More Serious Business

Two books about books in the most recent email from Yale University Press / Literature look super interesting: Why Translation Matters, by Edith Grossman, and A Reader on Reading, by Alberto Manguel.  I will need to check them both out at some point...

sad news

The library has recalled TWO books I was in the middle of & now I have to return both As If An Enemy's Country, by Richard Archer, and also The Secret History of the Mongol Queens, by Jack Weatherford.  I was enjoying both and am wicked sad.  But apparently Widener has wanted the latter back for a while, and now wants a "replacement" fee, so I didn't really have a choice.  Yet more overdue fines to ignore, oh well.  But I only have a week to do the revision of my paper, starting when I get the comments back tonight, so I guess fewer distractions are for the best. 

In other sad news, my baby brother just found out that thanks to his wicked low housing lottery number, he's going to be living in Sylvan next year, barring some miracle.  I actually tried to make him feel better by pointing out that "at least" he "will only be a rape trail away from" his friends.  Which came out wrong, needless to say.  Then I suggested maybe he try to split up two friends who were planning on living together in Grayson (where he wants to be for some reason - go O-Hill!), and swoop in and take their room; my great plan was to find two girls, tell each one that the other said she was a fat sl*t, and then wait for the fight to start.  Which didn't just come out wrong, but actually is wrong.  My final recommendation was to emulate our third, imaginary brother, who M & I told N lived under the stairs (and N was younger by enough years to believe us), and just squat in Grayson until he gets a room.  Clearly, it was time for lunch.  Am feeling much less evil-mastermind-y now that I've eaten.

At least I used a coupon...

to buy the new Inspector Lynley book, This Body of Death, since I had just spent way too much money at Ann Taylor Loft (well, maybe not TOO much - I got two pairs of jeans, three sweaters, a dress, and a belt for $150.  Which is a lot to spend in 20 minutes, but I think I totally got good value for money).  I swear, I am trying not to spend money on books, since I work at a library, etc., but the Elizabeth George books are always being checked out of the library (and I should know, because after I stumbled on them, I whipped through evey one Widener had in quick succession), but I had an "additional 15% off" coupon for Barnes & Noble, and then I saw the book in the front of the store with ANOTHER 20% off (because it is a best seller), so...I mean, a really fat, brand-new hardcover for $19?  And one I can almost guarantee I will love AND that my mom will love when I pass it on to her?  I couldn't resist...

update

Just realized I had a half-way through critique of Changeless; it actually grew on me by the end.

More importantly, there are reviews of Soundings in Atlantic History out!!!  Best one is probably the piece by Peter Coclanis in the April, 2010 American Historical Review.  Full text at
http://betterlivingthroughhistory.blogspot.com/ - check it out!

Back in the saddle!

Okay, been a while since I last posted, apparently, but also been crazy busy, so not too much to catch up on.  I will think about it, but I am pretty sure that I have only read two books since then, since I haven't had much spare time.  Both were on the bus to & from NYC this weekend (note to self, I need to plan on at least two books, each way, for future trips to Manhattan, because staring out the window at the side of the road gets really boring, really fast).  So: 
On Sunday (4/18) I started reading Dennis Lehane's Shutter Island.  I don't know.  I mean, it was a decent twist that I didn't necessarily see coming, but I just couldn't quite get into it.  Now, that could have been in part because I was wicked uncomfortable in the Bolt Bus' seat, so I was focused more on how long it would take to get to NY, and then to Renita's, and - always & of course - how supremely pissed off I was at my classmates, who turn in CRAPTASTIC papers WICKED LATE, but I think part of it was the story, too.  It seemed a little over-written, maybe - like, yeah, we get it.  Period dialogue.  Hep.  Whatever; it was fun enough, and a good bus read insofar as I didn't have to focus too too much.  It's interesting that it's a movie, because it sort of felt when I was reading it like it would be a better movie than book - there are a lot of visual (sensual, really, including sounds) elements that might translate better in that medium.  And I liked Gone, Baby, Gone the movie and loved Mystic River the movie, so that may be saying something (I also read the first page or so of Mystic River, the book, and Gone, Baby, Gone, the book, in the back of Shutter Island, and was like "eh" - if I had picked those books up in a store, and read those first pages, I doubt I would have bought them (Mystic River, in particular, whereas the movie sucked me right in).

For the bus ride back I borrowed a book by Sophie Kinsella from R, Twenties Girl.  It took a little getting into, but then I really enjoyed it.  I might have gotten into it a little too much, actually, given that I was on a bus.  I definitely caught myself smirking at a couple parts, almost giggling a few other other places, and actually getting a little choked up here and there (without giving anything away, a woman in her late twenties [I think?  maybe early thirties?  don't remember] bonds with the ghost of her great aunt (died at 105, but haunts as a twenty-something from 1927 or thereabouts - gets a little emotional in places!).  But then I would remember that the guy sitting next to me had been all chatty and then he TURNED HIS BODY away to take a phone call in which he was like "yeah, I should be home around 6" - so, unless he had a really tight bond with his male roomate, I was not going to worry about making a bad impression!  More than a little fluffy, yeah, but fun, and while the insights into live & love, etc., were pretty facile, I can certainly always use a reminder that you can't just will someone into liking you, and if you like someone more than he likes you, you just need to f***ing get over it and move on.  Points for being realistic, I guess, Ms. Kinsella (although, feel like that is a pseudonym?).  Definitely liked it way, way more than the Shopaholic books, not that I didn't borrow one or two of those from R as well...they were always good for amusing myself while I waited for her to get out of the shower or something (unlike d**m Far Pavilions which is a mother-f***ing TOME of a book).

Started Jack Weatherford's The Secret History of the Mongol Queens last night; so far, so awesome!  Really enjoying everything of it I have read so far - it seems to be decent history, at least Weatherford writes with an authoritative voice, but there aren't any footnotes or end-notes, so it's def. kind of history-lite.  But he clearly seems to know his stuff, and it feels like maybe this (Genghis Khan's daughters, etc.) he came across researching something else, and I trust that kind of organic source of "inspiration," as it were.  I am assuming there is either a bibliography or a bibliographic essay at the back, and I will be okay with that.  Hoping there is, because this really makes me want to go read more - especially the Secret History of the Mongols, the semi-contemporary chronicle of Genghis' life, rise to power, and empire, if Weatherford can recommend a good translation.  These chicks were totally kinda awesome, although I think part of that may just be a reflection of what f***-ups Genghis' sons were.  But I do want to know more.  I also kinda want to ride a horse into battle, but I will settle for going home and listening to The Animals, because "It's My Life" makes me think of Genghis Khan for some reason.  Well, the reference to sable is the reason.  Ooohh...Brill does an edition of Secret History of the Mongols - bet that's decent.

So annoying.  N just said he thought "Khan" would not be a good name for any future sons of mine / nephews of his.  Although we both agreed it would be better than "Genghis."  I bet M would back me up on this...or try to steal my idea - it's a race to see who has a little baby Aristeia first!  (Oh, interesting: the Mongols seem to have had a similar concept, baatar).

Two down, one up, three to go

Current book count: three.  I finished The White Garden and Portrait of an Unknown Woman over the week/end (respectively), but started Changeless last night.
Pretty not overwhelmed so far (I really have issues with the whole "underwhelmed" thing).  I remember really enjoying the first book in the series - "The Parasol Protectorate" - not loving it, but enjoying it.  It was funny, and entertaining, with some funny parts and something of a mystery...I think.  Actually, now that I am trying to remember what I liked about it, I can't come up with anything that specific.  I think I thought the main character was interesting, but looking back, she is maybe kinda totally pedictable and feels very familiar (even including the whole "no soul" thing).  And it's not like vampires and werewolves are exactly thin on the ground in popular literature these days...and it's very barely steamy, or punky, for that matter.  Seriously - do people just like using the word "dirigible" and figure if they put it in a book that makes it steam punk?  Not that it isn't a super fantastic word.  If I ever write a book I will definitely try to fit it in.  Not that I think that's ever going to happen, since I am writing about other people's books right now - and ones that aren't that great maybe - instead of working on my essay revision, which actually kinda matters.  Hmm.  And I am not sure I even know exactly what steam punk is, but it seems like it should be a little cooler, or at least a little less predictable.  But I DID really like Gail Carriger's story at the time...when I was on pain medication.  Hmm.  Well, we'll see.  I shouldn't go back to reading it, really, until I finish the revision (but I DID finish my taxes Friday - gah, seriously, I owe the feds $666?!  Number of the devil indeed - and last night was a total bust, so I needed something to do), but I'll keep an open mind.

Glad I did the same for Vanora Bennett's Portrait of an Unknown Woman; I ended up enjoying it quite a bit - and I now totally want to go learn more about Hans Holbein, so score on that account!  I was just about to write that it took me a while to get into Portrait, but that's not really accurate.  I never really "got into" it: I read the whole book (and it's a fairly fat book) a few pages at a time.  But I came back to it each time mildly eager to read more.  It was quietly compelling, if that makes sense.  And Bennett ended up moving past what I thought was supposed to be the big surprise (and wasn't) in another direction, which I liked.  Nothing big, nothing exciting, just small changes and events that are very significant in the lives of the people they happen to, mirroring the monumental events that surround them.  According to a note at the end of the book the story was initally inspired by the Holbein interpretations on the website of some guy named Jack Leslau (http://www.holbeinartworks.org/) which I definitely want to check out now, after reading Bennett's explanation of all the hidden meanings in a few of Holbein's works & how they were inspired by his dealings with the More family.  The inside cover of Portrait has a copy of a Holbein of the More family which I kept flipping to as I read the book, and I never even check maps in books (which is bad, since I bet I would get a lot more out of some stories if I actually understood what was going on in the way the author wants me to).  Would have been nice if I had known that the portrait the author is describing for most of the book is not the one that's printed - I was getting wicked confused.  I also want to try a biography of Thomas More again - Bennett has a bibliography in the back I might mine...including one by Peter Ackroyd, and I have enjoyed his novels, so I would give a nonfiction of his a shot.  Shoot.  Unless the Ackroyd is a novel??  Because she has Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time listed under "On Richard III and the Plantagenets" - great mystery story, but most definitely a novel.
As is Stephanie Barron's The White Garden - a wicked fun novel.  And another one that makes me want to
go learn more, so double win.  Barron (can't think of her real name) is just a lovely writer: everything rings true, even when she jumps back and forth in time, and she has a very relaxed & confident voice which I find appealing.  There are also these discrete passages of pretty, smooth prose that just make you go "aah" and relax a little more into your seat/bed/whatever; sentences that just seem so right - where they are, how they're put together - strong but delicate at the same time.  Pretty isn't a good word, but I'm thinking I use lovely too much ;)  All her books are mysteries, and they're strong enough, but the impact of her books lies in her writing, and her characters, not in the who-dunnit parts. 

More about Berton Roueche...

We talked about Berton Roueche and The Medical Detectives in class today, and one of the things that came up was the pacing of the stories (well, of the one we read for class, " ").  The general understanding seemed to be that an editor today would really slash the pieces to give them a faster pace.  I guess that is true, but I couldn't help but think about "House, M.D.," where the stories are, in a lot of ways, just as slow to unravel (all those false starts, dead ends, and red herrings [off-topic: where does the phrase "red herring" come from?  I will need to check]), but they just jazz up the narrative with pretty faces & bodies, and mildly salacious bits.  And generally a more dramatic opener, I guess.  But I really kind of like Roueche's understated tone.  In any case, I got a little distracted in class wondering just how much the House writers and creators were influenced by Roueche (turns out liquid forms of caffeine are not, in fact, substitutes for food - after a day of iced coffee & Coke, and some pretzels, when my head wasn't spinning, it was wandering!), and thought I would look it up when I got home.  The results of my search (God bless Google and Wikipedia, how did I waste time before?) are below, and the full entry is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(TV_series)

Conception

In 2004, co-creators David Shore and Paul Attanasio, along with Attanasio's business partner Katie Jacobs, pitched the show (untitled at the time) to Fox as a CSI-style medical detective program,[3] a hospital whodunit in which the doctors investigated symptoms and their causes.[4] Attanasio was inspired to create a medical procedural drama by The New York Times Magazine column "Diagnosis", written by physician Lisa Sanders.[5] Fox bought the series, though the network's then-president, Gail Berman, told the creative team, "I want a medical show, but I don't want to see white coats going down the hallway".[6] Jacobs has said that this stipulation was one of the many influences that led to the show's ultimate form.[6]


After Fox picked up the show, it acquired the working title Chasing Zebras, Circling the Drain[7] ("zebra" is medical slang for an unusual or obscure diagnosis).[8] The original premise of the show was of a team of doctors working together trying to "diagnose the undiagnosable".[9] Shore felt it was important to have an interesting central character, one who could examine patients' personal characteristics and diagnose their ailments by figuring out their secrets and lies.[9] As Shore and the rest of the creative team explored the character's possibilities, the program concept became less of a procedural and more focused upon the lead role.[10] The character was named "House", which was adopted as the show's title as well.[7] Shore developed the characters further and wrote the script for the pilot episode.[3] Bryan Singer, who directed the pilot episode and had a major role in casting the primary roles, has said that the "title of the pilot was 'Everybody Lies', and that's the premise of the show".[10] Shore has said that the central storylines of several early episodes were based on the work of Berton Roueché, a staff writer for The New Yorker between 1944 and 1994, who specialized in features about unusual medical cases.[4]

Shore traced the concept for the title character to his experience as a patient at a teaching hospital.[11] Shore recalled that, "I knew, as soon as I left the room, they would be mocking me relentlessly [for my cluelessness] and I thought that it would be interesting to see a character who actually did that before they left the room".[12] A central part of the show's premise was that the main character would be disabled in some way.[13] The original idea was for House to use a wheelchair, but Fox rejected this. Jacobs later expressed her gratitude for the network's insistence that the character be reimagined—putting him on his feet added a crucial physical dimension.[10] The writers ultimately chose to give House a damaged leg arising from an incorrect diagnosis, which requires him to use a cane and causes him pain that leads to a narcotic dependency.[13]

1. ^ Mitovich, Matt (July 28, 2009). "Fox Moves Up Two Fall Premieres; Plus a Glee Video Preview". TV Guide. http://www.tvguide.com/News/FallTV-Fox-changes-1008485.aspx. Retrieved July 28, 2009.



2. ^ Challen, p. 41.


3. ^ a b c Frum, Linda (March 14, 2006). "Q&A with 'House' creator David Shore". Maclean's. Rogers Communications. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20060320_123370_123370. Retrieved January 2, 2007.


4. ^ a b Gibson, Stacey (March 2008). "The House That Dave Built". University of Toronto Magazine (University of Toronto). http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/cover-story/the-house-that-dave-built/. Retrieved April 5, 2008.


5. ^ Challen, p. 96.


6. ^ a b c d e f MacIntyre, April (November 17, 2008). "'House M.D.' interview: Katie Jacobs talks Cuddy, Cameron and House triangle". Monsters and Critics. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/features/article_1443308.php. Retrieved January 6, 2009.


7. ^ a b c d e f "House… and Holmes". Radio Times (BBC Magazines Ltd.): p. 57. January 2006. http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/house/house-and-holmes-parallels/.


8. ^ a b c d e f Jensen, Jeff (April 6, 2007). "Full 'House'". Entertainment Weekly: pp. 44–47. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20016394,00.html. Retrieved April 10, 2009.


9. ^ a b c d Jacobs, Katie; Laurie, Hugh; Shore, David; Singer, Bryan. (2005). House Season One, The Concept. [DVD]. Universal Studios.


10. ^ a b c Werts, Diane (January 29, 2009). "Fox's medical marvel stays on top". Variety. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999278.html?categoryid=3530&cs=1. Retrieved April 5, 2009.


11. ^ a b c Jensen, Jeff (April 8, 2005). "Dr. Feelbad". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1043940,00.html. Retrieved December 7, 2008.


12. ^ a b Shore, David (2006). "Developing The Concept". Hulu.com. The Paley Center for Media. http://www.hulu.com/watch/21606/house-house---developing-the-concept#s-p2-st-i1. Retrieved September 16, 2008.

Novels Can Be Serious Business...

...I am taking this article as justification for all the reading of, and thinking/writing about, novels that I do.
"Next Big Thing In Literature: Knowing They Know That You Know," New York Times 3/31/10. Patricia Cohen

see also "Can 'Neuro Lit Crit' Save the Humanities?" NYT blog 4/5/10

Also all the procrastination I do.

Totally off topic, but

TOO CUTE
http://www.peoplepets.com/news/cute/photo-baby-lion-buddies-up-to-abandoned-caracals/1

I [heart] Patty Limerick

Update: to make it even easier to access the awesome essay "Dancing With Professors" it now has its own page, on the left.  Hope that's not a copyright violation!

Wrote a little post on my history blog, in a frenzy of "I love Patty Limerick"-ness, but I realized that nobody reads that besides me, and for once I actually have something to say that might be interesting/helpful to other people, so I'm re-doing it here. 
C and I had to read an essay by Tony Horwitz for class today, "The History Beat: How a Journalist Covers the Past" (Harvard Review 32).  It talks about the challenges (?) of writing about history in a way that will be accessible, entertaining, and compelling for casual readers.  It's a nice article, especially because I know most of the references, but it immediately made me want to go and re-read Patricia Limerick's "Dancing with Professors: The Trouble with Academic Prose," which is just totally phenomenal.  She writes about how skewed the world of academia can be when it comes to pretty much encouraging un-readable writing:

In ordinary life, when a listener cannot understand what someone has said, this is the usual exchange:



Listener: I cannot understand what you are saying.


Speaker: Let me try to say it more clearly.


But in scholarly writing in the late 20th century, other rules apply. This is the implicit exchange:


Reader: I cannot understand what you are saying.


Academic Writer: Too bad. The problem is that you are an unsophisticated and untrained reader. If you were smarter, you would understand me.


The exchange remains implicit, because no one wants to say, "This doesn't make any sense," for fear that the response, "It would, if you were smarter," might actually be true.


While we waste our time fighting over ideological conformity in the scholarly world, horrible writing remains a far more important problem. For all their differences, most right-wing scholars and most left-wing scholars share a common allegiance to a cult of obscurity. Left, right and center all hide behind the idea that unintelligible prose indicates a sophisticated mind. The politically correct and the politically incorrect come together in the violence they commit against the English language.

The full text of the essay can be found here, and I really, really urge any of my friends (or siblings, M!) who read this blog to check it out - besides the fact the writing is far better than anything I can offer you, so if you are looking to waste some time at work, you'll get more out of Limerick (you can also check out her webpage) than this blog, it's a really fantastic, fantastic essay, if you have any interest at all in writing of any kind.  That's all - carry on!

Semi-public Oath

I hereby promise that I will neither purchase nor check out from the library any new books, or start any new books, until I have finished my homework for this week, my essay revision, and my taxes.  The two or three of you who read this are my witnesses.  And no tv except if I am cooking/eating dinner.
There.
BUT.
When I finish all three, I get to go buy myself the new Ariana Franklin book.

procraaaaaaaaaaaastination

I should be revising my essay for class right now.  Or doing my taxes.  Or doing my dishes.
So, I will chat about the books I am reading right now.
Currently working on four books:
Started Portrait of an Unknown Woman earlier this week.  Moving through it slowly, in bits and pieces, maybe about ten to fifteen minutes a night.  It's enjoy it, and I think if I just took it and sat down to read I'd get drawn in, but it's not grabbing me all that much.  So far, it's a little predictable - smart chick, who trusts women's/folk medicine, but loves a man who is a formally trained doctor (ie, thinks Galen is a god and bleeding people is good medicine), conflicted feelings about her stepfather, More, as he's getting more and more crazy religious, etc.  Probably going to be some kind of crisis where she will need to stand up for herself, blah blah blah.  I don't know.  I thought I liked it, but the more I think about it, the less impressed I am.  Just seems, I don't know, really familiar somehow.  The silk merchant one was better.  But I am really not all that far in, so I will reserve judgement.  Not a great sign, though, that I can put it down so easily. 
What I did not want to put down, on the other hand, and was very sad to find I had left at the office Tuesday, and happy to get back today, however, was the Medical Detectives book.  Yay!  Really, the more I read of it, and the more I thought about it even when I wasn't reading the book, I was just so impressed with the quality of Roueche's writing.  It's erudite without being pedantic - an expansive vocabulary, that is mildly impressive, but not in a way that it forces itself on your attention - and he has this gift for telling a story succinctly, and moving the narrative along, but still weaving in little asides and not-super-critical moments that are great and don't disrupt the flow of the story.  Roueche is also really good at letting the "characters" in his stories tell their own with minimal authorial mucking around on his point.  Clearly he is writing and editing the pieces in a way that emphasizes the personalities and creates characters out of actual people, but it doesn't feel artificial or forced.  You read the stories and half the time you don't even think about the fact that someone wrote it - wrote, edited, re-wrote, cut and added bits - and that its not just a depiction of exactly what happened.  And then you realize the fact you didn't even really notice the author is a sign of just how impressive a writer the author is...Stephanie Barron (if that is her real name, not sure, I think maybe it's a pen name?) is kind of awesome.  I seem to recall having mixed feelings about A Flaw in the Blood (her last book about...um, something...about hemophilia and...murder?  scandal?  whatever), but I think I enjoyed it at the time, but I have loved the Jane Austen mysteries she has written since I read the first one years ago - have gobbled them up - and I started The White Garden today, and digging it.  Whoops.  Inadvertent and terrible pun.  But it's true, so I'm leaving it in.  I only took it with me this morning because the two books I was reading at the apartment were too heavy to lug around, and the Roueche was at Harvard, and I knew I might want something to read while I waited for the bus to Cambridge.  Really pleased, though - considering I only brought it because it is a slim-ish paperback, I was well-rewarded.  Took me a little while to get the rhythm of the writing and story, but once I did, I got caught right up in the story - the two stories, actually.  It's one of those tale-in-a-tales, with an unlikely duo (because when are they ever likely) who I assume are going to bone (shout out to L, even though she doesn't read this, but if she had actually come out tonight, I would be out drinking right now, not home putting off my homework) at some point, tracing a historically important manuscript...the story of which is also unfolding.  It's not high art or anything, but fun, and definitely coming from a smart person, even if it doesn't require much in the way of brainpower on the part of the reader.  But it actually makes me want to read more about the Bloosmbury crew, so if it leads to some smartening, that's a good thing. 
And smartening brings us to our fourth and final contestant for my attention of the evening,
Richard Archer's As If an Enemy's Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution.  I've been reading a little bit before bed at night, and I am liking it so far, but I have a few reservations.  I think Archer is a good writer, and the history here seems solid, but I don't know...I think maybe the editing is a bit spotty?  There's something about it just feels a little off, a little rough.  God.  Even I can't believe I am complaining about the quality of editing in a published book, when I should be doing a much-needed revision of my own work.  Or taxes.  Or dishes :)  Anyhow, I'd better head to bed, it's getting on towards midnight, so better I call this night a wash, and get up early (hey, there's always a first time) to do some writing...