Currently reading . . .

Currently we're reading Necropolis, by Anthony Horowitz, book four of the series, The Power of Five. Meeting this Thursday. See you then!

Possession: A Romance

We discussed Possession: A Romance by A.S.Byatt last week. Of the six of us present, three had finished the book (including me!), one had nearly finished, one had read a small amount and seen the movie, and our host had seen the movie. (I too had seen the movie.)

It was a very weighty book to try to discuss in our usual time period of around an hour and a half, and as a result we jumped from topic to topic quite erratically as ideas formed and people bubbled over trying to express their opinions. I'm not sure how we would have coped with a larger group!

Somewhat inevitably, we discussed the poetry -- both in terms of how it was used to add atmosphere, texture and information, and whether it was necessary to read it all from end-to-end. I believe we were divided on that point. I personally found that experiencing the poems via the audio presentation was vastly easier and thus more enjoyable than reading them in the conventional manner, and I think the other audio listeners found this as well. And while it was certainly possible to enjoy the novel without reading them, I think they are an integral part of the whole and therefore enhanced the novel considerably. The bitterness of Mummy Possest gives great insight into Ash's feelings, for example. And those short, sad poems by Christabel left with Sabine's journal are also very revealing. (It was pointed out that most of the novel's complexity is derived from the poems, journals and letters. Without them you're left with little more than a slightly predictable plot hinged on coincidence!)

We also talked over several of the relationships -- Roland and Maud's is perhaps the central one for which the entire novel was declared an 'enormous foreplay' by one of our group. Certainly they spend an awfully long time getting to the point! In a podcast interview with Byatt she said that the novel had to end with Roland 'possessing' Maud to give the whole thing symmetry. She added that one of the sub-themes of the novel was exploring the effect overt 1980s feminism might have on a woman -- does it inhibit or enable? In Maud's case it was the former. Hence the waiting.

On the subject of the portrayal of academia, we discussed whether Roland's initial act of stealing the draft letters was reprehensible or not. I confess I lean a little to the side of not -- to my mind it's a bit like the proverbial tree in the forest. (i.e. if no-one knows they're there, does it actually matter?) Others thought the opposite! The discovery of the letters and the quest they engendered are for me at the heart of the story, and are what made me love the movie when I first saw it, which led me to select this book to read. Like Roland, like Maud, I wanted to know! I can clearly imagine the excitement they must have felt at such a momentous discovery!

Obviously we talked about all sorts of other things as well. I could go on about this novel for hours . . . about how I shared Roland's bereftness when all the others got in on the act and took the secret away from him and Maud . . . about how the plot relied a little too heavily on coincidence . . . about the fascinating characters of Leonora Stern and Beatrice Nest . . . about the various meanings of 'possession' and how they are explored . . . about the difference between feeling connected through words, as opposed to through artifacts . . .

As usual, my take on the novel is fairly analytical in terms of craft. I stand in awe of Byatt and her ability to create such a complex and convincing world -- she wrote all the Victorian poetry in two distinct voices, plus fairy tales, journal entries, letters etc in more voices again. Moreover, she says she wrote them in-situ, not after the fact, so they are integral building blocks of the story. But it's not just the poems. In fact, they might almost have been easy in comparison with all the other sources she created -- such as excerpts from Cropper's The great ventriloquist. This is replete with academic theory and analysis that sounds convincing enough to an ignoramus like me.

The novel is also rich with subtext and symbolism, and I'm sure I missed most of it. But for instance most of the characters are defined by colour -- Christabel (and Maud) is green because that's evidently the colour of fairies; Ellen Ash is white. I confess the colours were revealed to me in the podcast, so now I'll have to read it again to take more notice! (A very interesting thing Byatt said was that she sees novels in colours -- like an abstract painting -- and she can't write without knowing what colour it is . . .)

The final thing I am going to share is Byatt's inspiration for the novel. She was sitting in the British Museum library watching a Coleridge scholar pacing around the catalogues, and started wondering whether the woman had an original thought, or whether it was all the poet. Does he possess her, or does she possess him?

For those that are interested, here's the link to the podcast.

Here's a link to my (very different) post on Possession on Forge and Brew.

Amsterdam

Sorry for my silence - it has been a crazy few months with work and moving house such that there just hasn't been much time to do anything else. However, in all of this, I did manage to read 'Amsterdam' by Ian McEwan. I was definitely intrigued by the title, living in NL, and was curious to see how Amsterdam would be incorporated into the story. Unfortunately, that seemed to be where the intrigue stopped.

I must be honest and say that I didn't get the story - did I miss something? From the first chapter, I did not feel any empathy towards the characters. They were not interesting, they were not people I think I would relate to, they certainly didn't make me want to find out what happened to them. And although I persisted, my feelings didn't change.

So when it came to the turn of events in Amsterdam, I was somewhat relieved. They were put out of their misery, and I felt relieved. And yet, I had a hard time believing that two 'friends' would go to such lengths? I can understand that the book was meant to be satirical, but a satire about what? Is this were I missed the point?

I would be very interested to know what others thought of the book, and perhaps to explain where I lost the plot (so to speak). Sadly, 'Amsterdam' has not intrigued me enough to want to read another McEwan novel.

i read a girl's book

Brainspiked from too much young adult fiction, i went in search of something new to read... no wonder guys don't read. Apparently this is a widely acknowledged issue - guys don't read so nobody publishes stories that guys might like. No surprise then that the entire best sellers list on Amazon looks like some kind of Oprah book club nightmare designed to send male audiences straight back to their day jobs.

Anyway, limiting my time investment, i picked four books and placed an order. I knew "Bertie" would be a bit soft, but i wanted something for light reading on a plane. It's safe to say that it did discuss love and happiness far too much for my liking, but there were also some gems of literary construct to be found. The writing style deliberately adapting itself to suit the characters, but not in an obvious or patronising way. The emergence of a modern saint at a point coincident with the lament of their passing was possibly my favourite part of this story - that and the evil little girl Olive who dropped a line that still makes me laugh to think of it.

So yes i read a girl's book and i survived the journey. Please don't tell anybody i did it though. I promise you that i drank a lot of beer, went surfing twice, lifted a couple of heavy objects, changed the oil in my car and wrestled a bear whilst reading it.

Still i'd rather do that than read what passes for male fiction these days - apparently we are supposed to like murder mysteries with crass innuendo (plot optional). Whatever.

One final piece of small advice for the male reader (apparently there are three left in the southern hemisphere) - do not succumb to exhaustion and google "adult male fiction" - a lurid error to be made only once.

I suggest... "literature -young -adult -Oprah -Jane -Austen +please +anything +really? "

Currently Reading . . .

The book for September is POSSESSION, by A.S.Byatt. Winner of 1990 Man Booker Prize.

If you haven't already started, get reading now, because it's >500 pages long!!

Another kids book for August

On behalf of Louise

Currently Reading . . .

For August we're reading children's books to children on Sunday 2 August. I tried to think of what my favourite picture book was as a child, but (unsurprisingly) can't remember back that far! So I've settled for a classic here.

Please everyone post a kids' book they remember or love from now or yesteryear.

PS. The book following is Possession by AS Byatt. Would recommend people start reading this now!

Currently reading . . .

On that clear and stormless night following the days of plague and famine, a hundred thousand hungry creatures came out from their retreats to hunt for food. For eighteen hundred miles east and west and a thousand miles north and south, slim gaunt-bellied creatures hunted under the moon and the stars. Something told Kazan and Gray Wolf that this hunt was on, and never for an instant did they cease their vigilance. At last they lay down at the edge of the spruce thicket, and waited. Gray Wolf muzzled Kazan gently with her blind face.

currently reading . . .

Meeting in 2 weeks!

May book (were reading)

Nobody has blogged about this - how sad. I'm afraid I didn't manage to read it, but I believe people found it good . . .

Currently reading

Into the Wild (2)

I have 'reviewed' Into the Wild over at Forge & Brew. Will post some more personal thoughts here, plus sum up general comments from last week's meeting in a day or so . . .

Into the Wild (1)

I saw the movie 'Into the Wild' last year some time, upon the recommendation of my brother. I remember thinking how tragic the story was, and so when the book was selected for the reading group, I was interested to see how close the movie was to the actual events. Of course, I knew that there wasn't going to be a happy ending, but I wondered how the author of the book would interpret the course of the events and perhaps shed some light on why Chris McCandless decided to embark on such an adventure. Although it is not entirely clear as to what were McCandless' motivations, I think the book did manage to give some insight into who McCandless was.

One may argue that his behaviour was the result of his upbringing - that the standards and expectations of his parents were what forced him to abandon his former life, to seek a less oppressive alternative. However, I never got that impression. The fact that McCandless was always somewhat of an outsider suggests that he had quite a different (unreal?) expectation of the world and society. It was mentioned several times in the book that he seemed almost naive in how he viewed the world, and I think that this particular trait was his undoing. From my perspective, I think McCandless was in actual fact trying to find himself and he chose to do this by isolating himself from others. I got the impression that he felt that he didn't want or need to live a 'normal' life - to interact with people, to have money or possessions - and could be self-sufficient without these elements of society. And so he embarked on a journey to test this hypothesis. However, this journey of self-exploration only resulted in the realisation that he was not meant to live (and die) alone.

But I think that that most of us go through a similar journey, albeit not to the same extreme. At some point, we question where we fit into society, and who are we as individuals. Sometimes, it is necessary to displace oneself from our own habitat in order to find out who we are - I can say that this was one of the reasons I left Australia. I wanted (needed) to put myself into different situations/enviroments to see how I would react. And by doing so, I learnt more about myself, and my limits, as well as what I wanted from myself and the people around me. Had I stayed in Australia, I may have also discovered this over time, but I do believe that the journey would have taken longer.

I thought it was interesting that the author of the book, Jon Krakauer, had undertaken similar adventures during his younger years. At first, I thought this was a bit egotistical, but after reading of his experiences in the context of McCandless story, I think it helped to give some perspective on McCandless' thought processes. Had McCandless survived his ordeal, I think he would have returned to civilisation and carried on life in a more or less 'normal' way.

A tragic yet thought provoking book, and one that I am sure I will read again, sometime.

Currently reading . . .

Back into it

It's hard to think about anything but bushfires today, but we have kicked off Page Turners for the year with a nice evening last Thursday. How long ago that seems already.

Most of us have had a relaxing summer with many books read, including:

All that happened at number 26 (Denise Scott)
People of the book (Geraldine Brooks)
Kushiel's Scion (Jacqueline Carey)
Tuesdays with Morrie (Mitch Albom)
The undomestic goddess (Sophie Kinsella)

. . . plus many more I'm sure! (Feel free to add any in the comments section.)

I'm compiling the 2009 reading list, with the first four identified. Stay tuned for more additions.

November: The God Delusion (1)

It was an interesting read from a number of perspectives. I grew up attending our local Uniting Church and so I guess one might say I am a Christian. However, I have not really been to church since then (the odd wedding and funeral aside) and would be inclined to say that I am probably agnostic. In this regard, one might think that I would concur with Dawkins arguments - as potentially one of the choir - but throughout the book, I was continually finding ways to negate his arguments.

Does this mean that I am actually more religious than I thought? Or was it just that the way he expressed his arguments were in a way bating for a response? Indeed Dawkins' writing style struck me as arrogant and patronising, which did nothing to endear me to him. This also gave me the impression that he was no better (and potentially worse?) than the people he was referring to in the book. I also watched the BBC documentary that is based on 'The God Delusion', and one pastor even made such a comment after having been railroaded by Dawkins. This is the first of such books that I have read, so I have nothing to compare it to, but I can say that I was put off a lot by the tone.

In terms of what he was saying in his arguments, for the most part I agree. I recall even when I was attending church that I would often question (to myself) statements from the bible or the minister's sermon, and I think this played a big part in me moving away from religion. In my mind, evolution seems more rational, and that alone is enough to raise doubts about the presence of God. However, I believe that Dawkins fails to realise that not everyone thinks alike. Not everyone reasons in the same way, not everyone applies the same logic, and this results in a difference of opinion, whether it be of God and religion or another subject. Even when both sides present rational, logical arguments, sometimes one just has to agree to disagree.

OK, so I know that the 'facts' are in his favour here, and I do agree that there often seems to be more harm than good coming from religion, but there is a small part of me that thinks that the God idea is somewhat romantic (but not the fire and brimstone God). I used to have a similar fascination with ghosts in general - I just like the thought that there is more to life than what we have on earth. And I so like the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun. Being reduced to a statistic (as Dawkins kindly showed) is not romantic at all.

But something I was also wondering is if there is no God, would people find something/someone else to worship? I see how some people fixate on celebrities (singers, actors) and to some extent politicians and wonder if these are alternative idols. In such cases, the worship is often limited (until the person is no longer famous, or someone else comes along) but are we just looking for a hero (role model?) of sorts? In this regard, I do think that religion goes beyond the bible, and feel that in order to understand why people believe in God, we need to know why we worship idols.

October book - Parentonomics

We're running a bit behind with posts here -- sorry guys! Once again, this is what I've posted over at Forge & Brew, with minor edits.

We read Parentonomics by Joshua Gans, husband of one of our group members, in September and discussed at our October meeting. I've delayed posting because I haven't quite finished the book. Somewhat unusually for me, I'm still reading it after the discussion. However, we had the second half of our discussion at last week's meeting, so it seems appropriate to post about it now. ( . . . Before I get into posting about the next book!)

Parentonomics is subtitled "An economist dad's parenting experiences" and is exactly that. Joshua is an economics professor at Melbourne Business School who has found himself applying many fundamental economics principles -- mainly in the form of incentive schemes -- in the rearing of his three children. He has a blog called game theorist (musings on economics and child rearing) which I understand has a large following, and it is this which generated the material for the book.

Not being a parent, I'm not a regular follower of the game theorist blog, although on the occasions I've visited I've found it an interesting and entertaining read. Parentonomics of course picks out all the best bits. Joshua has arranged hundreds of anecdotes, derived from both his own parenting experience and his wide reading, into themed sections and chapters that deal with issues such as toilet training, discipline, and even children's parties. His writing style is easy to read, humorous and insightful, while the way he (and in many cases his children) thinks is fascinating. I admit that knowing the family probably makes it more meaningful, but I think this is a book that most parents would enjoy. Joshua dwells on both the successes and failures of his economic gambits.

Our first group discussion was over a month ago now and I don't recall much of it. I think we found ourselves dwelling on our own childhoods and how they compared with Joshua's kids', and that we discussed whether there might be a long-term impact of raising kids using incentive schemes. Without exception, we all enjoyed reading the book, even those of us without kids.

At our most recent discussion, we went through some questions that N, "the children's mother", had put together. (She intentionally wasn't present at our first discussion.):

1. Did you find reading the book voyeuristic? If so, was it because you knew (some of) the characters?

Most of us present said that in a few parts, but not many, we had felt a little voyeuristic, but only because we knew the characters. The most notable for me were incidents related to childbirth. Othertimes I felt like I was getting to know the family even better.

2. Did the fact that none of the characters are named (other than the author) bother you, or interfere with the flow of the stories?

We all said no I think. In principle this is true, although I think that Joshua wasn't always consistent with his pseudonyms, which probably bothered me a little bit. We commented that N was always "the children's mother" instead of his wife, which we found interesting.

3. Do you think you learnt anything about economics?

Yes, a little. I think I always considered economics to be about $$ and money markets, but in fact money is just one kind of incentive.

4. Did you learn anything about parenting?

Reading about parenting experiences is bound to introduce new aspects of parenting I hadn't before considered. Parenting is hard (from all accounts) and it's not surprising that everyone tries different methods. Parentonomics introduces a different perspective that might work with some children, but probably not all.

5. Have you thought about what a sociological equivalent to the book would be like?

I believe we agreed that there were many such books out there.

6. Do you think it's inappropriate for an economist to publish a book about parenting, about which he is technically not qualified?

Joshua makes clear right at the beginning that this is not an advice book, and that his experiences are his alone. There is no law that says one has to be qualified to publish a book. So long as there are people out there who want to read it, and a publisher who wants to publish it, it's fine!

7. Did the combination of stories about the authors children interspersed with his research work well as a narrative?

I thought so. However, I think most of us said the anecdotes about his kids were the most entertaining and interesting. I made the comment that I felt the book owed a lot to the personalities of the first two children, and the eldest in particular. Maybe it's just the slant Joshua casts upon them, but the way they think and act seems remarkable. But perhaps all kids are remarkable but it's not documented! (I understand child #3, who was very young for much of the time covered by this book, will be featured much more prominently should there be a sequel!)

8. For those who don't have children: did you find it difficult to relate to the stories?

We said no, we had all been kids once and many of us had nieces and nephews. As I said before, we spent considerable time at the original meeting reminiscing about our own childhoods.

To sum up, it was an interesting experience reading and discussing a book written by someone I know socially (as opposed to knowing someone from the SF community). Especially something that boils down to a fairly personal account of family life. There's some intriguing stuff in there. And some smart kids.

Currently reading . . .

This month we're reading The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. And doesn't it pack a punch‽ I imagine this book would be very confronting for many people. But more on that after the 6 Nov discussion . . .

As for a post on Parentonomics, our October book -- I haven't forgotten. Will post on this soon.

Blindness by Jose Saramago

This month, I took the liberty to read something different, since I wasn't going to be able to get a copy of Parentonomics in time. A month or so ago, I saw a preview for a movie called 'Blindness' where there is an epidemic of a contagion that causes blindness. I was intrigued by the plot, only to later discover that it is a book by Jose Saramago, a Portugese writer who received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1998. By coincidence, a friend of mine had a copy of the book, so I jumped at the opportunity to read it.

From the first page, I was completely drawn into the story, which begins with a man going blind while waiting in his car for the traffic lights to turn green. At this stage, it is not known that the blindness is contagious, and someone offers to take him home. Later, his wife takes him to the eye doctor, who is stumped by this man's condition. Only later, when the doctor himself goes blind, does he realise that this could be a potentially serious situation. In the attempt to contain the contagion, those that are afflicted are quarantined in an empty mental institution. And there, the real story begins.

Imagine a society where everyone is blind. Imagine having to fend for oneself without being able to see, and without any support. Saramago's novel depicts this situation, and in essence, the breakdown of society under such conditions. Those that are quarantined are ostracised. Those that are still able to see are scared of getting to close for fear of going blind. But how does one clean oneself, feed oneself and take care of ones wellbeing without external help? Let me just say that the consequences are not pretty.

Saramago's novel is one of extremely powerful imagery, almost frighteningly realistic. He initially seems to suggest that we are just one major disaster away from chaos. But is this a fair assumption? If we lived in a society without laws, without a governing body, would this lead to chaos? As the novel progresses, there is a change in the behaviour of people. By the end, there is almost an acceptance of the situation, which results in a different sort of social awareness and order. The blind have adapted to their limitations, and although it is not life as we know it, there is civility amongst the people. This seems to imply that people are to a certain extent malleable - that no matter what is thrown at us, society will always adapt. Does this mean that after any type of social disruption that ultimately some sort of order will be achieved?

Saramago's style of writing is unusual, and in many cases difficult to follow. No one has a name and is referred to by a defining feature (the first blind man, the girl with the dark glasses, the thief, the doctor's wife). There is also a overwhelming lack of punctuation, sometimes making it difficult to know who is talking to whom, with sentences often as long as paragraphs. But these aspects of the book intrigued me, as it was mentioned in the book, how do you put a face to a name when you can't see the face?

When I consider the books that I have read over the past year, many have touched upon this theme of social breakdown. I seem to have a fascination for reading about people who have been taken out of their normal environment, and seeing how they cope with change. I wonder what this says about me?

Some inspiration for the current read...