going to slice, pillage, and rape, and the reading of a poem turned him around. A- Charlie: The tradition is that the host who reads the book and then selects it assigns it an A. I was prejudiced after Atonement. I particularly enjoyed the micro-essays from preparing fish stew to neurosurgery. A |
|
From Saturday's Children Who Couldn't Arrive By Thursday: Jack Ferrell:
Ian McEwan’s Saturday is one of the best and most timely novels I have read in the last three years. It is a suspenseful, thought-provoking story written in clear prose—at times as sharp as Henry’s scalpel. At a time of uncertainty and outright fear of violent crime and terrorism, we have become obsessed individually and as a nation with security. McEwan’s skill in writing descriptive prose and telling the story through Henry’s eyes, personalizes our fear and questions whether we can ever secure our lives. McEwan's ability to develop characters, who juxtapose empathy and violence among themselves and within themselves, added to the uncertainty and suspense of the story. I loved it and give it an A. Ron B: My fellow literati,
Greetings from the Land of the Golden Gophers.
Here we
are in Minneapolis where grandson Jaden had extensive bladder
surgery
at U. of Minn Childrens Hospital. He is on his way to slow recovery, I
regret I will not be able to attend the meeting at Charlie's temp digs.
Review
I
had mixed fellings about the book, but it grew on me. At the
beginning
I was not that interested in reading Henry's musings about himself. As
the narrative unfolded and other charcters were introduced I became
more interested. I like the description of his visit to his mother. A
foreshadowing of Henry's own fate? I liked the passage about his
parents photograph in the last paragraph at the bottom of p. 164. Maybe
someone will read it aloud at the meeting for me?
Description of the squash game was too long. Tense
situations with Baxter was good point.
I
don't know about the surgical descriptions...maybe slightlty too
pendantic? But that was the general tone of the book and one either
likes it or not.
It left me thinking about the book after I was finished, so
I guess it has some draw.
I'll give it a B+ but am prepared to admit
the grade might be higher on rereading.
Rob:
-- Quick review: B Saturday --
started with sex and ended with sex. Not much in between.
What a day! -- just kidding.
Not as good, for me, as Atonement. Strained my
credulity a couple of places: when he diagnosed Baxter's brain
condition and broke up the mugging; when Baxter went soft when the
naked daughter read a poem. Couldn't help saying, "Oh, come on."
Extremely impressive
writing though -- describing neurosurgery, describing jazz,
establishing characters and inter-relationships, ...
Susie doing well, but I
will stay home with her tonight.
We'll always have
February.
Keith: Hola C..sorry to miss your soiree..found IM
nimble
wordsmith..but babbles thru deep decimal places,e.g.,neurosurgery +
squash..Toiled 300 pages of intricate relationships + plodding plots
..Any book taking longer to read than this one day in Perowne's life is
discursive candidate for enema..! B-minus..good
low flow toilet
fodder..kg
|
| Nine literary smokejumpers dropped into Placitas, throwing away their Pulaskis along the route in order to find their way home after dark. Our foreman pushed aside the salmon and the hamas {aka chick peas} in order to sacrifice a tin of popcorn to provide the appropriate smoke and flames for the occasion, admitting that he was intrigued with MacLean's retirement focus - working on a project that would never be completed. He had many more questions he could have answered: Why did no one report finding the thrown away tools? Could Dodge have decided to break for the Missouri River? He might have made it. We could all relate: |
| Joel:
I'm glad I'm not in that line of work. [Joel once hired roofers
who took off to fight fires.] The bottom line: Pray for
rain, run like hell. A fascinating book I would not have read on
my own. A- Charlie: B as an unedited. Very interesting, but a little too literary for the subject, not crisp. Ed: I enjoyed it also - interesting, I did learn a lot about the subject. I have a friend firefighter who would be interested in this book. I viewed it as a staff report, not unlike in the military. B+ Jack: Phrase from American Bandstand comes to mind: I didn't like the beat but I could dance to it. Very interesting. B Dave S: I had some difficulty but the discussion tonight here helped. First part was interesting, a report with literary asides. The second part I had problems with, kept replowing the same ground. The book needed a tech editor. Informative but redundant. B Mike: In Part 2 I felt at times like I was reading “The Science and Strategy of Squash” – far too much repetition and recounting of semi-facts that were not of that much interest unless one were, like MacLean, near-obsessed with the Mann Gulch fire. I couldn’t help thinking of how disciplined a writer Norman MacLean was under his father’s tutelage, and that he would never have published this 300 pages if he had been around to review and edit the material. He would have cut it down to at least half. Actually, the 14 page PDF file by the “mathematician” from the Northern Forest Laboratory described everything pertinent to the fire in less than 14 pages; MacLean added a few areas of interest, in particular tracking down Sallee and Rumsey and bringing them back to the scene, back to Mann Gulch. A few nuggets of the MacLean touch could be found throughout the book, however not enough to convince me to recommend to someone else to read the book – unless he was from Montana, or wanted to know more about the dangers of being a smokejumper. B. Tom: At his best when talking about people - the scene reminded me of "A River Runs Through It" - "Now nearly all those I love are dead. I still reach out to them." This was a mix of report and literary effort - in 100 pages could have been purely literary. May not have read if it was a pure report. With the 2nd half I had trouble - slog through it in some literary gems to help. B+ Rob: My impression evolved as I read through the book (to begin with I was not enchanted). First part was over dramatic (e.g., stations of the cross). Part 2 I enjoyed as his quest (like Ahab after Moby Dick, the Old Man fighting for his fish). Then I came across the Blood-Thirsty Republicans, which brought my grade to a B. Ron: I agree with almost everything that has been said. I enjoyed reading the first part (with the human drama). I found (in the 2nd Part) I was racing through the pages looking for literary nuggets. I thought it was written by an obsessed person. Paced it off for modelers - I too would have hard time recommending the book but I enjoyed the nuggets and learning how the Smokejumpers started. B. Better book to discuss rather than to read. Don T: I have to first say that besides bitching about details, I totally love this book - I hate puzzles, no tolerance for repetition, details, yet these did not bother me. I really liked to see MacLean's starts, stops, metaphors tried, no better in his writing than me, some he would edit out. You know he would throw some out, expand some. Overall: A- |
|
From outside the fire break: Hola Biblios..sorry to miss soiree..like " perfect storm "...this perfect fire is replete with fictional extrapolations..yet solid spin... " B " for me...kg Overall I found many aspects of the book to be quite enjoyable. I was fascinated by the history and descriptions of firefighting and smokejumpers and, as a semi-retired scientist, appreciated following Macleans’ thought processes and his determination as he attempted to unravel the controversial aspects of the Mann Gulch Fire. On the other hand, there were many aspects of the book that I found frustrating. The book seemed long-winded and often quite repetitious. On pages 47 and 49, for instance, the author tells us three times that each of the crew is sitting between the others legs (p. 47, line 12, p. 49, twice in last paragraph). It often read like a stream of consciousness. I concluded that perhaps one third of the pages could have been eliminated. With the above in mind, I found it ironic that Maclean notes on page 215, 3rd paragraph that “a storyteller should never look at a day as lost if he has learned something about how to tell stories, especially about how to make them shorter.” It is also interesting to me that the Publisher’s Note (p.viii, line 3) states “we have cut certain repetitions in the manuscript.” In my mind, they did not cut enough. The same Publishers Note goes on to say that “"Facts have been checked for consistency and accuracy”," an interesting statement given that Maclean’'s longwinded Pythagoran arguments (p. 229) are grossly in error. Instead of the 1320 yards growing to 1400 yards on the hypotenuse, it really only grows to 1327 yards, a trivial difference in distance from 1320 yards. Given that Maclean recognized his mathematical deficiencies (p. 243, 2nd last sentence), a check of his math by the Publisher would seem prudent. As Maclean said in concluding his Pythagoran section, QED. Overall grade- B+ |
| Albany, NY: In an
apparent harmonic convergence of bums, a half-baked dozen came together
last Thursday in the jungle area just south of Pearl Street to warm
themselves at the fire stoked by Tom "Two Shoes" and parse the nuances
of William Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize winner. Jack "Placita Pee
Wee" talked of memories of going with his father to hire bums down at
the jungle; Dave "Newbie Shoes" told similar tales of his father hiring
bums to cut tree limbs around the house. Why didn't Francis stay
with Anne after he came back to the house? Perhaps he felt too
strong a responsibility for Rudy and for Helen, two bums he loved and
felt he was helping to survive. We learned that there was more to
this book than many of us had gleaned in a first reading. Don
"The Pope" pointed out that all of Francis' skills as a ball player
worked against him in life - his hands were his profession, yet he
dropped Gerald. He used a baseball bat swing to kill the American
Legionnaire. He threw a baseball-sized stone and killed a
scab. Later Francis was saying the guy on the trolley was
probably just doing what he had to do – and Big Shoes says,
baloney! You can say that about anyone: murderers, thieves
… The author presented philosophy through Francis' sardonic sense of
humor. Ken "No Shoes" pointed out the last chapter of the book in
which the narrator changes from present tense to "He would" do this or
that - this was after Francis had thrown his bottle off the train and
followed it - that last section was ambiguous ... perhaps Francis was
dead. Again the blurring of life and death which was the theme set in
the first chapter: Rudy: A kid? What'd he do,
die young? He fell. Rudy: Hell, I fall on the floor
about twice a day and I ain't dead. "That's what you think," said
Francis. |
| Jack:
I enjoyed it. I thought it was well written, well
constructed. A theme of guilt was over-riding: Life and
Death reinforcing each other. I can relate somewhat to the
persons and the time. A- Don: The author was very kind. (Recall I was upset as to how Faulker treated the poor people.) The author showed nothing but respect for these marginal people. I just loved it - best book I've read with this group. More than an A? A. I took pages of notes - mixed in metaphors - I couldn't think of anything the author should have done differently. The conversations with dead people were not silly but moving. He captured something there. I really resonated. Rob: I liked this book a lot too. I admired the author's creativity - I liked the mood he established. I didn't have sympathy for Francis, but Helen moved me - a victim. Francis loved her but abandoned her. He didn't want her to die. A- Keith: Depression and despair on two levels. Overt attack on my olfactory senses - a mix of crotches and armpits. Blur of line between dead and living. Even their dreams were dashed. Downlifting. Good blue collar book. B Mike: What a unique book! What insight into characters! I liked the bums Francis and Helen – both were not what one thinks of as bums. The author portrayed the demons one is fighting. I liked the way the spooks were introduced without apology. This was not magical realism, this was a personal, rich, experiential reality for the way Francis saw the world. Excellent! The shades were there, with their personalities, just hanging around … I liked the way Kennedy handled the flashbacks, mainly for Francis with Katrina, and the one flashback for Helen to when she worked with the music store – and was “disposed of” late in life. When I finished the chapter on Helen, I didn't want it to end, I was upset that the next chapter was on Francis. Then I got into that chapter and again was captivated. I loved this book! A all the way! Joel: I thought it was a very good book. Somewhat creeped me out as my nightmare is to lose my teeth. I see the dentist regularly, and the descriptions of teeth like chiclets got to me. The book gave the feeling of being cold all the time. I've had patients like that - one was a man who fell asleep on the railroad tracks and lost a leg. He made a leg for himself out of 2x4s, with some tire tread, and painted it green. A substance abuser. I noted there were no drugs in this story other than alcohol and nicotine. Francis dug a hole for himself. B+ Very well written. Could be understood on many levels. Ron: Well written book but depressing - nothing uplifting, and I found myself saying, "Do I really want to read this?" I enjoyed the literary devices - some poetry. I enjoyed the dead being able to communicate. At first I was going to give the book a B for Bleak, but now an A- as it is written so well, difficult but depressing. Ed: I agree with Keith and Ron's comments. Well written but the story sucks - why would I want to read this? C Dave: I greatly admired the book but did not enjoy it. From literary devices (I admit I was slow to catch on) I thought that was terrific - developing the culture of the bum's life. The devastaing effect of guilt was so slowly. But so depressing - do I ever want to read anything about bums again? No! B+ Ken: I really enjoyed the book - I got into it one afternoon and at 10 pm I was still reading it. It pulled me in. Even though it was about bums, it was very creative, the characters were well developed. It was wonderful. One of the most worthwhile reads. A Charlie: A lot of parsing occurred here tonight. What bothered me was the sympathetic portrayal of a very bad person (ref: the video on Women's Prison inmates). Francis was a very bad boy! At a certain point in your life you don't want to read about such people. B+ Tom: Since I'm the host, I'll take some extra minutes. This was a story about a depressing situation. One of the enjoyments you get out of literature is reveling in the artist's work. My favorite book is by an unreliable pedophile narrator. The rush for me is how the author creates this mood. Our other top book Grapes of Wrath keeps giving false hope page after page. A theme of this book: all these bums have a story. In San Francisco you walk down the street and soon the homeless become part of a landscape - you don't think (or bother yourself) with their underlying story. From page 31 with Rudy and Sandra, Francis asks: "She a bum? ... No, nobody's a bum all their life ... Then that's somethin'. A little kid's somethin' that ain't a bum or a whore." So we understand that these people weren't created the way you see them now. A- |
| Why didn't Christopher talk about the inclusion or exclusion of the number 1 in the collection of prime numbers? Or zero? Very disturbing. Fortunately we met in Number 701, one of the few prime numbers on the South side of Loma Linda. There are nineteen characters (with three spaces - spaces are good!) in Loma Linda Place NE, however rumor has it that no primes existed on the north side. Mike kindly and softly explained Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the prime, yet Don fell to the floor, groaning loudly. Thus it went. Our host chose reviewers in random order, and we learned the following: |
| Charlie:
A-
I really enjoyed it, very educational. I didn't know much about
autism. Not a perfect book but well crafted. Ed: I liked it - interesting and educational as well. The Math added to my enjoyment. I give it a B, B+ Jack: I found it very creative, downright delightful. The author did a specially good job of pulling me in. Another book like this is the Poisonwood Bible. A- Joel: It seemed dopey at first; after a while, it didn't seem dopey. Extremely interesting - a lot of stuff I could identify with. Christopher just panics when he's put on the spot - well crafted, not great literature. I rate it as a B+ (would negotiate as high as an A-). Ken: I was happy to see the book was for readers ten years old and up - a compelling story - I was moved by the discovery of the mother's letters and the trip to London. Some of the sketches in the book were not accurate (like the circular approach to finding a street, p. 140). A- Keith: I was very attracted to it. I have a grandson, 12 years old, who is autistic. No social skills, and has a fascination with poo. Yet he is highly creative. I give the book a solid A. Tom: I liked this book. Since we talked about group therapy, I think I am out on the right hand side of the spectrum. I get obsessed with closure - thus I don't understand how my wife handles millions of parenting problems. I have a friend who doesn't like foods touching. The London thing dragged for me. It didn't push the story along, make you feel like the kid. A- Mike: Mark Haddon had written many children's novels and young teen novels. This was his first novel aimed at adults, and I felt he took extreme measures to scream, "THIS IS NOT A KID'S BOOK!" The first was the killing of the dog with a garden fork, a pitchfork. That is an extremely violent action, and I was disturbed both with the act and that it turned out to be Christopher's father that did that action. The second was the quick introduction of the F-word, when Mrs Spears comes running out shouting at Christopher, "What in fuck's name are you doing with my dog?" Seemed way out of line, unnecessary, overly shocking. I liked the way the author remained true to Christopher, seeing the world through his eyes. However, the book again seemed like two teen stories stapled together: the first was the mystery of the dog and the second was Christopher's journey to London. Regardless, I was moved by the closing sentence, "... and that means I can do anything." B Don: I really liked this book. It captured me, who I am and how I see things. Very consistent. "My teacher says take 50 breaths." Father learned to "forewarn" the kid: "I am going to run water in the bathtub, and then I am going to come back and take your clothes, and then I am going to put you in the bathwater." Some kindnesses - mother stayed really kind. The voice stayed consistent with Christopher's voice. If anything, this book has potential. The Mystery. I felt the Ending was rushed. The Parents did not get together, so not a Disney ending, that was good. The Author was done, so he finished quickly. "You look awful and old." Humor, all in all: A Opened me up again. Ron: There were A parts and B parts. First: sounds like a kid's book. Parts went on too much when he went into "The sign looked like this." Autism point of view was well done. Christopher had no apologies for how he saw the world. The Story was good. Not experiential. I don't think I'll forget this book. The A parts, B parts fighting results in a B+ - not great literature but clever book. |
|
Late Homework not eaten by Christopher's dog Sandy: For a while I
was intrigued by the author'’s ability to see the world from inside the
head of an autistic teenage boy. But about
halfway through the novelty wore off and I just wanted to get this soap
opera over. There were not one, but two
(!) parents philandering with the neighbors. Carefully
preserved but hidden letters from a presumed-dead parent (or lover,
etc.) that conveniently get found is a too well-worn plot contrivance. Christopher's grueling journey to
Rob Easterling This book gave me a deeper understanding of the autistic mind and greater sympathy for autistic persons. The use of Christopher's own narrative "voice" lent interest and plausibility to a story that otherwise would have been uninteresting and implausible. The contrast in Christopher's mind between extreme irrationality about colors, touching, etc. and deep rationality about mathematics, quantum theory, etc. was impressively developed. On the other hand, I thought the book was needlessly hard on Christopher's parents and other adults who obviously were trying to cope with a very difficult and disruptive situation. Overall grade: A- Dave Southwick |
| Billy Mitchell was
Old School Air Force - he supported the Force before it was cool.
The book is an example of resistance to change - this continues to be
seen in the military as recently as 1991 when the services introduced
GPS as a navigation device. One member of the discussion group
inferred a big reason we have global warming today is that we stopped
atmospheric testing - can one explain that? The North American B-25
bomber, utilized by Jimmy Doolittle to bomb Tokyo in 1942,
was nicknamed the "Mitchell," after Billy Mitchell. The B-25 "Mitchell"
is the only American military aircraft that has been named after a
specific person. The group watched the
1955 movie with the ill-cast Gary Cooper as the 5' 8" Billy Mitchell -
recall the family wanted James Cagney for the role. Was the court
martial nothing but a forum for Mitchell's arguments in favor of an
independent Air Service? The group had many opinions: |
| Keith:
Mitchell's leadership skills were consummate in wartime; he couldn't
shift gears in peace. The story shows that thinking outside the
box won't necessarily help one's career. The story was well
presented - Mitchell left an indelible mark. He is considered the
Father of the Air Force yet he had to train himself to fly at 38 years
of age. Quite a prophet: predicted Japan's attack on Pearl
Harbor. He was an albatross with many skills whose
reputation has grown bigger over time. He even was awarded a
special Congressional Gold Medal (1946). Very uplifting story for
me - Mitchell will be forever remembered as one who fought the
system. Good B. Ron: There was the story of Billy Mitchell and then there was the way the book was written. The number of flashbacks meant that the trial itself was boring. Mitchell himself considered the court martial as just one point in his life. He was promoting this vision - but did the most for the Air Force by converting his subordinates to his vision for them to carry on. Mitchell was not an honest visionary about the way things were. Waller ends the book by stating of Mitchell: "He had the courage of his convictions" - no, but he was willing to promote his agenda. I also didn't agree with the author "infantry men will mop up" and "fewer civilian casualties" - actually more civilains are killed in today's wars, with no armies massed on the battlefield or mopping up. The writing was pretty good but courtroom didn't bring out any point of view. Billy Mitchell reminded me of Rush Limbaugh - willing to rant to make a point. Not good in peace but good in war. Overall: B Ken: I was fascinated by the story, as I knew nothing about Billy Mitchell. No civialian population "Explosion in New York City" effects that a plane as a single explosion implies large civilian populations killed. The part of book covering the actual trial was way too long. I got so bored page after page after ... B Tom: I liked this book pretty much. Too long, we say that about every book. Gave me a window of the Armed Services in the 19th Century to early 20th Century. It brought me back and forth from sympathizing and realizing the guy had a huge ego, way over the top. I think the resistance to change was too strong - maybe if he resigned and went into civilian life he could have gotten his point across (but he didn't draw crowds when he resigned from the service). In another war, we still need people like Mitchell. B+ Gary: Not a page turner for me. I read the first 180 pages. It tells of a time of history we don't hear about - after the Phillipines and the Spanish American War. Mitchell was a visionary and most people don't respect visionaries. Bombing cities is not very efficient. A lot of prophets (like Jean Dixon) make many prophecies so some of them come true. He was a useful person - did get the Air Service established. I'm glad I read it. B+ Mike: Ron is correct in that we should separate the story of Billy Mitchell from Waller's telling of the story. I found many times in the book where I was irritated with the way Waller told the story. One example: Why do you think the author had to walk us through all eight counts against Mitchell, list every one of them ( which had no description, just the legal jargon of another count) and listed his "not guilty" response to each count - what did that add over a summary statement of that action? Nothing! Just used up a page of text! I would not recommend this book for someone to read who wanted to learn about Billy Mitchell or the court martial - I would say, "Go out on the Internet and read the Wikipedia entry." C+ Joel: This was definitely a piece written by a journalist. Interesting period piece. I am reminded of the quote: "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music." Today the military would not let a court martial, or the defendant's rantings, go on so long. They would just tell him, "Go ahead and resign." Seeing a prophet, but not a popular opinion so quashed, Mitchell goes down as a martyr to the cause, which he did willingly. Those days just as much corruption as today. "Civilize 'em with a Krag" was the cry from the Phillipines, and much death was due to disease. Again, we were soldiering using the weapons suitable for the previous war. I enjoyed it - it was interesting. B+ Charlie: I found the story interesting but the book not particularly well written. I give the book a B. Ed: I agree with most of what was said tonight. I read the book to expand my knowledge of the history of the Air Force - how do you make changes happen? From my own experience, there was a situation where the SECDEF needed to hang someone - Fogelman as Chief fought the good fight - when it didn't happen, he retired. That's one of many examples of falling on one's sword. I found the story very interesing. I have read "The Commandos" which also was written by a journalist. B+ |
|
Teletype
Messages sent from outside the Beltway:
I will be in New York leading a seminar for mid-sized book publishers on thursday. Here are my
thoughts on A
question of Loyalty.
First,
I am disappointed to miss this meeting, since I would love to hear the
dialogue back and forth between you who have such depth of military
training and experience. It would be fascinating to me. And, I am
sure the discussion will be rich.
Second, I
grew up in Milwaukee and my dad had a plane at Mitchel field in the
late fifties, and I also lean personally toward being a rebel myself,
rather than an obedient one in the chain of command -- (oh, you knew
that already did you?) nevertheless, despite these two factors
that prejudice me toward loving brother Billy, It's pretty hard
for me to feel supportive of someone so arragant who works so
hard to write off everyone but himself -- and who has elevated the
ability to make people feel betrayed and angry to an art form.
The ethical
dilemmas and contrasting principles interest me.
a) obedience
to the chain of command to which one has sworn loyalty vs. telling the
greater truth for the greater good. (Colin Powell, in my opinion
got caught in the same issue and gave a different answer than Billy
Mitchell.)
b) the
crushing resistance to change exhibited by those on top who focus first
on defending their power and turf rather than asking the creative
questions and being open to finding the best answers for the
future. (so what is new?)
c) telling
the truth in order to build a safer future vs. going for flashy
publicity and the cheap shot that gets media attention.
d) wanting
the truth to be known vs. wanting mainly to be honored not only as the
visionary, but also as the divine right ruler and sole decider and most
honored person. Billy wanted more than the truth to be told, he
also wanted to be the one in charge of it all.
e) being a
flawed person, but also brilliant, and in the end making a great deal
of positive difference. ( I believe that Billy was both.)
e) taking
a risk and losing. ( or winning big) You pays your money and
make your choice, and you live with the cost. So, Billy
took a calculated risk (which didn't seem like a risk to him), that if
he made dramatic challenges directly to the public he would get to
testify to congress about the military, and gain greater visibility and
success. Instead, he was outmanouvered, and tried by his
military peers as a criminal. Most people who scramble to
the top took calculated risks at some time in their career. The
ones we hear about are those who won their gamble. Those who lose
the calculation, drift off and out.....Billy lost. Later,
MacArthur did the same.
f)
the kind of leadership that emerges and leads best in war, vs, the kind
of person who rises to the top in peacetime and times of staff
reduction -- two different skills, two different animals -- one
decisive, daring and impatient, the other patient and political, and
careful.
One
interesting tidbit from page 61 of my copy
General
Howze....." During Pershing's punitive expedition to Mexico, Howze
and his cavalrymen had chased Pancho Villa's bandits relentlessly over
some of the country's most hostile terrain." What an
incredible and unlikely positive spin -- in an officer's resume.
Nancy and I just spent ten days in the Sierra Madre Oxidental Mountains
where Poncho and his men hid, and the real history is that Pershing and
Howze spend several years and never even found him! Might better
read, "During Pershing's illadvised, illegal and punitive
expedition to Mexico, Howze and his 100% inefective cavalrymen spent
several years chasing around looking for Pancho Villa and they managed
only to became the laughing stock of the locals, taking their horses
into terain for which they were illsuited, never once
finding any trace of Poncho and finally returning to the U.S. redfaced
and empty handed-- following which Colonel Howze was promptly promoted
to General by the grateful Army."
The
book: well written, easy to read. I enjoyed it.
One
drawback -- the number of flashbacks in the first half of the
book. They should be used to generate interest. For me they
were used so much as to throw me off. He had my interest, why did
he have to keep jumping back and forth? At one point there was a
flashback within a flashback! Fortunately, the last half settled
down a bit, and read more seamlessly.
A solid B+
Thanks, Ed,
for selecting this book. A good read.
Don
A
Question of Loyalty is a fascinating
tale and even though it was well researched, I would not consider it a
well-told one. I learned a lot but had to struggle at times with
the cinematic technique of flashbacks. Flashbacks within
flashbacks were almost too much. Also a bit disappointed with
some of the editing -- typos and run-on paragraphs, for example.
Overall I enjoyed it though and would give it a B.Regards from the road. Jack First, I apologize to the group and especially to our host for missing the May 31 meeting without proper notification in advance. I had to make a trip to Baltimore on fairly short notice (departed 5/31, back 6/5/07) and just plain forgot to do the right thing. Here are my belated comments on the Billy Mitchell book. Waller's biography of Gen. Billy Mitchell treats a segment of military history that I knew very little about, and therefore it was for me an informative, worthwhile read. However the staccato, journalistic writing style flattened rather than enlivened the events and personalities described, and the interspersed "family flashbacks" contributed little more than confusion to the general narrative. My overall impression -- interesting subject, mediocre writing, grade C+. Dave Southwick |
| Nine seasoned veteran ballplayers showed up for late spring training under the direction of long time manager "Dutch" Easterling. None appeared to be in shape after the long winter, however all nine had opinions: |
| Keith:
Outstanding dimension was the patois; jargon. A classic scene was
management finding Bruce had cancer and hiring Red as back-up.
Second clever characteristic was everyone dumbed down to 3rd grade
level like ballplayers (including lawyers, doctors). On a more
somber note: why did Harris drop the last narrative? This
was a good B+
book, light summer reading. (next month: look for same
patois) Ken: I thought it was a nice, enjoyable, humorous story - an easy read - I never opened my dictionary. The first line drew me in, the last line got me. "Me really enoyed this book." A- Mike: “It might or might not probably ever happen” - Good story, clever dialogue held true throughout the 243 pages (even the doctors talked like baseball players), believable plot, believable characters working toward teamwork. Excellent summer reading. I wept at the last line, give it an A- "A fan is in title to be bushed sitting on their ass keeping score." Tom: I liked it too - the author didn't sugarcoat, Bruce was not perfect, wasn't bright, was prejudiced. I have to disagree about the inability to portray fantasy in sports - I think Field of Dreams and the book on Shoeless Joe was as good as this. A- Ed: I enjoyed this book. It brought back memories of the 50s, reminded me of when I got to see the World Series in '56 at Ebbets Field. Quite believable. B+ Dave: I also really enjoyed it. It took me back to Rochester. My dad was the catcher on a local team; I got my first glove at age 3; I was a lefty relief pitcher. I tremendously liked the dialog and that the author Author was able to maintain it. I used to listen to the crackle of the games coming in over the radio from Des Moines. I give it an unequivocable A. Joel: Baseball has gone downhill with more money. But Field of Dreams and this book remind us of what it once was. When I was growing up, if we school kids were all good, we got to listen to the World Series in class. It was part of our society. Here the author took a minor player like Bruce whose major pastime was spitting out the window and made him the focus of the story. I rate it A- , not a great A book. Best of a small genre of baseball books. Ron: Well, nobody mentioned Piney Woods. (Ron gets guitar, hat, boots: plays and sings an excellent rendition of "As I walked out on the streets of Laredo..."). Yes, it turns out the phrase in the original song is "Beat the drum slowly" vice Bang. I thought it was a good book, I liked the dialog, seemed like authentic ballplayers of the 50s. I would give it a good B+. Charlie: Not much to add - to get to an A it must be of Ian McEwan quality. A- Dutch: I liked it too. I saw it in a book list. It is about friendship, teamwork, interactions among teammates. I laughed out loud at the negotiations scenes - this is the funniest book we have read. Not great literature like Grapes of Wrath or A River Runs Through It. I give it an A. |
|
And from the Grapefruit League: Dear Dutch,
I am sorry I missed the meeting last night. We have
been on the road for the past 7 weeks with only intermittent access to
the internet.
Any way, I did read Bang the Drum Slowly. It
destroyed every image I had of major league ball players growing up in
the 50's in Ohio. It was hard for me to develop any empathy for
Henry Wiggen or to figure out the point of the story. The
highlights for me were the descriptions of the games they played.
Sorry, Rob, but I would have to give it a C.
Regards,
Jack
|
|
"If I die in a Combat Zone
Nine of us
vets humped SE toward Parkland Circle to
gather once more around the old
solar panels and share near forgotten memories. We spoke of
Worthington, MN and the slaughtering of turkeys and hogs. We
spoke of O'Brien's formative years at Macalester College in
St. Paul, MN. We noted the author was perhaps a unique Viet Nam
vet, returning in 1968 to acquire a Poli Sci degree at Harvard.
We mentioned how Alex Burnham writes of only three soldier
writers: Ernest Hemingway, James Solter, and Tim O'Brien. Dave spoke
of O'Brien's "Tomcat
in Love" as one of the funniest books he has read,
and far from Viet Nam. And we spoke of how war is
dehumanizing and we spoke of the impact of The Things They Carried:Box me up and send me home." |
| Rob:
The book was very good at drawing out emotions - it was
gut-wrenching at times. Thus it was good to learn that this book
is assigned to high school English students to learn of writing and of
VietNam. The story that was too much for me was Mary Anne - this
came across as "Gidget Does VietNam."
If this was supposed to be Rat Kiley's dream, OK. For emotional
impact, for use of language, I give the book B+ Dave: I found the book very powerful. I have no military background, no personal perspective as to what went on in VietNam other than as a professor at a college where kids struggled with the concept of being drafted for service. I found this book to be an eye-opener of what war was like for the grunts. This brought home for me the horror of war. A- Tom: I liked the book a lot. Lots of different ways it will impact the reader. I read it like a memoir - maybe it happened or maybe not, but these incidents happened regardless. The only people I have sympathy for are the grunts. Not those of us back in safety of our home country. You send somebody out to fight, perhaps die in a war and then to expect them to moderate their behavior in that environment is unrealistic. I could not have survived in that environment. I thought O'Brien was a great story teller. A- Jack: I found it powerful. I had to sit quietly for awhile after reading each story, could not proceed directly on to the next. The beauty of the book is that it seemed to see-saw between raw passion and cold objectivity. Heart wrenching: A Ken: I thought it a fascinatingly well written book. Gave picture of what would happen to me without my deferrals. To me, it brought out the futility of war - nothing is really resolved, nothing ever happens except Death and Destruction. A Ron: I thought it was well written. Reminds me of my Bible Class instructor's description: "It's all true and some of it actually happened." I think that was the case here - The author wants to tell you a story to make you feel how he actually felt - to do that, he had to tell a different story from what actually happened. I would recommend it to someone interested in VietNam: A Joel: Contrast this book with "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" - the American experience in VietNam. One has a hard time coping with the intensity of these experiences . The author mentions the tunnel rat with a flashlight in one hand, a 45 in the other. Scared you, and described the futility of it. The Fog of War is another theme - no one knew what the outcome would be, or what was happening. I've worked on a study of Agent Orange - after a while you realize there are no clean parameters, it was just dumped everywhere so any participant may have been exposed to some degree. Here we have 18 year-old kids taken out of their home environment and dropped into a war zone. I gave the book an A. Mike: I could not consider this book as a novel - more of a series of short stories pieced together with some repeating dialogue and repeating characters. Most of these stories were published earlier as individual efforts. The two stories I liked the best: The Sweetheart of Song Tra Bong (story of Mary Anne and the Greenies) and On the Rainy River (story of the old man Elroy and The Trip (almost) to Canada). Somewhat irritating to repeat the themes, e.g., “Now I’m 43 years old.” Another example was Ted Lavender's refrain: “How’s the war today?” “Mellow, man. We got us a mellow war today.” All Right already. Interesting read at times, and I find myself conflicted as to whether or not I would recommend. You do remember the things that were traumatic to Tim O’Brien (if they really occurred) like picking Kurt Lemon’s body parts out of the lemon tree. B. Keith: Rhyming review here. A- |
| Seven mysterious travelers (A. - G.)
arrived in the small town of Placitas late at night to learn that
Kafka’s father was a "large, overbearing man" – didn’t all of our
fathers appear that way? Both of his parents worked 12 hours per
day.
Albert Einstein returned a loan of "The Castle" to say,
"couldn’t read it it for its perversity. The human mind isn’t
complicated enough. " Kafka himself had several interesting quotations
attributed to him: "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only
the slime of a new bureaucracy." ""Everything you say is boring
and incomprehensible," she said, "but that alone doesn't make it true."
We learned that The
Castle is not a plot but a
situation. We learned (from Wikipedia) a new word: "Distopian" vice
Utopian. A world of chaos and bureaucratic rules. We learned that "The
Prisoner" (the excellent 1967 TV series created by and starring
Patrick McGoohan) was
Kafaesque, and only lasted one season [McGoohan originally intended to
shoot just seven episodes. The channel wanted a full series of 26 to
sell it to CBS, and they compromised on 17.]. And finally, we learned
that Das
Schlass (The Castle) can also mean The Lock. Did K. invent the
cover story that he had been sent for by the Castle as The Surveyor?
Did K. actually have a family or was that part of his cover
story? Tom reminds us from near the bottom of page 5, very first
chapter, K. says: "Anybody traveling as far from his wife and child as I am..." Was that true? False? Kafka or not, it appeared we didn't all trust this guy K. - Pipi and the Chambermaids we could live with - beyond that, the strangers each provided their opinions: |
|
Tom: Mike challenged me to explain why I liked this book. I’m at a loss to do so. I found it strangely fascinating, it carried me along, I read it in two days. I found it somewhat like the HBO Series, "John from Cincinnati." I loved the dialogue, the clarity, the detail. Somehow I really enjoyed them. In Nabokov's "Lectures on Literature," he speaks of Kakfa and tells us although his book is strongly reminiscence of "The Trial," he never read German, and although he lived in Berlin for several years, did not read Kafka until translations became readily available. Nabokov marks Kafka’s style and clarity, that his writing contains no "poetic metaphors." Contrast in unity. I give it an A- Rob: I got tired of it. Not sure if it was Kafka’s fault or mine. Lots of details. Do I want to carry this book with me on a trip? So I started reading the first page and the last page of each chapter. This cut to the chase. The blurb on the dust jacket says this is "one of the great novels of the century." For me, it was not. C+ (the plus is for Kafka’s reputation). Mike: What he said. This was not one of Kafka’s novellas, however I was wishing it were so. I liked a few sequences in the book, but for me it was tedious. I definitely felt the dream-like quality of the writing, however this dream went on too long. Had a little (almost hidden) sex with K. and Frieda but almost no violence (just the swatting of the assistants). I felt K. was never a surveyor, he made up that story to get the officious subclerk off his back on his first night in town. I cannot see myself recommending to someone else that they read this book, however I am grateful to our host for having us read something by Kafka. C Joel: "John from Cincinnati" weirded me out like this. Sleep-like sequence (more than dream-like). I have undergone a few Kafaesque situations in this past week as I was renewing my Driver’s License, and was signed up for Jury Duty. I found some brilliant writing, mostly tedious. Felt like I was sitting on the steps of the Castle as I awaited jury duty selection. I want to say it was disturbing. I was interested in the letter he got praising him for survey work he never accomplished. My wife’s Jury duty went through something like this: my wife had influenza, but got "threatened" by the judge, then ended up with a certificate of thanks for "Grand Jury" duty. I give the book a C only because Kafka is so well thought of. Present company expected, I just say I use the same filing system as the Councilor in Chapter 5. Ron: On the plus side, I thought it was an interesting idea: to approach an authority which cannot be approached. Chapter 5 was interesting. Discourses I read were rambling, it was difficult to read (much different from "The DaVinci Code" I read this month). No progression of the plot. I’m sure it was an important book, but "Tedious" is the one word description I would use. I found myself saying, "I’m 66 years old, do I want to read this?" I give it a C. Now I have read a book by Kafka. Charlie: This book brings up the classic problem of the reader: genuflecting before this shrine of western culture and I just don’t get it. This is the first book of the LTBC that I didn’t finish. 316 pages of discussion of bureaucracy is too much. I give the book a C. (Charlie did read the play, which was 56 pages by Max Brod.] Ed Duff: I kind of agreed with what Tom said (I’m looking for a big piece of strudel). I liked the language, the dialogue, the description – but I didn’t get it – "black comedy" – if this was made to be read to an audience, individual parts and pieces that didn’t hang together. I studied German in High School, grammar, I’ll give it a B . Jack: Let me preface my comments by how I chose this book. Looking over the 100+ books read by the LTBC, I had seen that you had read two of Herman Hesse’s books, a compatriot of Kafka – and a couple of other German books (The Reader by Bernard Schlenk). I must mention that this is my 3rd or 4th reading of the book – I agree with Nabokov that books take on more meanings in subsequent readings. The clarity of the language in describing ambiguous situations appeals to me, intrigues me. I approach not as a religious interpretation, but as a novel, as a work of art. For me, dealing well with ambiguity is not a bad thing. In my life, decisions are faced with ambiguity. So I take some comfort that others have struggled with such. I give it an A-, the minus because Kafka didn’t finish it (like an Incomplete). |
|
And from the peasants in the village: Hola Biblios...sorry, must defer tonites Castle parley..,Kafka crammed 125 page novella into 400 + .. not plot, but dark, saturnine "situation"..in which characters assumed guilty, with innocence undefined...writing rambling and discursive..unlike Schubert's Unfinished Symphony or Mozart's Requiem , Kafka/ Brod should have left this Castle unfinished..or greatly diminished...grade- C...kg ____________________ Gentlemen of the LTBC: I just found out a day ago that my wife of 48 years has planned a “surprise” birthday party for me on Thursday evening, Aug. 30, which is the 71st anniversary of my natal day. It would be most impolitic for me to miss this event, and therefore I must excuse myself from the club gathering at the Ferrells’ next Thursday. I deeply regret having to make this choice, inasmuch as I have dutifully plowed through Herr Kafka’s paranoia almost to the end, and would be much interested in the discussion of this enigmatic work. I offer my apologies to K. and ask that you also deliver them to Klamm, with my profound and humble regrets. After much reflection and strong drink I have decided to award the grade of C+ to the "Castle." I could discern neither plot nor message. The characters are two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The writing does not exhibit "brevity, simplicity, and clarity", which, according to my 12th grade composition teacher (some 53 years ago) are the hallmarks of good prose. If this were not a piece of classic literature according to experts far wiser than I, I would give it a really scathing review and corresponding low grade. As is, a Charlie Plus is the best I can do. Call me a literal-minded blockhead if you wish. Dave S. |
| On
Thursday, nine would-be weekend adventurers wandered northward into the
wilds of Sandia Heights to learn of a poet's first novel and a movie
proved faithful to the book. James Dickey was born in 1926 in
Buckhead, GA and died in 1999 at age 73. The 2nd son of lawyer
Eugene Dickey, James excelled in football and track and was an expert
archer (aha!).
He spent some time in the US Army Air Corps as a cook and then entered
Vanderbilt Univ where he took his poetry seriously. He earned an
MA in 1960 and published his first book which won an award in
1966. In 1968 he was the Poet-in-Residence at Univ of South
Carolina. In 1970 he published Deliverance
and Last Thursday he earned
the following aclaim: |
| Ron:
I thought it was a good story, engaging. I give him an A for the
story but some of his writing was not as good as the story line.
I liked that he left open the idea that the guy that Ed killed might
not be the right guy. A for story, B- for writing, results in a B+. But
I would recommend the book. Rob: I thought it was a good read, even though I had seen the movie. It deserves to be on the top 100 list (which it is). Dickey's writing is pretty gripping - the rape scene actually hurt to read it. Some of his poetic descriptions were carried away, however I liked the unspoken interaction between the four guys, most of whom wanted to be macho like Lewis. A- Tom: I have nothing to add to the two previous reviews - a great story, a page turner. I think it added to the mental pictures I had from the movie. I occasionally had some problems with his poeticisims. The story carried the writing. A- Jack: I found it suspenseful and entertaining. A bit of it was uneventful (like the section on Drew's wife). Depressing: B+ I would recommend the book. Mike: Forty years ago an Air Force buddy gave me two books and insisted I read them both. One was Vandenburg by Oliver Lange (set in New Mexico), and one was Deliverance. I thought both were outstanding, some of the best stuff I had ever read. This gave me the opportunity to read the book before I ever saw the movie - once you see the movie, it is near impossible to separate the character actors from the book description. My first read I thought the poetic writing was outstanding - this time around some of it seemed forced, and some sections (such as Ed's job as a graphic artist) seemed extended - let's get on with the story! And why couldn't Lewis give the other three a 5 minute lesson in how to paddle a canoe? Easy to do! A- Keith: Everybody is waxing poetic, so I have a Limerick review: Shoulda called this The River Runs Red
An incredulous story - great action but doesn't hold together.
The river climb and the coppers' analysis had serious holes.
Grade: B--
Two murders, in total three dead. Yet the Georgia Blues Blew off beaucoup clues Thus forensics fell flat on its head. Dave: I had a problem with believability of the whole thing. Yet the story drew you along like the current of the river. I couldn't accept the credulity of getting beyond the first rapids with equipment and bows and arrows. Engaging story. B Joel: For the most part, it was a ripping good yarn. I think the guy at the top of the hill was the right guy - no one else would be looking down at the river if they were out hunting. The author was trying to emphasize the banality of Ed's life. Good example of how not to go on a rafting trip - not enough beer. A- Charlie: Page turners are inplausible by their nature. The author set out to make it a page turner (good entertainer). The writing was frosting on the cake. A Ken: Charlie said exactly what I would say - a page turner, interesting, so much beautiful prose, better than the movie because you can see the characters' thought processes. I give it an A. |
|
The 10 friends of Joel Nash met at the Delwood railroad station at 7:14 pm to look into Higgin's trunk and select a few facts. We noted that Higgins had been married twice; wrote for the Wall Street Journal, and had worked as anti-organized crime proscecutor. In 1973 he entered the Law. When he died in 1999, he had written more than 30 books. He was known as a stylist for his dialogue. He was a "17 year overnight success" (wrote many novels which he destroyed). Higgins said, "If you do not seek to publish what you have written, then you are not a writer and never will be." He destroyed 14 "books" before publishing Eddie Coyle.
Charlie: I enjoyed this book - it was a fun read - written for entertainment, so it makes it difficult as to how to judge this book. I enjoyed his economy of words - there was no big middle section, the book was the right length. The author inferred a great deal using dialog without narration. I enjoyed his descriptions of the middle subclass. Real conversations would be much longer. Well written in context. A- Ken: About six months ago, I get a strange e-mail from Joel, just to me. He says, "the news/FBI - just like The End of Day." What the heck? Turns out in the last book exchange, Joel must have given me The End of Day. So I read it - Higgins' last book, 388 pages, c. 1999, 190 pages extraneous, very similar story. Bad guys hooking up with the FBI, giving them information. I gave End a B, loaded with excessive description, I liked Eddie Coyle better: B+ Ron: I agree with Charlie's comments. I enjoyed the book but it was not an A level book. It was a good B level book, hard to recommend to a Women's Book Club. I'll give it a B+. Good for what it was. Keith (by proxy): Didn't care for it much. B- Mike: Well written as a page-turner, kept me interested throughout. This is the kind of book that Ben Smith would have taken on his airplane ride to London with his grandson. 180 pages was just right for this story. No added padding in middle like so many books written today. As a 1972 product, I found that the book was indeed a forerunner of The Sopranos series - hard hitting, tough language, tough life, not much respect for women [Higgins makes note of this through Wanda: "My kid brother talks about his goddamned Mustang the same way you talk about me."], and characters that are anti-heroes - was this ahead of its time? (compare Clint Eastwood in spaghetti westerns). Two fatal flaws: 1) Jackie Brown would never have told Eddie Coyle the detail that allowed Jackie to be captured, and 2) because of the heat after the shooting, one would think that the bank robbers would split up, call it a day, never band together for another attempted bank robbery. In summary, Good yarn, not great writing, Grade: B- but I give it a B for being so far ahead of its time vs. other products of the 1970s. Don: I'm always intrigued with what books we get to read. I've read more different kinds of books since I've joined this group and I've really enjoyed the glimpse into different styles. This was the perfect airliner book - read it in 2 hours, 20 minutes. We don't have a criterion for the type font. I can't give it a low grade as it was so enjoyable. Can't give it a high grade as it didn't move me. Like it's font size: it was in the middle. Dilemma: b (small type) - but no negative feelings. Dave: This is like grading term papers. My opinion largely reflects what's been said. Enjoyed it once I got into it. Greatly enjoyed the read - the book moved along briskly. Described a slice of society I know nothing about. Not great literature but it broke new ground. I liked that the cops didn't come off as heroes with great glory. They are involved in the same grimy world as the criminals. I give it a B+ Tom: Nobody had used the phrase "a little gem." On the way over I made the observation that I can't remember another book without a "disjointed" third person narrator. I found myself not rooting for someone. Eddie Coyle got killed, yet I never felt he couldn't make it. I was totally removed, as a dispassionate third person. A- Jack: I thoroughly enjoyed it. The most entertaining book I've read this year. I admired Higgens' ability to create a page-turner. I give it an A- Joel: (quote from Wikipedia by Norman Mailer). I never felt it was great literature. I wanted something not long and complex, entertaining to read. I think a lot of it was the phrases, e.g., "It's an ill wind that doesn't blow." and "he shows up as often as Santa Claus." Reasonable contract. It was his use of dialog that I liked the most. A- |
| Eleven former executives of Global Pork Rind who had
matriculated Cowboy College by age 16 met at corporate
headquarters in Placitas to discuss the aftermath of the situation in
the Panhandle. We had read Proulx previously
[May 2001], but had only dropped the
X before. Now we drop half the name and pronounce it as
PRU. Writing
previously as E. A. Proulx and Edna Annie Proulx, Annie was born in
1935 in Connecticut and graduated high school in Portland, ME. She left
Colby College for unspecified reasons and later received her BA in
History in 1969. She first worked as a journalist and her first
published story was Sci Fi. We learned she wrote the short story
"Brokeback Mountain" and that
her "The Half Skinned Deer"
has been
called by John Updike "one of
the best half dozen short stories of the
20th Century." The LTBC noted her talent for short stories:
Jack: I found it very entertaining and to a certain extent educational. It brought back memories of my bike ride across Nebraska -- stopping at cafes, talking to cowboys, meeting characters as unique as those from Woolybucket. The plot was loose but the collection of stories saved it: B+ Ken: This was the coming of age of a 25 year old, not knowing what he wanted to do with his career and his life. I found the characters enjoyable. I found the book disjointed at times but it kept my interest. Some of the descriptions were excellent: "clouds with bulging gray udders" (page 227). First rate descriptive writing. The far-fetched ending bothered me. The book had pluses and minus: B+ Joel: I knew a lot of people in this book or have treated them as patients. I've stayed in places like Guymon, OK. Driven along those roads and seen tornadoes off to the East. It is rough trying to live out there. A lot of the book came across as authentic, perhaps amplified over what one would see. I give it a B+, not great literature but a lot of fun. Keith: This opus was a loosely knit ensemble of short stories. Reminds me of the 20 foot woman - looks great from 20 feet away, but as you get closer, not so great. A tepid tale, a 350 page tome that could have been enemaized down to 200 pages. B-- Charlie: I really liked it - for its strengths, makes me forget about its weaknesses. Random stories woven loosely. Reminded me of Larry McMurtry and his stories of Texas; also reminded me of a Robert Altman movie with all these things going on in every direction. I give it an A. Ron: My reaction to the book was one of pleasure. I thought it was going to be tales of the Good Ol' Boys in the Panhandle. I enjoyed the prose. (My wife Grace is a nurse. One day the doctor she was accompanying asked this good ol' boy from New Mexico: "Does your penus burn when your urinate?" "What?" "Does your penus burn?" "Well, I don't know - I never tried to light it." [Doctor to nurse:] "I'm going to have to find another way to ask this question!" Story #2: Nurse: "I want to tell the doctor that you drank all of your Go-Litely." Good Ol' Boy: "Well, then, you're goin to hell, 'cause I ain't drinking no more!") If not charming, then fascinating collection of stories. All fiction distorts in some way - this book documents a way of life. I'll give it a B+ Mike: I have the feeling Annie Proulx began a project (much like Bob Dollar) which proved too big and too difficult for her. A promising start, some interesting characters, and then - whamo! Stuff in all the Panhandle stories you can come up with! Annie Proulx demonstrated the attributes of a lazy writer in this book - she may have done a great deal of research, but she didn't spend enough time pulling the story together. Instead, she filled the book with side stories. She was also lazy with her dialect of the panhandle Texans: using "awl" for oil, but not for "oilman" - and used the "a" for "of" - but not much more. At times, it appeared PETA was giving advice on what to write about the treatment of animals raised for slaughter. The author did try to pull some of it together at the end (the handsome cowpoke Ruby Loving showed up later as a lounge singer) but I felt like I was reading "Florence of Arabia" at the end - but without the exploding camel and the well-written wrapup. The end of this book, with Tazzy shooting all the "bad" characters, was just too much. This sadly turned out to be a B book. Don: This book hooked me into a fantasy trip. (Like a road trip on the back roads to my Wisconsin cabin). I wanted to give it an A, but the ending pushed it to A- Rob: I started off expecting to like this - I liked Shipping News I liked Chapter 1. I like small town life, stopping in cafes with photographs of the local cheerleaders and football players on the walls. Both my parents came from just across the border from the Texas panhandle - there is a heroic story out there. These are the people who stuck it out during the Dust Bowl - perhaps they were not industrious enough to leave, but for whatever reason, they stuck it out. I expected this book to treat these people with respect. But from the bedwetting sheriff to Francis Scott Keister, Proulx had an outsider's view: overdone, stretching: The book is a put-down of panhandle people, but moreover it's a heavy-handed, mostly unfunny putdown. From what we heard about Proulx's personality, I think her editor(s) must have been afraid to question such weird stuff as "lips the color of genitals." I give it a C- Tom: It's all been said. I fall into the B- camp. I thought the plot was beyond anemic - it was distracting. I thought there was the potential, the seed of a good story: Bob Dollar's family history, his uncle, his friends - but it turned into a collection of short stories. B- Dave: I read this first when it was first published. My opinion went down on my second reading. It really isn't a novel. The Bob Dollar "plot" was very weak. The last 50 pages (with the rodeo description) weren't necessary, and did not bring it together in a meaningful sense. On the other hand, it provided many truths. When I was growing up, we would go out in the country to visit family. I worked on a farm during the summer and experienced life in rural America. Later I worked on projects about hog farm. I thought she did a good job of describing the threats people feel from the outside. - like the abortion stories, I could see people exchanging those stories, as far fetched as they were. The high point of the book was capturing the rural thinking - a good read. A- |
|
Eleven devils seeking to take away Ahmad's god made a pilgrimage to the 14th Street mosque, perhaps for the final time. They knew that the covenants of their gathering were the Right Path for does not the Qur'an state in the second sura, Separate yourselves from women and approach them not until they be cleansed. Yet the women had prepared thereunto a feast meant for great multitudes. Though it lacked lentils and fava beans, hummus and halvah, falafel and couscous and tabouli, did it not provide broccoli and young carrots, even unto brownies and powdered sugar almonds? Indeed, the devils learned that the Master was himself a critic who attended the holy Harvard and ventured even unto Oxford. The devils spoke: Dave: I enjoyed this book - I had some problems with plot contrivance, but I liked the emphasis on a problem that is with us in today's world. I learned how a terrorist might develop and function. A- Rob: I really admire Updike's writing - from the first chapter I heard the ticking of a bomb in the background. I liked the character development. I liked the description of New Jersey, with a lake of rubble near the high school. I can empathize with the view that our culture appears disgusting with baggy pants, etc. we infidels don't deserve what we have. As for the last chapter, I couldn't believe it when the bomb didn't go off - I went back and read it again. I can only conclude that Ahmad was convinced to choose life over destruction. Perhaps Ahmad's next career is to bring this message to other would-be terrorists. The book was well-written (up until the last chapter). B+ Ron B: I thought it was a well written book. The end was not satisfying. The Motivation for Ahmad to become a terrorist was a little weak. (He was a U.S. citizen who didn't adopt the outside world as his home country.) Not clear - either an A- or B+. The writing puts it at an A-. Don T: I'd give it an A- I have a slightly different view from the other reviewers - the one similarity I have was with the ending. I admire his phrases. How do people do this? They see the world differently. I really enjoyed the writing (an A). His cynicism was controlled. It is so much easier to be clever when cynical rather than uplifting. Updike's description of Ted Williams last baseball game was all uplifting and it moved me to tears. A lot of this was downtaking. A- Ken: I actually agree with many of the comments already made. The book was well-written, the dialogue was great, the characters well developed. Some of the detailed parts of the story were contrived, but some truth throughout. B+ Mike: Some of the details were a little silly, as in Ahmad's mother listing for Jack Levy that Ahmad had to check the engine oil, the transmission oil, the brake fluid, etc., etc. No kidding! Plot contrivance was distracting to me several times, perhaps no more so than when the prostitute that Charlie lined up for Ahmad to meet upstairs at the furniture warehouse was none other than Joryleen, his interest from high school. I enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to others - I learned a lot about the study of the Qur'an and I appreciated seeing the American culture from a Muslim view. B+ Joel: I had never read any Updike before. It was certainly enjoyable - a master writer. I was bothered by the plot and by the ending. I am in basic agreement with the other reviewers. B+ Tom: I also wept when I read the Ted Williams description. Updike is beyond worrying about writing. He could put together a 200 page book that is next to perfect, but he doesn't worry about it. His treatment of sex is so unromantic, so clinical it is almost like viewing it in a doctor's office. Very uniform treatment of sex throughout all his writing. Rabbit, Run is the best of his novels. This is a B+ Ed: I liked this book, probably a B+ I see as a moral a kind of "How to become a terrorist." The Right Path was chosen - why? Maybe because of the influence of people in Ahmad's life like Jack Levy. He has a pessimistic view of all bad guys that do bad things. Ahmad was guided down that path but detoured at the end. B+ Small criticism of our host: my friend's book club back east invited John Updike to attend their meeting - and he did! Keith: I will offer a totally different insight. I believe this book was a monologue by Updike. Jack Levy was Updike, and Ahmad is who Updike would like to be. The book shows Updike's prejudice against black people and fat people. The Updike Alter-Ego and Ego appear together in the truck at the end of the book and discuss their/his views of life and death. I believe any good terrorist would blow up the tunnel given this scenario. We learned absolutely nothing about terrorism. I give it a C+ Slightly north of palaver. Charlie: I don't have much to add. I give it an A- A page turner at the end. I can forgive a lot for the great writing. From the devils at large: Jack: I am a big fan of John Updike, so needless to say I thoroughly enjoyed your selection of his most recent novel, Terrorist. I have been reading Updike's work since the 60's and have been fascinated by his interest in the terrors of faith, sex and marriage -- all of which appear again in Terrorist. Even though Updike is about 8 years older than I am, I see him as a contemporary whom I have aged with over the past 40 plus years. I feel an affinity to him and the issues he struggles with. The subject matter of this novel is timely, the prose is first rate, and the issues complex and thought provoking. I give it an "A". |