Seventh Five Books of 2007

.

35) The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde, finished May 15

I first became aware of this book about the same time its first sequel came out. I loved the concept and truly wanted to read them, but didn't have my own copies and just never got around to it. So it goes. ¶ Since moving to El Cerrito, however, I have purchased both books at library sales for the grand total of one dollar and they have been sitting on my shelf with all the other Penguins, waiting their turn. With the completion of Jane Eyre (see #32), that time had come. ¶ The only possible complaint I can offer is that I had read Jane Eyre too recently, but that's being snippish. Let's just say this book was a total and absolute lark and I loved it. ¶ It was not exactly what I had expected, but that's okay. The detective novel voice was okay, the obvious clues and dead ends were okay. The book has no beef from me. I don't know how rabid readers of mysteries feel it fits into their genre, but me, I loved it. I love genre-bending wacko weird delightful brilliant fun intelligent gamey stuff. Bring it on! ¶ The only questions left now are, when will I read book two....and how long till a booksale gives me this...?
two days

34) Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman, finished May 14

I've said it before and I fear I'm just going to have to keep on saying it over and over again: Neil Gaiman's talent does not translate to well to longer work. It just doesn't and I'm sorry. ¶ Gaiman is an excellent story teller; his comics and short stories are exemplary, and many of his novel's more egregious sins would work better in short-story form. I just wish the man would let me read his manuscripts before he publishes them, because I really think I could make a big difference. ¶ And what are Neverwhere's sins? Well, to start with, they only intersect with American Gods's sins at a very superficial level. That's book's primary fault was a horrid, pasty bloatedness, gorging itself on the story's potential. And it was maddening: here was a book that could have been brilliant, irreparably damaged by a couple hundred extra pages; it read like an early draft. ¶ Neverwhere on the other hand is not too long. But it reads like a Terry Pratchett knockoff set in London, rather than Discworld. Now I know why Good Omens read like a Pratchett novel all the way through. (A lesser Pratchett novel, sure, but he writes those sometimes.) This, of course, is not necessarily bad. Not what Gaiman is uniquely empowered to give us, no, but not bad. Just disappointing. ¶ The setting is very Gaiman however, and the characters are split between Gaimain-types and Pratchett-types. But what's the problem? ¶ The problem is, shockingly, the writing. It's gimmicky. It uses Technique when simple telling would do. It expects us to be shocked by the same horror done the same way over and over and over again. It takes cheap shortcuts. It uses grammatical devises to heighten tension. ¶ And the saddest part is, none of those things should matter. None of those devises, in a Gaiman short story, would be a problem. The trouble is, he relies on the same ones over and over for 400 pages. ¶ None of this is to suggest he should not write longer books. Coraline was good, and for all I know Stardust and Anansi Boys may be too. I hope so. Because Neil Gaiman is a very good writer. His books should be edited to reflect that.
eight days

33) Chip Kidd: Book One: Work: 1986-2006 by Chip Kidd, finished May 9

This book and the one below it have been haunting my (literally) fevered dreams of late. Either I'm Jane Eyre fighting with St. John Rivers over going to India or napkin dispensaries, or I'm stressing about book design. Of course, in real life, I am stressing about book design, so the latter dream is not just illness playing with my recent readings. ¶ One great thing about Chip Kidd as book designer is he actually reads
the books he designs for--and often really likes them. Reading this monograph has turned me on to books like Geek Love, The Secret History and Brazzaville Beach that I had 0 interest in before. So he's still selling books! ¶ I had seen this book at a bookstore, but had forgotten about it until Katya pointed me back to it. What a good librarian!
ten days

32) Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, finished May 7

Lady Steed and I rarely read the same books at about the same time, which is a shame because by the time the other of us reads a book, the first has completely forgotten it. ¶ Well, I've been wanting to reread Jane Eyre for some time now and as Lady Steed's bookclub is reading it this month, I decided to read it as well. And it's still a very good book. ¶ One thing about the Penguin Classics edition, though: DO NOT READ THE INTRO NOR THE FOOTNOTES. THEY'LL RUIN EVERYTHING. It was because of this intro that I no longer read scholarly intros until I've finished books these days. Because this stinkin stoopid intro came with spoilers but no spoiler warnings. ¶ Now. Which Brontë comes next?
say a couple weeks

31) The Complete Peanuts 1959-1960 by Charles M. Schulz, finished April 25

I love these books. LOVE. THEM. Lady Steed gave me the most recent box set for Christmas, and I just finished the first volume. ¶ It took me quite a bit longer than any of the first four volumes did, but I suppose that's to be expected. First, because there is no way I could keep up my hopped-up breathlessness for fifty years' worth of books, and also because one of the thrilling things about reading these books is reading firsts, as if for the first time. Lucy's first appearance. Schroeder's first appearance. The first time Snoopy stands on his hind legs. Or thinks words. Or Linus's first words. ¶ Not that this book was firsts-free: Sally is born; Lucy sets up shop as a psychiatrist; Linus's first round with the Great Pumpkin---important moments all. ¶ One thing I love about reading Every Single Strip in the order of original release is watching Peanuts develop, strip-by-strip, just as America did fifty years ago. Yet having them all on page together lets Schultz's brilliance shine through. I don't know how obvious it could have been when they were spread out, only one a day. ¶ Anyway, another beautifully designed and produced book for one of the artistic landmarks of the last century. Check out the first book from your library and read it through. You'll see what I mean: It's magic.
four months

PREVIOUSLY

30) Devils & Demons edited by Marvin Kaye, finished April 23
29) Talk Talk Talk: Decoding the Mysteries of Speech by Jay Ingram, finished April 23
28) Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman, finished April 20
27) The Long Chalkboard: and Other Stories by Jennifer Allen and illustrated by Jules Feiffer, finished April 19
26) Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, finished April 19
25) Frank by Jim Woodring, finished April 12
24) The Complete Concrete by Paul Chadwick, finished April 3
23) The Rumpelstiltskin Problem by Vivian Vande Velde, finished March 30
22) Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, finished March 28
21) Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller et al, finished March 23
20) A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers, finished March 16
19) Batman: Gothic by Grant Morrison et al, finished March 13
18) Wild at Heart by John Eldredge, finished March 7
17) Stink: The Incredible Shrinking Kid by Megan McDonald, finished March 7
16) 50 Professional Scenes for Student Actors: A Collection of Short 2 Person Scenes by Garry Michael Kluger, finished March 6
15) Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair by Pablo Neruda, finished March 5
14) Frindle by Andrew Clements, finished March 1
13) Brain Wave by Poul Anderson, finished February 27
12) The Best American Comics 2006 edited by Harvey Pekar and Anne Elizabeth Moore, finished February 26
11) Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer, finished February 15
10) The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ edited by Mormon and Moroni, finished February 7
9) Lisey's Story by Stephen King, finished February 1
8) The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett, finished January 26
7) Empire by Orson Scott Card, finished January 24
6) Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli, finished January 22
5) Vile Bodies by Evelyn Waugh, finished January 17
4) Superman Adventures Vol. 1: Up, Up and Away! by Mark Millar, finished January 16
3) A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson, finished January 12
2) Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, finished January 11
1) Galápagos by Kurt Vonnegut, finished January 10

Read about
The First Five
The Second Five
The Third Five
The Fourth Five
The Fifth Five
The Sixth Five

A brilliant new evolution in my thinking

.

Some time ago, prepregnancy, I suggested the name Bloodstone would be wicked cool should we ever have another son. In reply to this, my loyal readers suggested other rock-based names, including Bauxite, Shale, Fool's Gold, Rutilated Quartz, Hematite, Lapis Lazuli, Tourmaline, Onyx, Moonstone, Gilsonite, Asphaltum, Uintahite, Topaz, Galena, Slate, Mica, Beryl, Calomel, Gabbro, Euclase, Kaolin, Malachite, Mercury, and Silver.

Oh, but I can do better than you all. And it will work for a girl or a boy:

GYPSUM.

Ha ha!

Hohoho!

HeeheeHEHEHEHEEEE!

HA hA!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAAAA!!!!

Phew.

I am awesome.

Who wants easy? (a svithe)

The main difference in the case of Joseph Smith is that he had something concrete to show for it: It was the Book of Mormon. It always came back to the Book of Mormon. And the most important function that the Book of Mormon served in the early church was not that it introduced new teachings . . . it was the mere presence of the Book of Mormon itself as an object . . . a visible, palpable object . . .

Joseph describes the plates . . . as a connoisseur describes a fine book in his library collection. There's a kind of attentiveness to the detail -- the physical detail, the craftsmanship of the plates, the nature of the writing, the thickness of the total package -- that is very, very striking, because right away what he is doing is he is turning our attention to the absolute physicality.

What Joseph does there, see, he takes a very important step from which he would never, never retreat, and that is that he creates a foundation from which it is virtually impossible to mythologize or allegorize the foundations of Mormonism. What that means is that it puts the Book of Mormon in a position in which it is very, very hard to find a middle ground, because [with] many of the stories of the Bible we can say, "Well, we don't know that God really wrote with his finger on the tablets of Moses," or, "We don't know that Moses really spoke face to face with God." One can take a kind of distance and say it's the message of the Bible that's important; that God has become incarnate in Jesus Christ, and salvation is through him . . .

The same is not true in the case of the Book of Mormon. It's not the message in the Book of Mormon which is true; it's the message about the Book of Mormon. If Joseph really was visited by an Angel Moroni and really was given gold plates, then he was a prophet, and he has the authority to speak on God's behalf. That's how the logic worked. One can't take a kind of distance and say, "Well, maybe he was an inspired dreamer; maybe he was an inspired visionary," because from day one he points to the physicality of those plates, meaning that the foundations of Mormonsim are located in real space and time, not in a prophet's interior world . . .

There's no question that the church rises or falls on the veracity of Joseph Smith's story. Now, as a consequence, some people, for example, the Community of Christ, their president made a statement a few years ago in which he said, "History as theology is perilous." You don't want, in other words, to found all of your beliefs and hopes and religious values on a historical account that may prove to be spurious. To which my reply is yes, history as theology is perilous. If it turns out that the whole story of Christ's resurrection is a fabrication, then Christianity collapses. That's the price we pay for believing in a God who intervenes in human history, who has real interactions with real human beings in real space and time. That makes it historical, and that's a reality that we just can't flee away from . . .

"Mormonism is so young it has no place to hide." That's very true. I had a friend who was a religious scholar who said that for Christianity to thrive, there must always be an empty tomb where faith can enter in. Mormonism doesn't have very many empty tombs. Every compartment that you open in Mormonism has a physical artifact or resurrected being or historical event that calls upon our faith and ascent. There haven't been thousands of years for interpretations and translations and complicated transmission history to intervene between God's word and our reception of that word. What we have is an unmediated presentation of gold plates to us through one prophet figure . . . It is its strength . . .
-----Terry Givens

Sorry, sorry, kind of a long quote, I know, but I like the point he's getting at: being a believing Mormon is a hard thing. We have no antiquity to hide behind. We can't wax metaphorical and pretend the metaphor is all that matters. We have to either accept the historicity of our faith or we have to just forget it.

This is good. Too much in life is easy. In America, my wage is considered poverty-level, yet, compared to most of time and space, I live in incomparable luxury: I have an automobile; I have a solid shelter with fancy new 21st-century windows; I have plenty to eat; I have floss and Listerine; I am unlikely to die of my current disease; I live without fear of Visigoths appearing at my door.

Yet it is good for things to be hard.

To get back to Mormon history, being hounded and besieged and occasionally murdered was good. If things had been easy, Mormons would be a footnote in Palmyra history and nothing else. Physical adversity made for a strong foundation.

But today, at least here in El Cerrito, not a lot of tar and feathering in my neighborhood. I don't anticipate being driven across the Bay to Sausalito. All is well.

What a silly thing to say.

This is not an age of faith; it is an age of reason. You hit my reset button and I don't go to faith, I go to reason. The year is 2007. Check a calender. So attrition for such reasons is easy to understand--and not even anything new--but is does not suggest the road should be widened or flattened or eased in any way. What worth is there in simplicity? Why climb Mt Everest if it holds no challenge? Why find the source of the Nile if I can do it in Dockers? Why believe something that does not require the stretching of my soul?

Given my current state of health, I cannot be certain that I am proceeding logically here and I definately don't want to chance explaining illogic with further illogic, but logic is not the point anyway: the point is faith.

To me, svithing has never been, primarily, about proselyting my own faith, though of course it is natural that I would svithe Mormon as often as not. But in matters of faith--any faith--I think it is important to ask how difficult your faith is. If all it requires is your general agreement that the sky is high and blue and there may well be something far beyond it, what good can that do you?

Faith is work. Work is power. Power is the source of true faith.

How hard are we willing to work?




last week's svithe

My face is a pentagon

.

I look like I have the mumps. I don't know why. It is not possible that I should have the mumps. I had an MMR less than a year ago; I had the mumps about ten years ago, followed by an MMR; I had an MMR as a very very small child--about the same time you had yours.

Yet my lymph nodes in my jaw and neck have swollen like balloons, making me look, well, like a pentagon.



I suppose it's a good thing Lady Steed tells me the huge, strong jaw look isn't really working for her.

I don't feel like making out anyway.

Ah, crap.

.

Well, I missed Chuck Palahniuk. And I'm sure I'll miss tomorrow with Daniel Handler and Christopher Moore. Saturday I'll miss Michael Chabon, Tuesday, Barbara Kingsolver; May's last Wednesday, Sherman Alexie.

This sucks.

But it's well within my power to go.

You see, the perhaps stranger problem is how dizzily nervous I am about listening to any of these people read. Or watching them talk. Or having them sign my books.

I wonder why that is.....







B U Y T H E B O O K S

Palahniuk
Handler
Moore
Chabon
Kingsolver
Alexie

Tuesday is the day you find things

.

When I was in elementary school--sixth grade--I had a string of good luck wherein I received or found--at no cost to me--a bunch of cool stuff, always on Tuesdays. Thus, Tuesday became the day I found things.

In part, this designation was one symptom of my desperate attempts to be superstitious. Other failures included....

I tried to have a lucky clothespin. I kept forgetting to rely on it.

My three-taps,-three-swings routine simply didn't help me hit the baseball.

And all the traditional ones--black cats, ladders, salt over shoulders--simply did nothing for me. Too silly. And illogical.

I don't know what the big deal is. Tom Sawyer never had any trouble whatsoever being superstitious. It's not fair!

Anyway, I'm thinking I need to make another effort at being superstitious. I'ld like to start by finding cool stuff on Tuesdays, but here are some other notions I may try:

♦ Eat potato chips Friday nights in order to grow my investments.

♦ Shoot rubberbands at toddlers to stave off dementia.

♦ Scratch the backs of my thighs to ward off the evil eye.

♦ Stick my hands in my pockets whenever I see a shady character. And whistle.

♦ Same thing if I see a cop.

♦ Take my hat off indoors--I already do this anyway, but now I'm going to be motivated by a fear of vengeful earthquakes.

♦ Stick my fingers in my ears whenever I see an ad for luxury automobiles.

♦ Yawn every Monday morning at 2am.

If you have any superstitious suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to send them my way.

"A solid enough mass of intellectual organs" (vocabulary courtesy of Currer Bell)

.

ruth

animadversions

slatternly

immates

debarrassed

negus

freak

chasséed

alarum

deglutition

colloquy

badinage

pertinaciously

seraglio

tyne

pinion

gräfinnen

bilberries

alternations

palisades

lozenged

inanition

votary

wicket

emulous

paysannes

coadjutor

hierophant

propitiate

conciliate

curate

midge

lameter

cicatrized

redd

lachrymose

impressible

fillip

scrag

faâl

Special Guest Svither: Jane Elliott (with commentary by theric)

.

I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot.

Jane has a good point, folks. When is the best time to make important and difficult decisions? Now in the silence? Or then in the chaos?

As I familiarize myself with her story, it's hard to see why she does not follow her passion. But I think she made the right choice. By following her previous choice.

But sometimes . . . maybe ? . . . perhaps ? - - -

No!

But sometimes . . . maybe ? . . . perhaps ? - - -

No!

But sometimes . . . maybe ? . . . perhaps ? - - -

No!

But sometimes . . . maybe ? . . . perhaps ? - - -

No!

But how can I be sure?

What makes you think you can be?

I need to be sure!

Why?

I need to be sure.

There is no surety.

But I need to be sure.

I am sorry.

I know.

We must go on.

We will go on.

Let's go.


last week's svithe

Yeah! Summer-Time! Feel it! In your Spider-Bones!

.

So early buzz isn't as ecstatic for Spider-Man 3 as it was for 2, so I guess it's okay that the Fobs aren't around to go see it with. And, although I liked 2, I did not like 1, so viewing 3 is not all that urgent.

And Pirates 2 was nothing near as good as 1, so I may be able to get through this summer blockbuster free.

Except....

Except there is this little thing called Transformers.

Transformers.

Well!

I've been thinking about going through all the movies slated for this summer and in one big long post talking about how sorry I will be to miss them, but it's too sad. No Shrek. No License to Wed (but thurs is still available). No Bourne. No Stardust. No No Reservations (not a double negative). No Ocean's Thirteen. (No Ocean's Thirteen?!?!) No Nancy Drew. No September Dawn (and thank goodness for that). No Paris, Je T'Aime. In fact, all I think I'm apt to see are that robot movie mentioned above and Pixar's Ratatouille (which is a sure bet and maybe if I pay him ten bucks, John Lasseter will give me a job. John?).

Boy oh boy. The summer movie season is upon us.

Let's dance.

The number one (in red)

.

ONE