In the last two lines of this book, Solnit writes, "Constellations are not natural phenomena but cultural impositions, the lines drawn between stars aIn the last two lines of this book, Solnit writes, "Constellations are not natural phenomena but cultural impositions, the lines drawn between stars are like paths worn by the imaginations of those who have gone before. The constellation called walking has a history, the history trod out by all those poets and philosophers and insurrectionaries, by jaywalkers, streetwalkers, pilgrims, tourists, hikers, mountaineers, but whether it has a future depends on whether those connecting paths are traveled still."
It kind of reminded me of our schooling days when our teachers told us to write "concluding sentences" to our essays. Nutshell, meet thy meat, in other words, and if you want a broad hint of what this book's about, you can't do better than this finish. In it, you will indeed meet an interesting mix of all the characters Solnit lists (though she fails to include herself in cameo spots).
With these peoples and the places walking leads them (for a wide variety of reasons -- vocational, sexual, practical, inspirational, recreational, political, etc.), Solnit builds a solid history of mankind's relationship with its unique upstanding legs. Some countries and cities and cultures are better built for (and more accepting of) walking, you'll find, and men have an easier time of it than women -- especially in cities (one only read about recent goings-on in New York as yet another example), but overall, there are commonalities despite the differences.
Overall, not as compelling as other Solnits (my favorite being her book on Orwell), but still, yeoman work. I hit patches I much enjoyed and dry stretches. Kind of like scenery on a walk, which I do most every day, only sometimes I have to drive to get to new places to explore (unlike denizens of cities)....more
Odd bedfellows, I suppose, but in The Poetics of Space Gaston Bachelard marries philosophy to poetry, quoting all manner of poetic lines in support ofOdd bedfellows, I suppose, but in The Poetics of Space Gaston Bachelard marries philosophy to poetry, quoting all manner of poetic lines in support of his arguments. For the most part, the poetry he cites is not that great, but in his defense he could not just scan the poetry world for great lines, he had to scan it for pieces that support his philosophical feints in the following chaptered categories:
1. The House from Cellar to Garret (The Significance of the Hut) 2. House and Universe 3. Drawers, Chests, and Wardrobes 4. Shells 5. Corners 6. Miniature 7. Intimate Immensity 8. The Dialectics of Outside and Inside 9. The Phenomenology of Roundness
See what I mean? Space. Starting with the one we all go back to our daydreams -- our childhood homes. For lucky ones like me, it's a refuge of happiness, a place I go not only in DAYdreams but many nighttime ones as well. For others, who perhaps had unpleasant childhoods, the house of their dreams undergo reconstruction, post and beam, until the daydream is as they like it (or as it should have been).
Some quotes work out nicely. Rilke is often cited. Here's one I kind of liked:
"Oh night without objects. Oh window muffled on the outside, oh, doors carefully closed; customs that have come down from times long past, transmitted, verified, never entirely understood. Oh silence in the stairwell, silence in the adjoining rooms, silence up there, on the ceiling. Oh mother, oh one and only you, who faced all this silence, when I was a child."
Make your way through all the "oh's" and you see there's something to this, especially with the introduction of the mother who, only now, the speaker realizes saw the gentle childhood home in different ways.
Thoughtful, deep, slow trekking, but worthwhile. I'd stop for weird things and say, "Hmn. That's true," like when he talked about bird nests and how a tree with a nest was set apart because of it in our minds -- not just any tree, but a tree more special than all the others in our yard because it had been selected (blessed) by birds who constantly returned to it just like we return to childhood homes in our daydreams.
Another one of those books that all Americans should agree on because it argues that our government should be more representative of the people than iAnother one of those books that all Americans should agree on because it argues that our government should be more representative of the people than it is, that all our votes should count equally, that change is a necessary part of life and thus should have some kind of role in governance as well.
But no. I'm sure instead the book will strike readers as controversial. In it authors Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that our republican form of democracy is far behind others in the world and change is necessary, especially when you consider that NOT changing leaves the country prey to democracy's worst predators: minority rule advocates who take advantage of our system's historical weaknesses and authoritarian sorts who only want law and order to apply to their political enemies (when they break the law, it's "patriotic" and, by the way, up is down and cold is hot).
For starters, the authors reach into the histories of both the USA and other democracies to show where dangers lie and to put matters like the Constitution into context. It is not holy writ. It has its faults and needs to change with the times. Even the Founding Fathers warned as much. But now there are those who stubbornly fight any semblance in change to things like the Constitution, the Electoral College (not in the Constitution, folks), and the Senate filibuster (as well as its controversial from the start form of "equal representation" -- Wyoming and Rhode Island are as powerful there as California or Texas, as all get two senators who can wreak havoc with legislation or, more likely, block everything that cannot muster 60 votes).
In addition to making their points through historical data, the book details the contemporary scene and just how dangerously we've wandered from the Founders' original intent, to the point where candidates lose popular votes both in states and country elections yet maintain control with such blatantly unfair advantages as gerrymandered districts they've rigged in advance to make losing control of legislatures all but impossible to an Electoral College that gives one party (Republican) about a 4-5 point advantage over its opponent (Democrats). That is, the GOP candidates can afford to lose by up to 4-5% in the popular vote and STILL win the Electoral College, an outdated compromise from early in our history that has made a mockery of the word "democracy." No one was much happy with it when it began and no one is much happy with it now -- except tyrants of the minority who benefit from it every four years.
In the final chapter, the authors lay out a plan for change that includes term limits for Supreme Court justices (another subject in the news of late... partisans in robes making mockery of "blind justice" by thwarting the will of majorities of Americans).
If you believe in democracy and still have hope for a country under siege, you could do worse than educate yourself by reading this succinct 260-pager. ...more
Under the gimmicky name of "Medicine 3.o" (vs. present-day 2.0), Dr. Attia advocates for a much more proactive approach toward what he calls "The FourUnder the gimmicky name of "Medicine 3.o" (vs. present-day 2.0), Dr. Attia advocates for a much more proactive approach toward what he calls "The Four Horsemen":
* Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease * Cancer * Alzheimer's disease and related neurodegenerative conditions * Type 2 diabetes and related metabolic dysfunction
Probably one of the horsemen is coming for you already and has begun its advance work (you just don't know it), so his idea is to use tools and strategies available sooner than your regular doctor would recommend (2.0 being more reactive than proactive when it comes to the We-Mean-Business Horsemen, you see).
In addition to tips on what tests to get and how to live longer than you are presently destined to, Attia also dives into familiar territory like exercise, diet, sleep, and so forth. Especially exercise, though. Work, people! If you want to be able to open a jar as an elderly person, keep your balance and not fall, get up out of chairs, walk from A to B without tumbling into C, and so on.
Yes, he has a website with some how-to videos but only a few. Like most writers concerned about your health or your pain or your short and anguished life, he wants to make some money off you too, so here you can...wait for it!...SUBSCRIBE to get more videos!
Introducing the Fifth Horseman: Ka-ching the Kapitalist.
As for the diet and the sleep stuff, I was mostly familiar with it already. Especially sleep. I read a lot about sleep, but there are no sure-fire answers to insomnia, just helpful things you can do, like not go on Goodreads the hour before bedtime and certainly by not taking your phone or other blue-lit screens to your bedroom. (Come on, amateurs!) And keep the bedroom temp at 65 degrees Fahrenheit, why don't you! Easy in winter, but rather brutal in the air-conditioned summer when setting the thermostat THAT low would make you look like a selfish climate-change apologist (who sleeps well and the devil take the hindmost --- read: the rest of the tornado, hurricane, flooding, burning, heating-up world).
The worst part of the book was Attia's personal story. I guess it was meant to humanize him, but it all came across as a bit narcissistic, given how he turned around his life (while turning around the Horsemen, too, including that Fifth One which is doing wonders for his mid-life crisis summer home, sports car, and yacht -- you'd want to live longer, too!).
Anyway, in the end, I have greater faith in the ART than in the SCIENCE. It's the liberal arts major in me, I guess. As for you? If you want to hang around a bit longer, you, like me, might put on your farmer hat and separate the wheat from the chaff here. It's smoothly written (thank you, visible ghost writer Bill Gifford) so goes down easily enough....more
To be up front here at the front of this review, I didn't know Che Guevara was a writer. According to the bio info, not only travel journal writing, wTo be up front here at the front of this review, I didn't know Che Guevara was a writer. According to the bio info, not only travel journal writing, which he developed here the year after his peregrinations throughout South America, but short stories, even.
I did know he had a medical background, however. Dr. Che, Renaissance Man. And, to his eventual and early demise, Angry Young Man who predicted (incorrectly assuming men preferred principles and justice over profit and greed) the end of capitalism was nigh.
Yup. Just like the Holy Rollers who come out of the woodwork every now and again to say the END is nigh. Judgment Day. When the Lord settles some old scores, Old Testament-like.
But where was I? Ah, yes. Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, and so on and so forth. Che with his medical pal, starting first on an old motorcycle at age 23, and then bumming rides on truck flatbeds, rough-hewn rafts, etc.
Che who becomes a master at begging for food without seeming to beg for food. Che who suffers from serious asthma attacks without the proper medication for them. Che who, as you'd expect from any journal, comes across as oh-so-human and oh-so-sympathetic that you, too, would be pissed about CIA-backed goons executing him some 15 years later (Che probably being a better Renaissance man than soldier schooled in evasive maneuvers).
A yeoman outing, it is, more interesting because of the man than his writing ability, which is... yeoman. Meaning: this is of historical importance, in its way, and it certainly humanizes the icon who is now best known for his trademark face and beret, now available to the proletariat as a T-shirt or poster (via the capitalism he so detested) by clicking to "CART" at an online merchant near you. Or your computer, maybe....more
From a perch of forty year's distance, Annie Ernaux chronicles the time when she was a 23-year-old student who went through the hell that is an illegaFrom a perch of forty year's distance, Annie Ernaux chronicles the time when she was a 23-year-old student who went through the hell that is an illegal abortion. It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice (both so nice sounding, aren't they?), as a reader you will read this one-sitting, 95-pager, and say, "That was hell."
New to me, Ernaux is one of those straight shooters. Simple writing style. Free flowing. Nice use of white space as most of the book consists of one and two-paragraph bullets. If you have any writing aspirations, she's the type of author that inspires by dint of the fact that it looks easy. Of course, in writing, looks are deceiving.
Also of interest is Ernaux's use of images. You won't forget the hairbrush in the room where the abortion is performed. I also did not know that, in Catholic France of the 60s, abortion was illegal. Then again, beyond DeGaulle who had this thing for Jackie Kennedy, there's not much I DO know about France in the 60s.
In the final analysis, getting pregnant and feeling lonely due to a (now) disinterested man and ambivalent friends is a worthy topic, no matter how ordinary your language....more
One of those travel books that is as much about the traveler as the country traveled to. It's a paean (and there's no other word for it) to Greece on One of those travel books that is as much about the traveler as the country traveled to. It's a paean (and there's no other word for it) to Greece on the part of Henry Miller, better known for his "Tropic" books even though he considered this one his best. Maybe that's because his personality and opinions play such a large role. He can be cynical and no-nonsense, for sure, and favors simplicity and genuineness over, um, all things American. Other countries don't stand up to Greece's near-perfection, either. This quote, near the end, about sums it up:
“The greatest single impression which Greece made upon me is that it is a man-sized world. Now it is true that France also conveys this impression, and yet there is a difference, a difference which is profound. Greece is the home of the gods; they may have died but their presence still makes itself felt. The gods were of human proportion: they were created out of the human spirit. In France, as elsewhere in the Western world, this link between the human and the divine is broken. The skepticism and paralysis produced by this schism in the very nature of man provides the clue to the inevitable destruction of our present civilization. If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms.”
And then there's this, as he prepares to go home:
"The moment I stepped on the American boat which was to take me to New York I felt that I was in another world. I was among the go-getters again, among the restless souls who, not knowing how to live their own life, wish to change the world for everybody."
In one sense, this book took me by surprise. Though I knew in advance that its focus was death (thus the subheading “Discovering What Death Can Teach In one sense, this book took me by surprise. Though I knew in advance that its focus was death (thus the subheading “Discovering What Death Can Teach Us About Living Fully”), I didn’t realize that Buddhism would play such a large role.
OK, I told myself. I can deal with that. I’ve read my share of Buddhist texts by now and know enough to be dangerous. Still, against all odds, this turned out to be one of my favorite Buddhist books.
The reason why is pretty simple. The best side of Buddhism tenets appears when you look at it through the lens of death. Not death as the source of fear or mystery. Not death as the opening play of a big religious promise on the other side. Just death for what it is, the companion piece to birth, the natural and necessary destination inexorably linked to its departure (all aboard, screaming babies!).
Author Frank Ostaseski is cofounder of the Zen Hospice Project and is a Buddhist teacher. Many stories and profiles of dying patients come from this background. They are the solid brick of this text. The Buddhism serves as mortar holding the wall of his arguments together.
What’s good is no type of conversion or ostensible Buddhist ritual goes down at this hospice. The goal is to help people with each of their unique passages. Sometimes Ostaseski has answers, sometimes not. The main point is to get away from the clinical, results-oriented and impersonable deaths found in hospitals. God (or Buddha) save us all. We'd all rather die as humans instead of statistics.
While all this normalization of death stuff is going on in this book, Ostaseski also offers advice on life. Makes sense, once we see the thin line between birth and death, that we’d see how death (and its whims) should and must inform life. Most of us spend our lives avoiding thoughts of death. We admit in the abstract that someday it will come for us, but pretty much feel like a WHOLE LOTTA other people are going down before we do. Even many who are younger than us.
Here we’re told to embrace the thought of death. It would spare us a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Suffering? Buddhism refers to “the three poisons,” but Ostaseski mentions how Martin Aylward, the resident Buddhist teacher at Moulin de Chaves retreat center in France, rebrands the poisons as demand, defense, and distract. Ostaseski riffs on them here:
“Craving, the first poison, is a demand,/i> that the objects of our desire provide us with lasting satisfaction so that we feel fulfilled, whole, and complete. It is the tendency to cling to someone, something, some idea, and become rigidly attached to it. Greed creates an inner hunger, which has us always striving for an unattainable goal: a new job, a new partner or child, a new car or home, a new body, a new attitude. We mistakenly believe our happiness is dependent upon reaching our goal, getting what we want. But the problem is that even if we do attain it, we find that we can get no lasting satisfaction from our accomplishment or possession because everything in life is subject to the law of impermanence. Circumstances will change, or we’ll become accustomed to the new role or thing or person in our lives, and our pleasure inevitably will fade.
“Tragically, inherent in demand is the notion that what is here now, what we have now, isn’t good enough. We can sense this drive for more in our bodies as an energetic pull, the desperate wanting for something to fill up our underlying sense of deficiency.
“The second poison, the defense of aversion, can show up as anger, hatred, bullying, loneliness, intolerance, or fear. We habitually resist, deny, and avoid unpleasant feelings, circumstances, and people—whatever we do not like or want. Defense traps us in a vicious cycle of finding conflict and enemies everywhere. It reinforces our mistaken perceptions that we are separate from everything and everyone. Energetically, we know this drive in our bodies as the opposite of pull. It is a pushing away. The irony is that whatever we push away usually pushes back even harder.
“The ignorance of distraction is the third poison. It blinds us to the way reality works, giving rise to the tendency to pull (demand) and push (defend) against life. We misperceive the nature of things, which is that they are both interdependent and impermanent. Instead, we get lost in a loop of distractions as a way of disconnecting from our pain. Alcohol, shopping, eating, gambling, sex, social media and video games, even meditation—all can serve as habits and strategies for distracting ourselves, all can go unquestioned. We lose ourselves, get confused and hold unhelpful views. We go about our lives in a kind of fog, unable to see clearly that there is a way through our pain, which requires us to turn toward it. By trying to ignore it, we continually trip and fall further into our suffering. Energetically, we feel spaced out, dull, or vaguely unconscious.”
Sound familiar? Did to me. Dealing with pain and acknowledging death and having a more healthy relationship with each other and our mutual weaknesses is a start. We’re unique, yeah, but all too much alike, too.
This book, despite some moments of repetitiveness and the occasional anecdote that might come across as pat, sheds light on these contrasts. I enjoyed reading it and even admit to feeling a little bit better about this upcoming death thing. Enough to try and live a little differently before I meet it.
Written in 1991, so a lot of it is dated, but I really wanted to read it because I'd heard about so many "cures" via Sarno's mind-body connection. I mWritten in 1991, so a lot of it is dated, but I really wanted to read it because I'd heard about so many "cures" via Sarno's mind-body connection. I much enjoyed The Way Out: A Revolutionary, Scientifically Proven Approach to Healing Chronic Pain, read last year, but now I see there's nothing "Revolutionary" about that book's approach at all. It's all pretty much lifted from this one, then given a more modern spin and applied to the entire body vs. the back alone....more
Self-helpful but not really self-help. Philosophical but not really philosophy. Autobiography but the auto only pulls into a few years' parking space.Self-helpful but not really self-help. Philosophical but not really philosophy. Autobiography but the auto only pulls into a few years' parking space.
A different animal, in other words, as Dan Harris comes at us from the heights of ABC television journalism -- an unusual vantage point for a half-Jewish morning news anchor who caught the Buddhism bug. And man, does he struggle. He's intrigued by Buddhism, but also skeptical as hell. It's the skepticism part that appeals because, except for a few woo-woo cases, who ISN'T both intrigued by and left sputtering over Buddhism?
Harris' journey takes him through many "gurus" and writers in the trade, but it takes time to reach the "realistic" Buddhists he craves -- gurus who can help him practice mindfulness without turning into the type of person who gets chewed up and spit out by the dog eat dog world of broadcast journalism.
Two that most definitely don't do it for him are Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra. Two that ultimately resonate with him are Mark Epstein and Joseph Goldstein (part of a group Harris, half Jewish himself, calls the "Jew-Bu" crowd -- Jews who have taken deep dives into Buddhism and become mentors for many others).
In the end, after going on an arduous 10-day retreat, Harris comes out both ambivalent and determined (if that's possible) about mindfulness. He creates his own list (noting how Buddhism has this thing about lists, starting with the Four Noble Truths) he calls "The Way of the Worrier" (get it?):
1. Don't Be a Jerk 2. (And/But...) When Necessary, Hide the Zen 3. Meditate 4. The Price of Security Is Insecurity -- Until It's Not Useful 5. Equanimity Is Not the Enemy of Creativity 6. Don't Force It 7. Humility Prevents Humiliation 8. Go Easy with the Internal Cattle Prod 9. Nonattachment to Results 10. What Matters Most?
Each is fleshed out to the reader's somewhat satisfaction (the reader being as skeptical as our skeptical hero). The end of the book also features a helpful Q & A appendix with answers to head scratchers like so:
1. Remind me, what's the point of this? 2. My mind keeps wandering. Am I a failure? 3. How come I don't feel relaxed? This really sucks. 4. You keep talking about this notion that "you can't help what we feel, only how you respond," but I want to feel different things. Won't meditation do that for me? 5. If I'm in physical pain, should I change position? 6. I keep falling asleep. 7. This is so unbelievably boring. 8. I keep trying to feel the breath as it naturally occurs, but every time I focus on it, I involuntarily start to control it, so it feels artificial. 9. What if I feel panicky and hyperventilate every time I try to watch my breath? 10. Isn't noting just a form of thinking? 11. Is being mindful the same thing as being in the moment? 12. Is meditation good for everyone? 13. You're not a teacher. What business do you have providing meditation instructions? 14. Can I meditate if I'm a believing Christian (or Jew or Muslim, etc.)? Will it erode my faith? 15. What is the least amount of time I can sit and still get the benefits the scientists are always talking about?
Is the book eloquently written? Nah. But the writing's far better than average, too, a tribute to Harris's background in journalism. Breezy reading, then, but with the occasional turn of phrase you might enjoy while learning.
You could interpret the title of Haruki Murakami’s Novelist as a Vocation two ways: a.) as a vocation for you, the reader, or b.) as a vocation for meYou could interpret the title of Haruki Murakami’s Novelist as a Vocation two ways: a.) as a vocation for you, the reader, or b.) as a vocation for me, Murakami, the writer. Reading the book itself, however, will prove that the latter proves more true than the former.
Which is not to say that there are no tips. If you’ve thought about writing a novel, even in a desultory, pipe-dream kind of way, you’ll find all the encouragement you need here. Murakami is of the school that most anyone who can put together sentences can write a novel. It may not be very good, but it will be a novel.
He also sides with the no-way-José to outlining crowd. Just write and follow where your prose leads you. He repeats what I’ve read many, many places before: Characters have a will of their own and will take over like mutineers on the H.M.S. Bounty. For beginners, that has got to be a relief. Sharing the job duties with your characters lightens the load, after all.
Specialized training? No need. MFA? BS (“Be serious.”) It’s all a rather freewheeling, Nike-like “Just do it” kind of affair here.
I can disparage this attitude easily because, well, it’s hole-ier than Swiss cheese that goes to church every Sunday. But then I recall a dear poetry friend (now passed, sadly) who encouraged my early poetry writing all the way to publication. Without the “Just do it and don’t worry about the Ivory Tower types guarding the gates” encouragement she offered, I wouldn't have come as far as I have today. To me, that unabashed “If you like doing it, write” attitude of hers was very much in the Murakami School of Wing-It-and-Have-Fun (even though the hours and loneliness might be brutal and take a toll on your physical health).
But really, this book, originally released seven years ago in Japan, is more memoir like in its approach. Only a few chapters dabble in “How To” mechanics. For the most part, it’s memoir-like, seeing writing through the lens of Murakami’s past books.
When I consider that lens and the fact that this book is a past publication, I wonder how much its rerelease is designed to help sales of Murakami’s oeuvre overall. Not a bad plan, really. Because no matter how laissez-faire or contradictory (at one point saying the act of daily writing can be painful after earlier calling it a joy) or opinionated (with lots of “this is just my opinion" caveats) the book can be, it is interesting to read because Murakami himself is interesting.
And he’s honest. He writes, “I’ve never had the sense that I’m writing for someone else. And I don’t particularly have that feeling even now.” Meaning: This book reads like a love song from Haruki to Haruki. That his legions of readers would love it just as well makes sense. Just know, if you go, that this book is not part of that large stable of books telling you how to write. It’s one man’s journey and, like any man’s journey, that alone can encourage you to write. Or not.
Also, be prepared for some score-settling between a Japanese writer and his country's literary gate keepers. Murakami has had the last laugh already, so I guess this is a victory lap of sorts, a dragging of Hector's body around Troy's battle-scarred walls.
I hope this review helps. If it doesn’t, that’s not my problem. (See, I can be Murakami-like myself! This review, after all, was written for me. If you enjoy, I'm very pleased, of course, but if not, SHRUG.)...more
Big Lies: From Socrates to Social Media is a book that should be read by conspiracy theorists, including people who believe Trump’s “Big Lie” that theBig Lies: From Socrates to Social Media is a book that should be read by conspiracy theorists, including people who believe Trump’s “Big Lie” that the election was stolen from him. Sadly, it will not be. As Mark Kurlansky aptly proves, if there’s one thing conspiracy theorists DON’T want, it’s to be disabused of notions that fit nicely with their own political agendas.
Thus, this book is more likely to be read by people who DON’T believe in conspiracies and who know a lie when they see it (or, if they don’t know initially, do the hard work necessary to find out).
Kurlansky’s chief targets here are big ones. He dips into both history and current events to tackle “big players,” including entire governments, movements, politicians, dictators, etc. The chapters break down like so: “Masked Revelers in a Carnival of Lies,” “The Enlightenment and the Unenlightened,” “Denial: The Short Way Around Science,” “Favorite Lies About Women,” “A Snowball in France: The Blame Game,” “Soviet Mathematics: 2 + 2= 5,” “The Truth about American Truth,” “Big Dictators and Big Lies,” “Photographic Lies,” “Saving Children: A Best-Loved Lie,” and “The Golden Lasso of Truth.”
Equally appealing, for readers who want to dive back in, is the Index. Here he breaks it down with these helpful categories (along with pages where you’ll find examples): “Defense against Lies,” “Motives for Lying,” “Sources of Support for Lies,” “Tactics of Liars,” “Targets of Lies,” “Tools of Liars,” and “Types of Lies.” Kurlansky also provides sources for all his material (putting his money where his mouth is).
Most interesting to me were all the roots and how deep they go into history. Sure, I knew about anti-semiticism, which goes way, WAY back, and, like racism, seems impossible to eliminate. But I never knew how much the Enlightenment set conservatives off. That movement, based as it was on science, facts, and knowledge, as well as democracy and the natural rights of man, immediately hit some powers-that-be’s the wrong way. And they’re STILL working against the Enlightenment today.
Worried about the fate of democracy in the U.S. and, indeed, the world over? Feel like it’s deja vu with a front-row view of the 1930s in your news sources? You can thank forces of the Unenlightened, who are still doing their damnedest to undermine liberal thought today. And yes, by doing so, the 'Unenlightened' are automatically at odds with the Founding Fathers, who were Enlightenment poster boys if ever there were any. After all, as was the case with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, believers in science, education, and democracy are nothing but out of touch ‘elites’ who read too many books and thus shouldn’t be trusted.
This book's mention of "elites" really hit home when I saw a headline in today's New York Times. It reads: "Putin Rails Against 'Western Elites' in Speech Aimed at U.S. Conservatives." (And how depressing is THAT?)
As for the Children’s chapter, in it Kurlansky goes after Q-Anon, showing how lies centering around children have been used throughout history, chiefly as a weapon against Jews.
Perhaps the best I can do in giving you an idea about this book is to offer some quotes from it, so I’ll finish with that and try to make it a representative mix, though of course that will be impossible.
“Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and all the great modern liars acknowledge that the important trick is to be lowbrow. Goebbels said that ‘the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.’”
“Talk radio simply spews one person’s opinions nonstop, without challenge. The opinions may be racist, sexist, and absurd lies, but it makes no difference, for there is no one to challenge. Callers are selected and can be ridiculed or cut off. The most successful of these new hosts, Rush Limbaugh, spewed hate and lies until his death in February 2021. Talk radio was primarily local before Limbaugh, but in 1988 he found a spot on WABC-AM and soon had five million listeners.”
“For all their changing initials, Russian secret police retain the same approaches and techniques and the same view of the power of lies. The more untruths the government can plant, the more confusion and chaos it can spread. Russian Communists invented the word ‘disinformation,’ setting up a special agency for its spread in 1923. Stalin started using the word after World War II. During the Cold War, the KGB produced thousands of fake organizations and fake dissidents, false stories, and conspiracy theories to sow discord in the West. One of the most famous, thoroughly exposed and debunked but still alive in social media, is that the US military spread AIDS.”
“Researchers found 400,000 bots on Twitter in the 2016 election run-up, two-thirds of which were pro-Trump. Russian bots retweeted pro-Trump fake stories thousands of times. They also retweeted Trump tweets 469,537 times (that we know of). It is unclear what effect this had on Trump winning the election. He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and won the electoral college by gaining tiny margins in a few states.”
“It would be a classic lie to claim that Russians are the fundamental source of lies in the US. There is no shortage of homegrown all-American liars.”
“Bannon became a top Trump advisor in 2016. Trump, by his own admission, doesn’t read, but Bannon does. With Bannon as an advisor, Trump followed many of the standard protocols of dictators of the past, people Trump probably knew little about. ‘Make America Great Again’ is a classic fascist statement. Hitler referred to Germany’s mythic greatness, and Mussolini referred to the Romans. Creating confusion by flooding the airwaves with lies is a standard totalitarian approach, as is arguing both sides of something. Trump pursued the lie that Obama was not born in the US, then repudiated it, then backed it some more.”
“Creating distrust of the electoral system is yet another standard totalitarian tactic. Trump warned that the 2016 election would be fraudulent, and then, when he won, he still claimed he had been cheated out of winning the popular vote. He made the same warning in 2020, and after he lost, he claimed he had won ‘by a landslide’ and the election had been stolen. After losing some sixty court cases—almost all of which were dismissed for a complete lack of evidence, even by the three Supreme Court judges he had nominated—his claim seemed a pointless exercise. Why would he pursue sixty cases with no evidence? As always, Trump was playing to his supporters, people well versed in conspiracy lies. He built a movement of people, including some elected Republicans, who would insist that elections could not be trusted. Always the huckster, he even raised millions of dollars from supporters for his cause. It all seemed worthwhile even without winning a single case.”
“Twitter, where stories have no backup, is ideal for this. If someone wants to say—as someone did—that Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s father killed JFK, they simply state it. Research shows that false stories spread on social media six times faster than real ones. They are just more exciting.”
(After referencing Carlos Collodi’s story of Pinnochio) “I imagine Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton giving a State of the Union address and watching their noses grow. Imagine Donald Trump, his nose expanding after each sentence until finally the beak outweighs the man. Or what would a conference between Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin look like? Which man would pitch forward first, unable to support the weight of his gigantic proboscis?”
“It is undeniable that journalists today, often from elite universities, have a pro-establishment bias. Let’s get reporting from ‘regular people’ free of that elite, insider, establishment viewpoint. Except that such contributors are also often free of the training, discipline, commitment, and ethical standards of professional journalists.”
“The big lie is that information is available on the internet quickly and easily. You have to go slowly and carefully. You might arrive at the right answer more quickly than by sifting manually through a dusty archive, but you have to put in some work. Critical thinking isn’t only about doubting; it’s also about finding out what is true.”
“In the 2015 Republican primary, journalists spent so much time and space debunking Trump’s lies that there was almost no airtime or newspaper space left to cover the policies and statements of the other sixteen candidates. Trump found that the more lies he told, the more completely he could dominate the news cycle. Perhaps special sections of newspapers and programming should be set aside for exposing lies so that the task doesn’t not consume all news coverage.”
In summation, I can only wish that more Americans, both conservative and liberal, would work harder at fighting lies big and small. Yes, it’s work, but isn’t a country worth it?...more
When you think of the term “well-researched history,” you seldom also think of the term “at times hilarious.” Dive into this gem and all that will chaWhen you think of the term “well-researched history,” you seldom also think of the term “at times hilarious.” Dive into this gem and all that will change.
With 240 reference notes and a 12-page index, Profiles in Ignorance: How America’s Politicians Got Dumb and Dumber shows academic rigor while at the same time keeping the reader entertained. To accomplish this, Andy Borowitz will typically provide facts and/or an anecdote and crown it with an aside, a zinger, or a sarcastic note that will crack you up.
Structurally, the book is divided into three stages as it tracks how we got to the scary place we find ourselves today. The stages are Ridicule, Acceptance, and Celebration. Historically, then, we go from the days where handlers worked hard to shield their ignorant charges from ridicule when said charges opened their mouths and revealed… not much furniture “upstairs.” This stage focuses on Ronald Reagan of Bedtime for Bonzo fame and Dan Quayle of “potatoe” fame.
From there we move to the Bushes, primarily G.W. (a.k.a. “Dubya”), who dragged ignorance into a heretofore unknown light – acceptance. He and his handlers did this by stressing what a regular guy he was (even though he was filthy rich), how only eggheads know a lot of stuff, anyway, and how not reading much (or caring much for books and people who read them) puts you in the same category as many Americans.
We also learn here that many voters vote for the person they’d “most like to have a beer with,” as if that is the crowning qualifier for the presidency. Acceptance is helped, too, if you constantly paint your opponent (in Dubya’s case, Al Gore) as a hopeless dweeb and wonk completely out of tune with most regular folk, who would put Gore’s type (as caricatured by Bush & Friends) in the category of weird Jeopardy! contestants.
Finally, we get Celebration, where idiocy is not only RIDICULE-FREE and ACCEPTED, but reveled in. Need I tell you where the history has brought us by this point in the book? I need not, because he just declared he wants to occupy the White House (for good this time, with the right sycophants and handpicked partisan judges) once more.
To give you a taste of Borowitz’s style, here is a bit focusing on Tony Schwartz, the “ghostwriter of [Trump’s] image-forging 1987 best seller, Trump: The Art of the Deal":
Schwartz was interviewed by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker. In her piece based on that discussion, she wrote, “During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.” There is, however, one book reportedly in his possession, according to his ex-wife Ivana: he kept a collection of Hitler’s speeches, titled My New Order at his bedside. His own oratory suggests that he might have dipped into that one from time to time.
“Trump’s aversion to reading the work of non-Third Reich authors posed a challenge to those at the White House charged with keeping him semi-informed. According to an email attributed to his chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, ‘It’s worse than you can imagine… Trump won’t read anything—not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored. To brief a man with such a severe case of book hesitancy, his aides resorted to a throwback from the Reagan era, putting on shows featuring graphs, maps, photos, and other word-free visual aids. After noticing that Trump was more likely to read material that mentioned his name, National Security Council staffers tried to trick him into finishing memos by crowbarring ‘Trump’ into as many paragraphs as possible.”
Toward the end of the book, Borowitz turns his attention to the Republicans in Congress who enabled Trump (and still do):
“In their earnest effort to flood the zone with shit, some Trump acolytes in Congress wound up shitting the bed. Exhibit A was Mary Miller, a freshman congresswoman from Illinois, who, in remarks at a pro-Trump rally in Washington on the eve of the Capitol insurrection, made an ill-advised reference to the president’s favorite bedtime author. ‘Hitler was right on one thing,’ she declared. ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Call it a rookie mistake, but someone should have told Miller that, when you start a sentence with ‘Hitler was right,’ it’s almost impossible to stick the landing. Since all she was trying to say was that children are the future, it’s baffling that she didn’t quote the far less genocidal Whitney Houston. In fairness, Miller was on the same page as her role model—Trump, that is, not the Führer—who once reportedly told his chief of staff John Kelly, ‘Hitler did a lot of good things.’ Her only mistake was saying in public what Trump had said in private. Knowing when and when not to praise Hitler can be tricky.”
In the final chapter, “Conclusion: Democracy’s Braking System,” Borowitz appeals to Americans who are upset with living so close to the precipice. He begs that we not just feel good about ourselves by staying informed and reading books like his and newspapers that can be trusted thanks to journalistic ethics. Giving money to campaigns is a cop-out, too (and he blames himself as much as the next guy). The true secret is getting involved on a grass roots level, and he provides plenty of examples on how to do that.
All in all, one of the most edifying and amusing books on the American political scene I’ve yet to read. Poor JFK, author (asterisk for “with the help of ghostwriter” inserted here) of Profiles in Courage. He must be turning in his eternally-lit grave these days. Reading Profiles in Ignorance might just help us turn the tide and give Pres. Kennedy some rest, but trust me when I say, it won’t be easy and it’s going to require real work. ...more
At 122 pp., this is one of the more succinct "how-to's" (for wannabe-poets) slash "how-it's-done's" (for wanna-understand-poets) out there.
This meansAt 122 pp., this is one of the more succinct "how-to's" (for wannabe-poets) slash "how-it's-done's" (for wanna-understand-poets) out there.
This means the 5-star people will praise it for doing what good poetry should do -- delivering in an economy of words, while the 3-star people will hedge a bit and wish it went more in depth via more elaboration and a few more example poems.
Me, I can hear both sides, so I'll make like the Buddha and walk the middle way. Four stars it is!...more
Of the three branches of government, I know the least about the judiciary. It makes sense. For one, their work is highly detailed and all about "the lOf the three branches of government, I know the least about the judiciary. It makes sense. For one, their work is highly detailed and all about "the law." For another, their work is mostly cloaked in secrecy.
This, then, is a helpful book to learn more about the Supreme Court, where it's been, and where it finds itself. Alarmingly, where it finds itself is in much the same place as the rest of the country. (Hint: It rhymes with "Trouble")
This has countless causes, chief of which is Trump's three appointments, helped along by Mitch McConnell, a man who history will remember as no friend to the Constitution or the United States he has pledged to serve and reneged on serving. (Sorry, Mitch, but serving party over country doesn't cut it.)
Personalities come to the fore in this book, but not in all nine cases. If there's a villain, it is not Thomas (more the eccentric, crackpot uncle upstairs, he) but Alito, a man who is pretty blatant about where he stands (set your GPS to 23 Fox "News" Lane).
Roberts has tried but failed to save the Court from evolving into Alito-style "partisans in robes" but, in his way, has himself contributed to the cause by working hard to undermine voting rights and giving religions preferential treatment.
In fact, under this 6-3 Conservative court, we are drifting back to a theocracy such as we had in Puritan New England. The Christian right has outdone itself bringing case after case after case to the court to lap up the new, preferential treatment that blows separation of church and state out of the water. Of course, despite its political activity, no religion is begging to lose its tax exemptions. (And this won't be the only example of irony you will come across.)
Gorsuch? He's the Ted Cruz of the Court, meaning he is little liked by any of his brethren. He relishes going after other justices -- especially Roberts -- in what can only be called, um, sarcastic dissents.
As for Kavanaugh, his opinions often wrestle with logic -- an opponent out of his opinion's weight class. In one case, Kavanaugh even contradicts his own opinion on a similar case earlier on. (Whoops.)
If there's a hero of the crew, it's Sotomayor. Eloquent, a spokesperson for the people -- especially minorities. The new right-heavy court seems to take special pleasure in finding ways to rule against the little guy.
As for Breyer, he's decided to follow Ginsburg's precedent and go for it. Not retire in this brief, shining chance, but to risk serving until he's had his fill or dies -- either of which is likely to occur under a Senate returned to Trumpublicans' graces. (That is, if voters decide to blame Democrats for the inconveniences they've had to countenance due to this pandemic, and there's every indication they will.)
*Editor's Note: Since this review, of course, Breyer did indeed, learn from Ginsburg error by retiring while Democrats held both the White House and the Senate. As poor Ruth found out, power is a difficult thing to give up once you've sipped the ambrosia, but alas, all it did in her case is shift power to the New Puritans of the Far Right.
For laymen like me, a very doable book by a capable writer who has been following the Court for decades. Revealing, is what it is. Sometimes in ways I wish it wasn't....more
If you've got serious health issues, breathing exercises may help in a small way, but they're not about to cure you. But what if you have nagging healIf you've got serious health issues, breathing exercises may help in a small way, but they're not about to cure you. But what if you have nagging health issues, the kind allopathic medicine can't really cure and really doesn't have time to dig into? In that case, breathing exercises might offer surprising relief.
Credit India, China, and Nepal of long ago. Hindus and Buddhists, chiefly. You know. The guys who practically stop their lungs from breathing or their hearts from beating or their skin from freezing even though they're "OM-ing" in the great outdoors, mid-winter.
But what about your lay-breather? You, me, the mail carrier? In that case, maybe slowing, speeding, holding (to the point of discomfort), or expanding your lung capacity might bring results. All it takes is... practice.
James Nestor has done a lot of practicing. For this book, he offered himself up for most every modern-day doctor, guru, and holy man alive -- all folks building on ancient knowledge and, in many cases, finding modern clues as to why the breathing techniques work. This, then, is the story of his journey.
Could it be your journey? And which breathing technique suits your problem best? I wasn't always clear on that, and descriptions of breathing techniques are no replacement for videos (better) and actual coaching with an expert (best).
Safe to say, though, that we all generally suck (see what I did there?) at the autonomic process of breathing. We should shut our mouths for starters. Always. Even exercising. And, if we don't have sleep apnea but do snore (check with your loved one or your dog), you might keep your unconscious self honest by trying "sleep tape" (it's on Amazon) over your mouth each night.
You see, the evolution of our heads has worked for us and against us. On the plus side, our skulls have made more room for our brains, even though you wouldn't know it reading exploits of your fellow men in the newspaper (many in positions of power). It's also evolved to make more room for the tongue and talking eloquently.
Big tongues don't help your breathing though. Nor does the continually shrinking mouth space overall. We overbreathe like we overeat. Sucking wind on the rapid, shallow breaths we've gotten used to. Often, unbeknownst to ourselves, sporadically holding our breaths.
Ideally, you see, your inhales should be 5.5 seconds followed by exhales of 5.5 seconds (5 or 6 are both acceptable). Try it, though, and you may find yourself breathless in quick order, like you need to "catch up" on your oxygen (pant, pant, shirt, shirt).
Speaking of big-letter O, did you know that CO2 is equally important to your well-being? (So if you feel like a plant sometimes, there's a scientific reason.) Sucking oxygen on the sidelines isn't really doing much for athletes, but hey, if THEY think so, let 'em mask up and gulp their wonder drug....
Ultimately, if you're too busy to think about your breathing, don't bother reading this. But if you're not too busy to think about it for, say, 10-20 minutes a day (practice!), give it a gander.
Or, as a shortcut because you care not about the details, you can take a tour of some of the breathing videos and excellent Q&A video interviews with pulmonary experts on Nestor's website by simply going to
"Books were banned, facts were banned, poets were banned, ideas were banned. It was an empire of lies. The lies -- the assault on language -- were the"Books were banned, facts were banned, poets were banned, ideas were banned. It was an empire of lies. The lies -- the assault on language -- were the necessary foundation for all the other assaults."
"The first victim of war is truth, goes the old saying, and a perpetual war against truth undergirds all authoritarianisms from the domestic to the global. After all, authoritarianism is itself, like eugenics, a kind of elitism premised on the idea that power should be distributed unequally."
Above all else, this book is about an author and authoritarianism. Its release this year couldn't be more appropriate, given the rise or enduring nature of authoritarians in Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Turkey, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. If any author is associated with anti-authoritarian sentiments, it is George Orwell (Eric Blair), whose name has become an overworked adjective, even, since 2016 and thanks to Jan. 6th, in the United States.
Speaking of the United States, this book ostensibly about Orwell and roses (he planted a garden, which became a metaphor for his love of the simple life, of our existence here as opposed to some afterlife, of his belief that privacy and truth and facts and language all meant something), also devotes a lot of attention to the simple act of lying. We consider it a child's fault that is best unlearned, but it is the preferred weapon of authoritarians who are far, far away from their childhoods.
"As withheld information, a lie is a sort of shield for the liar; as falsity it is a sword. It matters whether or not people believe the lies, but unbelievable lies wielded by those with power do their own damage. To be forced to live with the lies of the powerful is to be forced to live with your own lack of power over the narrative, which in the end can mean lack of power over anything at all. Authoritarians see truth and fact and history as a rival system they must defeat."
Proof positive that George Orwell, were he alive today, would be all over elected officials who are so-called defenders of the U.S. Constitution yet are busy rewriting the history of Jan. 6, 2021. In the vanguard, of course, is Trump, a man Solnit sees little point in mentioning until the final pages because a.) it's painfully obvious and b.) many writers have done so before her. And so she focuses on the likes of Joseph Stalin (a lemon guy vs. a rose guy), the Chinese government, and all other notorious controllers of past and present.
Words matter, as does propaganda. Thus Nineteen Eighty-Four and its exposé of the authoritarian playbook. Thus the warning bells sounding around us when we see the likes of Tucker Carlson and his Fox cronies on our television sets. Like the Soviets' ironically-named Pravda (Truth) of old, they are symptomatic of these 1930's-like times -- a time only helped by the pressures of the pandemic, of countries run by gangs and thugs using nationalism to make political hay over migrants seeking a better life, of a world quickly melting, burning, and drowning in its own climactic atrocities made in the name of power and greed.
In short, there could be no better time for lies and those who use it to gain and then retain power.
Though it is not a biography, the book offers readers a lot of information on George Orwell, his life, his politics, and his literary precepts. You will also learn a lot about roses, of all things. Solnit herself visits Columbia, where so many of the West's flowers come from in conditions not unlike the sweat shops feeding our hunger for cheap clothing.
In typical Solnit fashion, the hip bone's connected to the leg bone, and one essay's subject leads to another. But still, perhaps more than her other works, she remains rather disciplined here. Orwell. Orwellian. Truth. Lies. Even Silicon Valley. She refers to Internet giants and social networks (Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as another "superpower" gathering, controlling, and selectively distributing information (some facts, many lies) for profit -- all to a degree that authoritarian governments can only dream of and, in fact, seek to replicate for their own purposes.
More irony, isn't it? China blocking an episode of The Simpsons because it is unflattering to the ruling regime there. China and Russia seeking to control parts of the Internet because it rivals and can even surpass or contradict their own agendas. Thus we get an Internet that giveth and taketh away, depending on the country and its circumstances.
No wonder Orwell just wanted to grow a garden and go fishing. Alas, his conscience wouldn't let him. He had to write Nineteen Eighty-Four and many other books and essays as a warning. The only question now is, will he be heeded by the masses, or must they learn the hard way like their mid-Twentieth century predecessors?
As Orwell is mostly known for a book, I'd say the odds are stacked against him and in favor of much easier to assimilate and mimic sound bites, misinformation, Internet echo chambers, and lies from politicians who love TV for its friendliness to and facility for liars....more
Sometimes I pick up "how-to" books on writing and find them too academic. Borderline boring. Filled with Macy's Day Parade-sized excerpt balloons. I sSometimes I pick up "how-to" books on writing and find them too academic. Borderline boring. Filled with Macy's Day Parade-sized excerpt balloons. I still feel one of the best I've read is, ironically enough, Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. Ironic because I don't think he's much of a writer. At least not the kind people will be reading in 2122.
This book surprised me because, well, I expected a lot of practical stuff and didn't get much. It wants to be that book, I think, but Davies is more intent on an artistic re-imagining of the word "revision" and what it means. For instance, did you know that the exact same words can be a "revision" if they are read in different times under a different context? I love heady games like that.
A bit of memoir and self-promotion (he occasionally uses his own work as an example) goes into this, but all in all, I came away thinking, "Shoot. This is not just a book for writers. It's as much a book for readers!"
I liked it, I just don't think it is what it purports to be. But I reserve the right to revise my thoughts. That's for you, Mr. Davies. That's for you!...more
Every once in a while, I need a little "history repeats itself" by reading some history. Hey, better me repeating history than our fraught times, I fiEvery once in a while, I need a little "history repeats itself" by reading some history. Hey, better me repeating history than our fraught times, I figure.
Often I'll dive into known entities so I can learn more about them -- like when I read about the Founding Fathers (who are now "Foundering" Fathers if they have spirits and if they're watching our country as it heads toward a Niagara-like Fascist Falls consumed by the white water of gerrymandering and voter suppression). But sometimes I choose history that, no matter WHEN it went down, is news to me.
Danish Expedition? 1761 to 1767? And where on earth is "Arabia Felix" (translates to "Happy Arabia")? The simple answer to the latter is Yemen, at the bottom of the Arabian peninsula.
To the rest, you only need know this. In the 18th century, Denmark was a player. We tend to associate ships and explorers with France and Spain and, of course, Jolly Olde, but hey, the Danes were in the mix, too, in this case thanks to the purse strings of Frederick V. (On a side note, the Danes also were complicit when it came to Europe's role in the West Indian slave trade.)
On the bright side, though, this was the Age of Enlightenment. Science was all the rage. Countries competed with each other to discover not only new things but to glean new knowledge about old things -- especially if those things tied in with ancient history and Biblical times.
Science? Revered?
Knowledge? Praised above all else?
Truth? An actual "thing"?
Yes, my friends. Such times once existed. Pre-24 hour cable. Pre-propaganda channels masquerading as "cable news." Pre-Facebook and Pre-Twitter and Pre-Pick-a-Social-Network-ANY-Social Network.
The original five going on this journey were not all Danes. Two were, two were German, and one was a Swede. On the roll call, they were listed under the categories of "Philologus," "Physicus and Botanicus," "Mathematicus and Astronomus", "Medicus and Physicus," and "artist and engraver."
They were to translate new texts, crack old languages, take samples of exotic plant-life and fish and whatever else could be sent back, AND answer a huge list of questions sent along by scientists who were not lucky enough (or UNlucky enough) to go on this trip.
The troubles with this expedition were many, but therein lies the impetus for reading. First, egos. Second, personalities. Throw in a dash of nationalism. How about the competitive spirit? Can I interest you in some small-mindedness? You wouldn't expect "cliques" to form in a group so small, but you need only recall your school days to reassure yourself that, YES, division is not just a thing in math class.
And that was just the group. From the outside we get the usual culprits. Weather. Disease. Climate. Add human nature as seen in the people they meet along the way in Turkey and Egypt and Yemen (to name but a few spots). Enter, stage left, superstition. Enter, stage right, religion.
The hero of the bunch is the least assuming -- Carsten Niebuhr, the math and astronomy man whose astrolabe mapped out areas never reliably mapped before. He also foreshadows Lawrence of Arabia when he "disappears" from European radar by becoming an Arab named Abdullah. It's a lot easier to get work done when the natives don't much notice you. (Kind of like being an old person like me!)
But what's most interesting is the role of Chance. It rules over all. On any given day we could get up and leave home in our car at just the wrong time such that we meet up with another motorist whom Fate has chosen to collide with us.
And then there are the "deep breath" close calls. The times when Fate smiles on us. The times when we are Chance's darlings. Dodging bullets. Using up "cat lives."
All this works as much for expeditions as it does for individuals, for what is an expedition but a group of individuals who sometimes go down or meet success as a group and other times do the same due to personal decisions?
As the early portion of the book is all preparation and commentary on the group being assembled, it's a slow start. Once the ship sails, though, the reading does, too. And Hansen is anything but a dry chronicler. At times witty and wise, at times descriptive and perceptive, he quickly assures readers that they are in good hands.
Plus, the cover is pretty. And colorful. And expeditious.
Recommended for history buffs and fans of (shout it loud and proud!) science....more
Two books in one, really, one called "Fiction in the Real World" and one called "Workshop in the Real World."
For me, the first was more engaging (at lTwo books in one, really, one called "Fiction in the Real World" and one called "Workshop in the Real World."
For me, the first was more engaging (at least at this moment in my life) because it is a polemic that challenges assumptions I've carried around since I read John Gardner on writing. Salesses says, "Craft is a set of expectations." Then he adds, "Craft is also about omission. What rules and archetypes standardize are models that are easily generalizable to accepted cultural preferences. What doesn't fit the model is othered. What is our responsibility to the other?" He goes on to answer that question in detail.
Salesses goes after all manner of sacred cows in this section: "Write what you know," "Show, don't tell," "Kill your darlings," etc. You don't have to agree with him on every count (and I don't), but it's good to hear things that never occurred to you because never occurring to you is a symptom of the problem and, let's face it, the point of this book.
As for Part II, it's more conventional and equally detailed, only in a more concrete way. Here we get all manner of stories from Salesses' MFA past and conclusions drawn from it. Mostly, though, this section offers a plethora of ideas for teaching writing.
The trouble? Most have MFA students (like his) in mind. Ones with talent and ambition. That said, Salesses does say when he thinks one of his workshop variations (and there are SO many) for teaching writing will work well with beginners, too. Might they be middle school and high school students?
Let's just say good teachers know how to modify, so if "easy" is still a tall order, ladders can be constructed or chair legs can be cut.
Nota bene: If you don't teach but you DO write, many exercises and ideas are designed to help writers with short stories and novels. In that sense, Part II hides a nice "How To" feature for developing writers, which equates to many English teachers....more
Loading...
