I really enjoy the politics in this book. There is a lot more going on than just an extension of L. Frank Baum's original Oz.

A great companion to this read:
The Bitch Is Back: Wicked Women in Literature by LiSarah Appleton Aguiar

also, read up on Jung.

good stuff

Keywords:
the absurd
death

i heart Munro

Interesting read, so far. But I've been reading it since I picked it up at the Coop last Spring so it's one of those that can be put down and revisited a few times. I'd still recommend it.

I was really looking forward to reading this book, but my excitement didn't last beyond page 10. This was a very dry and difficult read. I found it slow-going and scattered at times. However, I kept on pushing through, hoping I'd fall upon a gem or two. But even the few fun facts I read were not enough to save the book for me.

Once I finished I immediately wished I was the type of reader who flips to the last page of the book and reads it before deciding to read the complete book. If I was that type of reader I would have known how self-indulgent Manguel's writing tends to be. The last two sentences of his book read: "Consolation, perhaps. Perhaps consolation." ::rolls eyes:: Maybe it's his tone throughout the book; I'm not sure. But his prose caused me to roll my eyes more than once.

I'm not doubting that the man is an intellectual; he is that. But I do think he takes himself a bit too seriously. I mean come on. Who includes a list of his favorite non-canonical books at the end of his own book? Really? I hope that was the suggestion of the publisher.

I had high hopes for this one. Shteyngart was so engaging at his reading at Brattle Theater in Harvard Square. I couldn't wait to read this after that night. I often felt like I was reading a dirty book, and I was just expecting something "smarter," I guess.

Fun Summer Read. Interesting experiment with form. posed some challenges and provided some happy loop-holes. Neat how Nicholls managed to create a connection between the characters and the reader even though we only got a snippet of one day a year across 20 years or so. I do admit that I'm with the overwhelming grumgling mass that is touchy about the ending. The whole St. Swithin's day, the rain, and the melodrama. blah-di-blah.

It isn't that the writing was excellent in this one. I just really enjoyed the topic. Ever since high school, I desperately wanted to do something along these lines... volunteer in a juvenile hall. I still want to work with kids and teach them how to use writing as a survival tool. Anyone know of an opportunity like this on the South Shore of MA? Let me know.

Bought this for my niece and then I started reading it myself, go figure.

Enjoyable. Loved the illustrations, and the storyline moved along. But this read more like a very familiar mashup of some of my favorite childhood stories rather than its own standout. As I was reading, I was thinking of Witch and the Wardrobe (without the symbolism), Robin Hood, Brer Rabbit and so on.

Reasons this book is easily spotted as a hipster-magnet, or at least a book born of two hipsters:
1) It's set in Portland.
2) The main character, Prue, is a preteen, but she knows how to change her own bicycle wheel. Psssshhh.
3) The language is often too large for the subject
4) The adjective I'd use to describe the book = whimsical

I feel bad writing it, but when I think of this book, "cute" comes to mind. Probably not the best compliment. I don't think this would have made it without the illustrations by Meloy's wife, Carson Ellis. Well done, Ellis. If I was OK with defacing books (which sadly, I'm not), I would tear out a few of the plates and frame them.

PS. Did anyone else notice all of the typos? I could definately tell where the publisher was skimping on costs. Yikes.

Strong use of witholding information from the reader. Carried suspense throughout. Use of stream of consciousness worked in favor of theme. Distinct narrative voice. Strong character-building. A tear-jerker. A frighteninly realistic view of science-to-come. Amazing how the book involves itself with greater questions of humanity, about how we fit into the world around us, and how we relate to others, even though it isn't based on a human, but on a clone. If that makes sense.

2012: Re-read for book club. Fell in love with it again. So much nostalgia and somehow I realized this really is one of those novels that describes Englishness, just in a different way than Remains of the Day did.

Good stuff.

Love Atwood, but couldn't make it through this one.

good stuff

I really enjoyed this book. It was an easy read, but really enjoyable. At times I did feel as if the content was a bit young as the main characters are teens, but the spackling of adult characters throughout helped keeping me from falling into a nostalgic choma. I love how Gibson doesn't take herself too seriously, but manages to poke a little fun at bibliophiles, artsy people, and those who consider themselves "high class" or "low class."

Overall, I adored the characters she created and her ability to keep the story moving. Fun stuff.

ANother book with lots of hype. The New York Book Bench had such great things to say. I got my hopes up and they were trampled. Egan is one of the many contemporary authors who provides blips of characters and stories, threading their lives together under one umbrella --for her, music--, and leaving the reader attempting to bind everything together. There's a lot to be said about the style and I'm very much interested in what these types of novels are "saying" about our literary moment, but for the most part, I found this to be something I wouldn't recommend to others.

I can't remember what class I read this for. Loved the book, though. I need to read more Atwood.

"And didn't it always look like that--body parts not quite lining up the way you wanted them to, all of it a little bit off, as if the world itself were an animated sequence of longing and envy and self-hatred and grandiosity and failure and success, a strange and endless cartoon loop that you couldn't stop watching, because, despite all you knew by now, it was still so interesting."

Oof, Wolitzer always gets to me.

The below is haunting me right now...
"Across the table at the second of the two dinners that year, in the low light of the candles, Ethan said something to Jules that she didn't hear. She put her hand to her ear, but at that moment Dennis put his own hand on top of Jules's other hand, and each of them returned to the relevant partner."

This one comes from the author of Election and Little Children. Yeah, those movies you sort of forgot about. After listening to an NPR interview with Perrotta, I ran out and bought the book despite it being hardcover. He came off so intelligent and likeable on the radio, and his ideas were so provoking, I couldn't help being drawn to the book. While sometimes I found his writing a bit colloquial, I really enjoyed this novel and hated to see it end. The book takes place after a Rapture-like event, but it isn't about the rapture at all. Sorry. It's much more focused on what happens after these huge events - who is left behind and how do they deal? The characters in The Leftovers go about searching for meaning in their lives. Really intriguing.
Apparently this is up for development as an HBO series, so I'm hopeful I get to see more of this.

The Book Bench just posted an interview with Perrotta. It's worth a read. Check it out here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/09/the-exchange-tom-perrotta-1....

Extremely quotable. A booklover's mystery. yum.

I will try to post a review later; however, if you are interested in Nicole Krauss and her husband, Jonathan Safron Foer, check out these links:
[http//www.yankeepotroast.org/archives/2005/06/correspondence.html]

[http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1484082,00.html#article_continue]

[http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1488795,00.html#article_continue]

...

I understand the literary community's preoccupation with the similarities between JSF and Nicole's writing, but I just look at it as two people who live together, both write and share their writing with eachother. However, I think that Nicole may be the better writer. Sorry, JSF.

I really enjoy Moore's short stories. She's a beautiful writer. Apperently this was her first publication and she was in her 20's when it pub'd! EEk. Favorite stories from this one include: "How to Be an Other Woman," "What is Seized," "How," and "Go Like This." Her use of the second person is brilliant in "How to Be an Other Woman."

Read this in Gothic Lit. Loved it.
A good companion to this is Gothic and Gender: An Introduction by Donna Heiland



Just re-read it in 2011. Second time around was so much fun, except for when I was in public. I hated hiding the cover from poeple -I didn't want them to think I was reading a trashy mass market romance. Damn this trim size!

After reading The Leftovers, I wanted to read this one by Perrotta as well. The struggle surrounding religion is so interesting to me, I feel like I could never get sick of reading these types of books. I was disappointed with this one though. At times it felt like you could tell a male was writing Ruth's character. And I thought the whole naming thing was a bit overkill - Ruth from the book of Ruth. Somehow now that we've seen this done so many times before I find it weird that authors do it now. Also, it felt like the book was swaying in a certain way, labeling Ruth as the woman in need of redemption and a man to marry despite the fact that she's the one who doesn't believe in a being that created women as an afterthought.
I remember this book having a lot of hype surrounding it when it was first published, but I don't think it lives up to that. Ultimately, I think the Perrotta's argument felt limited or like it was trying to break out beyond somewhere he wouldn't let it go. It felt forced and inorganic, bumping characters about in this little cube. The Leftovers seemed to do a much better job of moving beyond a wall. Not they are about the same subject, but that he used religion as a jumping off point. I think that worked better for him. shrug. Honestly, this one just took me a long time to read because I kept getting bored. If you're going to read Perrotta, I would suggest the Leftovers, not The Abstinence Teacher.

To come.

Towards the end, this one took a turn I wasn't expecting, but overall an interesting, if only a bit sensational, read.

.
Did anyone else near keel over when Derrida and Bloom hit on Karen? No? Just me? If Derrida asked anyone out I'm sure he did it while talking in circles. And Bloom? Well i think Danielewski nailed that one on the head. Sure of it.

The best thing about this book is that You don't have to know semiotics to enjoy this. You don't really need to "get" all the jokes (and honestly, he's poking fun much of the time). But you can still see what he is doing with the text. You can experience it.

I'm afraid certain people might get angry at my comparing Danielewski to Burgess, especially Burgess himself, but I felt like reading House of Leaves was a similar experience to reading Clockwork Orange because you are challenged to learn how to read the book. You have to relearn to read and so you're asked to be fully present as reader. For Burgess this was through language but for Danielewski it's through the text design.

I loved how I was forced to find my way through the pages of the story much as the explorers had to find their way through the house. At times i felt lost and i felt Danielewski controlling my every move. If you don't play his game you might miss out or become even more lost. And no, I didn't see it as a gimmick. It didn't get old. Through its refusal to revert to a standard format, the book feels like this laborious love story for semiotics. With its whole being, the book asks you to forget your preconceptions of how a novel, especially a horror novel, should appear. show more There's no concrete definitions here, no hegemony, no single truth.

From the very start with Truant's focus on authenticity and his obsession with translating, the message is delivered. Truant wants to contain and desperately wants to know the truth about this work. He wants to change words as he sees fit, he wants to translate all, he wants to redirect the story. And he wishes that he knew the author's real name and that Zampano, as he surrenders to calling him, wrote accurate footnotes. What is the point after all of fabricating footnotes? Something that is widely used in academia to authenticate, and give authority, guide to truth. I don't know why but while it seems to poke fun at all of the sedentary academics fussing about with their APA and Chicago styling, it also seems to point to something larger. Zampano's refusal to play by the rules academia set forth turns Truant's idea of footnotes on its head. Like everything else, this can't be trusted. Even the fact that Zampano is blind, and cannot see for himself or write for himself all the time plays into this question of accuracy, authenticity and truth. And in that vein, don't get me started on the unreliable narrator bit or the different narratives that could in fact be the same (is Johnny all of these people? Is the whole darn book exhibiting his loss of control and of his own mind?). I could go on and on.

The Bcc says it all for me: "a semiotician's love story." It took me so long to grasp the basics of semiotics. And I still barely grasp them. If only someone would have dropped this in front of me at the time in my life when i first started reading Barthes and Derrida. The house is language. The word and object not at all what it seems. No one larger truth or hegemonic structure to rely on. It even defies math when the inside and outside measurements do not add up. Like language, the house cannot be contained and those inhabiting the house must be careful or it will contain them.

The book itself engages in play as Derrida defines it. There is no center; the center is constantly moving. There's absence an there is presence. It is sort of hurting my head to think of all of this again. I feel like I'm going in circles.

I'm sorry. This was just all to say: I bought it. I drank the kool-aid. show less

The opening page had me. This was my first Wolitzer, but definitely not my last. She has a similar style to Lorrie Moore, whom I admire. Wolitzer focuses in on the little things in such a poignant way. I wish I could have read this one in a class. Lots to be hashed out and discussed.

Am I the only one who doesn't really care for this book? So far, I'm not a huge fan, but I'm only 300 pages in. The violence is a bit much for me. Also, I find Salander's character annoying. She seems too pathetic, even despite her handywork with a tattoo kneedle.

I'm not sure I like the way Larsson provides information in big gulps, as if he wants the reader to be aware he did his research so he puts it in in huge chunks. It's less elegant than I'd like.

I'm also not a fan of how he seems to plug certain technology, like the ibook and software programs (like the data program he uses to keep the family tree straight). It's odd, but I feel like I'm reading an advertisement from time to time.

With all of that said, I do think the plot is interesting. I want to know what happened to Harriet and such, so I'm dragging myself on through this, even though it doesn't seem like it moves as fast as others say it does.

::shrug::

I had read about this one often since there was a lot of hype surrounding its release but I'd dismissed it since the organizing principle is baseball and I'm not really a team sports kind of person. However my book club chose this as its next read so I went to the library, disgruntled I might add, and picked the hefty 500-something pager up. I was surprised to find that the author is actually one of the founders of n 1 since I didn't recall that from all the whisperings I'd heard previously. That gave it a bit more weight for me as I dug into the first few pages. This isn't one of those grab-you-at-the-first-page-and-don't-let-go kinds of reads but I'm really enjoying the interwoven stories thus far. I'm only on page 70 but i think this one may live up to the hype.

UPDATE: Live up to the hype it did. I became so invested in the characters and the plot flowed so quickly that this didn't feel like a 500 pager. The allusions were fun though sometimes a bit overbearing. Starbuck/Starblind, Skrimshaw/Skrimshander, and then there's Pella for the city that fell to an earthquake and then was rebuilt in the same place. Really? Come on.

I won't make a huge list of allusions, but just a few things I don't want to forget. That "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" business right after Henry really kills his career was interesting. Made me go back to my Macbeth and reread the soliloquy again. The fact that the words came from Henry's teammates' mouths and not his own made me tilt my show more head though. I'm thinking it over as I type. Yeup. I don't know; I liked this. And then there's the "Do I dare eat a peach" moment right before this when Henry does dare. I mean, if he actually takes action when for so long inaction is what his issue has been, perhaps we should be proud?

Mike Schwartz feels a lot like Ahab with his insane obsession with Henry becoming a pro ballplayer. He's so obsessed in fact, that this is what ruins his own important future plans. His obsession actually tears his life apart. Ring a bell? Remember Ahab falling on his own "sword" (harpoon, whatever) because of his obsession with a certain whale? Ah yeah. And then there's Henry Skrimshander who I can see as this piece of perfect whale bone that needs to be carved, by Schwartz, into a beautiful piece of art = scrimshaw, or ya know, pro ball player.

And the team of Harpooners from Westish college are a convincing group to parallel the Pequod's crew of sperm squeezers. Heterosexual norms seem to be suspended on the field, as they are during long landless bouts on the Pequod. Just saying. Sports teams are like brotherhoods and sisterhoods. They're closely knit groups with certain codes for on and off the field. I always found the butt slap on a football field to be peculiar for a bunch of bulky men who often flaunt models on their arms. What is the deal with this homoerotic move on the field? It's as if barriers are taken down in the sports world. Somehow this feels very similar to the brotherhood on-ship. And when you think of how often these teammates spend time together -- on the field, in the locker room, at practice, on the bus -- it comes together. They're in tight quarters much like that of a ship. And as onboard a ship set to sea for a length of time, this causes friction. Teammates aren't so far from mates on-ship, eh?

The Melville references really won me over. Especially with the framework of The Lee Shore I found myself really satisfied at the end, feeling like the characters had to royally screw up and go off on their own into a world of turmoil in order to find their way again. It was very much that idea of "that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore ... as in landlessness alone resides the highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as God -- so, better is it perish in that howling infinite, than be inglorious dashed upon the lee, even if that were safety!" Thank goodness for Harbach actually noting this chapter of Moby or I wouldn't have remembered where to find that. :) There's that whole piece about leaving comforts and law behind as well which really seems to speak to why these characters had to go so far off the deep end in order to find their paths again. This makes me want to run and read Moby Dick again, and all of it, not even skipping the whale anatomy chapters. Though I may rethink that last part in the daylight.

The landlessness also seems to strike me as important when thinking of Guert. Having been interested in women for his whole life, he suddenly finds himself in love with Owen. He explores a different sexual side and somehow this seems to fit that idea of landlessness, or a place without usual comforts and law (normative gender rules anyway, not to mention dictates of the college). Owen unmoors him, and Guert sets out on dangerous waters as he has an affair with a student, moving further from the shores he's known his whole life. And yes, I smiled as I typed "unmoors" just now, so what?

I found myself a bit peeved with Harbach for the treatment of the one and only female character but I'll leave it alone. I will leave it alone. I. will. leave. it. alone. What the heck, Harbach?! sigh. I'm going to have to let Pella's character float around in my mind for a few more days. I'm having a tough time with her. yeahhhhh. show less