Here is yet another way the Internet is changing the face of books and publishing. Check out Habitual Reader, a site from Komenar Publishing.
As a marketing tool, it’s inexpensive, interactive – a good way to start buzz about your line. But one potential pitfall is that readers find the reviews and comments limiting and too actuated from self-interest.
Looks like Habitual Reader sidesteps the issue by allowing readers to review any books – including those not in Komenar’s line.
My question is: Will the site allow critical reviews of any books, particularly its own? Will the owners censor (without readers knowing what is censored and why)?
All will be revealed in time. For now, I will visit this site now and again to see how it’s faring.
Thanks to Lisa at Breaking the Fourth Wall for tipping me off on this one.
2.01.2007
Thoughts for Thursday - Celebrate Molly
Columnist Molly Ivins died yesterday. I think Paul Harral, vice president and editorial director of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, has it right when he says: "It's a great loss to American journalism because she's such a strong voice; she stirred strong likes and dislikes in readers."
Here is a sample of Ms. Ivins' magic. This essay still is pertinent, and to me, ends on a good message for further reflection. Thank you, Molly!
Mourning in America
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
11.04.04 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Do you know how to cure a chicken-killin' dog? Now, you know you cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise.
Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin' chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing'll smell so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.
The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.
And at least Democrats won't have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.
In some circles, that will be seen as sour grapes. But in Texas, we've been losing elections to the demagogic triad of God, gays and guns long enough to be pretty cynical about how it works out.
I'm sure millions of Americans voted for George W. under the honest impression that he stands for moral values -- family, patriotism, faith in God. I'm sure it's the Democrats' fault that such a silly ruse is allowed to stand. What Bush actually does stand for is nicely summed up by a rather common news story that got stuck on the business pages lately.
In September, Merck & Co., the huge drug manufacturer, pulled Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was a popular pain-killing, anti-arthritis drug, but Merck said it was putting patients' safety first. A new study from the Federal Drug Administration showed high doses of Vioxx triple the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.
From there, the story bifurcates -- it takes two directions. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa revealed that the FDA had tried to silence the author of the study, Dr. David Graham, associate director of science in the Office of Drug Safety. Grassley said the FDA first sat on Graham's study and that then he was "ostracized" and "subjected to veiled threats and intimidation."
The Wall Street Journal followed the other fork, finding internal memos from Merck showing that company officials may have been aware of the dangers of Vioxx as long ago as 1996, including a memo apparently instructing its sales reps to "dodge" the question when doctors asked about the cardiac record of Vioxx.
In short, we have a toothless regulatory agency in the pocket of the industry it is supposed to patrol. We have an administration-wide contempt for science and plain facts. And the allegation against the folks at Merck is that they were making such enormous profits on a drug that killed people that when they knew or suspected it was killing people, they kept right on selling it. When the information that Merck had known for a long time about Vioxx and heart attacks became public, the company's stock fell by 9.6 percent.
That's the system George W. Bush stands for: where a corporation can knowingly kill people for profit and, when it finally comes out, everyone knows the penalties will be so light the company doesn't even lose a tenth of its worth. Hey, just a little bump in the road.
We sure don't want any of that terrible, burdensome government regulation to control that kind of behavior, do we? We sure don't want an FDA that listens to its own scientists and acts promptly, do we? We sure don't want anyone to sue these monster corporations, do we? I bet if it were possible to compare the odds of an American getting killed by a negligent regulatory agency and rapacious corporate behavior versus an American getting killed by a terrorist, it would turn out we need to be a lot more scared of rank greed and its enablers than we do of terrorists. And that's not counting what the corps. (pronounced corpse) steal and mess up.
So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then do something immediately, now, today. Figure out what you can do to help rescue the country -- join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up.
Think about how you can lend a hand to the amazing myriad efforts that will promptly break out to help the country recover from what it has done to itself. Now is the time. Don't mourn, organize.
Here is a sample of Ms. Ivins' magic. This essay still is pertinent, and to me, ends on a good message for further reflection. Thank you, Molly!
Mourning in America
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate
11.04.04 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Do you know how to cure a chicken-killin' dog? Now, you know you cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise.
Some people think you cannot break a dog that has got in the habit of killin' chickens, but my friend John Henry always claimed you could. He said the way to do it is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad that no other dog or person will even go near that poor beast. Thing'll smell so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.
The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.
And at least Democrats won't have to clean up after him until it is real clear to everyone who made the mess.
In some circles, that will be seen as sour grapes. But in Texas, we've been losing elections to the demagogic triad of God, gays and guns long enough to be pretty cynical about how it works out.
I'm sure millions of Americans voted for George W. under the honest impression that he stands for moral values -- family, patriotism, faith in God. I'm sure it's the Democrats' fault that such a silly ruse is allowed to stand. What Bush actually does stand for is nicely summed up by a rather common news story that got stuck on the business pages lately.
In September, Merck & Co., the huge drug manufacturer, pulled Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was a popular pain-killing, anti-arthritis drug, but Merck said it was putting patients' safety first. A new study from the Federal Drug Administration showed high doses of Vioxx triple the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.
From there, the story bifurcates -- it takes two directions. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa revealed that the FDA had tried to silence the author of the study, Dr. David Graham, associate director of science in the Office of Drug Safety. Grassley said the FDA first sat on Graham's study and that then he was "ostracized" and "subjected to veiled threats and intimidation."
The Wall Street Journal followed the other fork, finding internal memos from Merck showing that company officials may have been aware of the dangers of Vioxx as long ago as 1996, including a memo apparently instructing its sales reps to "dodge" the question when doctors asked about the cardiac record of Vioxx.
In short, we have a toothless regulatory agency in the pocket of the industry it is supposed to patrol. We have an administration-wide contempt for science and plain facts. And the allegation against the folks at Merck is that they were making such enormous profits on a drug that killed people that when they knew or suspected it was killing people, they kept right on selling it. When the information that Merck had known for a long time about Vioxx and heart attacks became public, the company's stock fell by 9.6 percent.
That's the system George W. Bush stands for: where a corporation can knowingly kill people for profit and, when it finally comes out, everyone knows the penalties will be so light the company doesn't even lose a tenth of its worth. Hey, just a little bump in the road.
We sure don't want any of that terrible, burdensome government regulation to control that kind of behavior, do we? We sure don't want an FDA that listens to its own scientists and acts promptly, do we? We sure don't want anyone to sue these monster corporations, do we? I bet if it were possible to compare the odds of an American getting killed by a negligent regulatory agency and rapacious corporate behavior versus an American getting killed by a terrorist, it would turn out we need to be a lot more scared of rank greed and its enablers than we do of terrorists. And that's not counting what the corps. (pronounced corpse) steal and mess up.
So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then do something immediately, now, today. Figure out what you can do to help rescue the country -- join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up.
Think about how you can lend a hand to the amazing myriad efforts that will promptly break out to help the country recover from what it has done to itself. Now is the time. Don't mourn, organize.
1.31.2007
New Author Month - Quote from Atwood
It's the end of January, but I'm not quite finished with Cat's Eye and Negotiating with the Dead. Enjoying them immensely, however, and should finish up over the weekend. February -- and romance -- is at hand!
Until then, I thought I'd share a quote from Atwood's writing essays in Negotiating with the Dead:
What is the relationship between the two entities we lump under one name, that of "the writer"? The particular writer. By two, I mean the person who exists when no writing is going forward -- the one who walks the dog, eats bran for regularity, takes the car in to be washed, and so forth -- and that other, more shadowy and altogether more equivocal personage who shares the same body, and who, when no one is looking, takes it over and uses it to commit the actual writing.
Isn't that true? Oh, by the way: I received another piece of fan mail from someone who read several of my short stories. Very nice. Fan mail makes both my entities feel more like "writers".
Until then, I thought I'd share a quote from Atwood's writing essays in Negotiating with the Dead:
What is the relationship between the two entities we lump under one name, that of "the writer"? The particular writer. By two, I mean the person who exists when no writing is going forward -- the one who walks the dog, eats bran for regularity, takes the car in to be washed, and so forth -- and that other, more shadowy and altogether more equivocal personage who shares the same body, and who, when no one is looking, takes it over and uses it to commit the actual writing.
Isn't that true? Oh, by the way: I received another piece of fan mail from someone who read several of my short stories. Very nice. Fan mail makes both my entities feel more like "writers".
1.30.2007
Letter meme
This is a meme from BookGirl. She gave me the letter “H,” and then I post 10 things I like that begin with that letter. Here’s my take:
“Hello.” This greeting is almost always a positive. Same with “hugs,” “happiness” and “hope.”
Hummingbirds. My favorite bird. They’re like feathered hearts, flying around.
Hammett and Hellman. Writing mentors. Long-time lovers. Independent lives. My idea of a match made in heaven.
Hemingway. Forget his novels (except for The Sun Also Rises) and forget his macho shtick. His short stories and By-Lines (journalism) are marvelous.
Habeas corpus. It was nice while it lasted.
Hot fudge sundaes. Anyone who doesn’t like a hot fudge sundae probably hates puppies and butterflies, too.
Billie Holiday. One of the best vocalists, ever. If you don’t believe me, listen to “God Bless the Child.”
Halloween. Speaking of holidays, this is a fun one. I love reading gothic novels and ghost stories, watching spooky movies, eating candy and breathing in the crisp autumn air. The holiday you can't take seriously. Halloween rocks!
Hiking. My favorite “back to nature” activity.
Humor. Can’t have enough sense of it. Can't get enough of it.
Want to do this meme? Leave me a comment below and I’ll pick a letter for you.
“Hello.” This greeting is almost always a positive. Same with “hugs,” “happiness” and “hope.”
Hummingbirds. My favorite bird. They’re like feathered hearts, flying around.
Hammett and Hellman. Writing mentors. Long-time lovers. Independent lives. My idea of a match made in heaven.
Hemingway. Forget his novels (except for The Sun Also Rises) and forget his macho shtick. His short stories and By-Lines (journalism) are marvelous.
Habeas corpus. It was nice while it lasted.
Hot fudge sundaes. Anyone who doesn’t like a hot fudge sundae probably hates puppies and butterflies, too.
Billie Holiday. One of the best vocalists, ever. If you don’t believe me, listen to “God Bless the Child.”
Halloween. Speaking of holidays, this is a fun one. I love reading gothic novels and ghost stories, watching spooky movies, eating candy and breathing in the crisp autumn air. The holiday you can't take seriously. Halloween rocks!
Hiking. My favorite “back to nature” activity.
Humor. Can’t have enough sense of it. Can't get enough of it.
Want to do this meme? Leave me a comment below and I’ll pick a letter for you.
1.26.2007
The Friday Buzz - Booksurge
Announcing a new tradition at The Literate Kitten! The Friday Buzz will examine one literary area – schools, fiction, genres, authors, booksellers, publishing, whatever – to report latest news and emerging trends.
Today, I’m taking a look at Amazon.com’s “books-on-demand” service, Booksurge. Have you seen this? According to the site, with Booksurge, “you can build a market for your books, create sales and control your books' trajectory while keeping your options wide open.”
Authors also, for $399, can buy a "personally crafted review" written by "New York Times bestselling author, Ellen Tanner Marsh." (Slate, of course, rips into this idea.)
The question isn’t, for me, whether or not Booksurge is a good idea. Like it or not, Amazon and the Internet are changing the face of publishing, and services like Booksurge are here to stay. With indie booksellers going down in the face of retail Goliaths and uber corporations swallowing publishers whole, the chances of becoming a published author slim down each day; why not give authors another venue to send their work into the world? And if a writer wants to shell out bucks for a “personally crafted” review (versus an objective one), well, caveat emptor.
To me, as both writer and reader, the issue is quality. Will Booksurge and similar self-publishing ventures disseminate valuable work that otherwise would not see the light of day? Surely, at some point, another Celestine Prophecy phenomenon will occur, making headlines for a new cause celebre and causing all sorts of speculation about the wonders and evils of self-publishing. But that’s simply pop-culture trendiness.
The real hallmark of quality is this: Will Booksurge lead a modern version of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses to rise above the drek to propagate new ideas that could lead to worldwide reform?
That’s the true power of the written word. And that would make Booksurge an agent of change, not just another pretty marketing tool.
Today, I’m taking a look at Amazon.com’s “books-on-demand” service, Booksurge. Have you seen this? According to the site, with Booksurge, “you can build a market for your books, create sales and control your books' trajectory while keeping your options wide open.”
Authors also, for $399, can buy a "personally crafted review" written by "New York Times bestselling author, Ellen Tanner Marsh." (Slate, of course, rips into this idea.)
The question isn’t, for me, whether or not Booksurge is a good idea. Like it or not, Amazon and the Internet are changing the face of publishing, and services like Booksurge are here to stay. With indie booksellers going down in the face of retail Goliaths and uber corporations swallowing publishers whole, the chances of becoming a published author slim down each day; why not give authors another venue to send their work into the world? And if a writer wants to shell out bucks for a “personally crafted” review (versus an objective one), well, caveat emptor.
To me, as both writer and reader, the issue is quality. Will Booksurge and similar self-publishing ventures disseminate valuable work that otherwise would not see the light of day? Surely, at some point, another Celestine Prophecy phenomenon will occur, making headlines for a new cause celebre and causing all sorts of speculation about the wonders and evils of self-publishing. But that’s simply pop-culture trendiness.
The real hallmark of quality is this: Will Booksurge lead a modern version of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses to rise above the drek to propagate new ideas that could lead to worldwide reform?
That’s the true power of the written word. And that would make Booksurge an agent of change, not just another pretty marketing tool.
1.25.2007
Thoughts for Thursday - Magical thinking
Why can't I finish Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking? I have two copies: one I bought myself and one I got for Christmas. Yet, twice I've started it and twice have failed to complete, though I have managed to get about 3/4 of the way through.
I love Joan Didion. And the subject matter is compelling. I have to admit the inadmissable: I think I get bogged down in the morbidity of it. Maybe I don't truly understand because I have not suffered the loss of an intimate through death. All my family members, close friends and relatives are still living. (That hasn't applied to other novels and books, so why this one?) All these psychobabbly reasons surface in my brain: I'm disassociating to protect my psyche, I'm unempathic, I'm ADD...
And, most of all, I wonder why I am so bothered that I haven't been able to embrace this particular book.
Just makes me wonder why some works appeal and others, even ones we really WANT to like, don't penetrate through to the soul.
I love Joan Didion. And the subject matter is compelling. I have to admit the inadmissable: I think I get bogged down in the morbidity of it. Maybe I don't truly understand because I have not suffered the loss of an intimate through death. All my family members, close friends and relatives are still living. (That hasn't applied to other novels and books, so why this one?) All these psychobabbly reasons surface in my brain: I'm disassociating to protect my psyche, I'm unempathic, I'm ADD...
And, most of all, I wonder why I am so bothered that I haven't been able to embrace this particular book.
Just makes me wonder why some works appeal and others, even ones we really WANT to like, don't penetrate through to the soul.
1.24.2007
Love of reading e-newsletter
Hi, folks, I don't know where I found this, but it's pretty cool. Free book raffles!
http://loveofreading.com/subscribe.htm
http://loveofreading.com/subscribe.htm
1.23.2007
Apropos of nothing
This is how you really know you are mortal:
1. You wake up to find a patch of stinging rough skin on your right eyelid, a phenomenon you have never experienced before and which gives you a clear idea of how at least one eye will look if you make it to 80.
2. You have to look up the spelling of "apropos," a word you could spell in your 30s with your hands tied behind your back and in a drunken stupor.
3. You discover you enjoy something like Sudoku.
4. Your friends discover they enjoy knitting.
5. You discover you can enjoy something like Sudoku only when you work with a pencil.
6. You schedule more doctor's appointments in a single month than you have in the previous decade of your life, appointments where the doctors sigh and shake their heads and prescribe either Vitamin E, back-strengthening exercises or stool softeners.
1. You wake up to find a patch of stinging rough skin on your right eyelid, a phenomenon you have never experienced before and which gives you a clear idea of how at least one eye will look if you make it to 80.
2. You have to look up the spelling of "apropos," a word you could spell in your 30s with your hands tied behind your back and in a drunken stupor.
3. You discover you enjoy something like Sudoku.
4. Your friends discover they enjoy knitting.
5. You discover you can enjoy something like Sudoku only when you work with a pencil.
6. You schedule more doctor's appointments in a single month than you have in the previous decade of your life, appointments where the doctors sigh and shake their heads and prescribe either Vitamin E, back-strengthening exercises or stool softeners.
1.22.2007
My Uncle Napoleon
A funny farce that keeps numerous balls in air until the absolute end, My Uncle Napoleon is recommended reading for anyone interested in 1) what makes for good satire 2) how to illustrate character through dialogue 3) a slice of Iranian history.
I am, much to my regret and fear, Eurocentric in my knowledge of history, which I am attempting to remedy by focusing on Middle Eastern fiction. So, I started the novel with no knowledge of contemporary Iran.
My Uncle Napoleon (written in the 70s) takes place in 1940s Tehran. One of the plotlines involves Dear Uncle Napoleon, a petty tyrannical family patriarch who propagates his fantasies of having fought the British and at the same time fosters paranoia about the British returning to seek revenge against him. He imagines British spies and plots all around him (even a lowly shoeshine boy becomes a British agent in his mind), and both he and his family members use these fantasies to further their own ends, either by propping up Dear Uncle’s ego or deflating it.
What I didn’t know when I began reading the novel was that, under the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907, Britain and Russia agreed to divide Iran into spheres of influence. Essentially, these two powers would benefit from Iran’s natural resources while shunting Iranian’s own citizens to the sidelines. When Britain and Russia became allies during WW2, they naturally turned their attention to Iran. Thus, Uncle Napoleon’s fears, while transmuted into paranoiac fantasies, have a basis in reality.
A second plotline follows the love of a 13-year-old boy for his young cousin. The book is carefully structured; the author brings back the love affair whenever family fortunes are to take a turn, and the love affair not only reflects the hopes of the larger Iranian community, but also provides a positive and pure counterbalance to Uncle Napoleon’s negative influence.
To me, the book satirizes a hyper-masculine society, where conquest (military and romantic alike) is a dominant factor. I don’t want to spoil the denouement, but I will say that the two plotlines (and many subplots) are satisfactorily resolved at the end of the book.
While the characters are very clearly drawn (with astonishing use of dialogue), they don’t deepen or develop over the course of the book. (And female characters are marginalized.) I wonder if the lack of character development is not so much a fault of the author but a restriction of the satire genre. I can’t think of many successful and biting satires that have really strong character development; satires tend, by their nature, to deal with the archetype. (Jane Austen does some witty satire on her society, but I would say satire tends to be secondary to Austen, not central.)
I would be interested in others’ thoughts on satire and character development, with any suggestions on works that might do both well.
I am, much to my regret and fear, Eurocentric in my knowledge of history, which I am attempting to remedy by focusing on Middle Eastern fiction. So, I started the novel with no knowledge of contemporary Iran.
My Uncle Napoleon (written in the 70s) takes place in 1940s Tehran. One of the plotlines involves Dear Uncle Napoleon, a petty tyrannical family patriarch who propagates his fantasies of having fought the British and at the same time fosters paranoia about the British returning to seek revenge against him. He imagines British spies and plots all around him (even a lowly shoeshine boy becomes a British agent in his mind), and both he and his family members use these fantasies to further their own ends, either by propping up Dear Uncle’s ego or deflating it.
What I didn’t know when I began reading the novel was that, under the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907, Britain and Russia agreed to divide Iran into spheres of influence. Essentially, these two powers would benefit from Iran’s natural resources while shunting Iranian’s own citizens to the sidelines. When Britain and Russia became allies during WW2, they naturally turned their attention to Iran. Thus, Uncle Napoleon’s fears, while transmuted into paranoiac fantasies, have a basis in reality.
A second plotline follows the love of a 13-year-old boy for his young cousin. The book is carefully structured; the author brings back the love affair whenever family fortunes are to take a turn, and the love affair not only reflects the hopes of the larger Iranian community, but also provides a positive and pure counterbalance to Uncle Napoleon’s negative influence.
To me, the book satirizes a hyper-masculine society, where conquest (military and romantic alike) is a dominant factor. I don’t want to spoil the denouement, but I will say that the two plotlines (and many subplots) are satisfactorily resolved at the end of the book.
While the characters are very clearly drawn (with astonishing use of dialogue), they don’t deepen or develop over the course of the book. (And female characters are marginalized.) I wonder if the lack of character development is not so much a fault of the author but a restriction of the satire genre. I can’t think of many successful and biting satires that have really strong character development; satires tend, by their nature, to deal with the archetype. (Jane Austen does some witty satire on her society, but I would say satire tends to be secondary to Austen, not central.)
I would be interested in others’ thoughts on satire and character development, with any suggestions on works that might do both well.
Finally finished a book
Hallelujah, I finished My Uncle Napoleon! Feels like a true accomplishment -- there is something to be said for sticking out a book, even when your short attention span is just dying to move on to the next thing. And I'm finally onto Atwood's Cat's Eye, which is fabulous -- many thanks to my fellow bloggers who recommended it.
More later ...
More later ...
1.18.2007
Thoughts for Thursday - Anna Akhmatova
Memory of Sun
Memory of sun seeps from the heart.
Grass grows yellower.
Faintly if at all the early snowflakes
Hover, hover.
Water becoming ice is slowing in
The narrow channels.
Nothing at all will happen here again,
Will ever happen.
Against the sky the willow spreads a fan
The silk's torn off.
Maybe it's better I did not become
Your wife.
Memory of sun seeps from the heart.
What is it? -- Dark?
Perhaps! Winter will have occupied us
In the night.
Anna Akhmatova
Memory of sun seeps from the heart.
Grass grows yellower.
Faintly if at all the early snowflakes
Hover, hover.
Water becoming ice is slowing in
The narrow channels.
Nothing at all will happen here again,
Will ever happen.
Against the sky the willow spreads a fan
The silk's torn off.
Maybe it's better I did not become
Your wife.
Memory of sun seeps from the heart.
What is it? -- Dark?
Perhaps! Winter will have occupied us
In the night.
Anna Akhmatova
1.17.2007
Memoir, autobiography, fact fiction: What's the diff?
I ran across this article, which raises some interesting literary questions.
How do we differentiate between:
Memoir
Autobiography
Autobiographical fiction
Roman a clef
Nonfiction novels
…and do we need to?
Frankly, I don’t care which genre a work falls into, but it is vitally important to me to have a work presented in a “truthful” light, in terms of the relationship between the author and the content. This ties in with the concept of plagiarism: When authors present their work as one genre when it really is another, they are being fraudulent.
To take a recent example: James Frey and his Million Little Pieces was presented by him (and his publisher) as fact; we now know he took wholesale liberties with the truth. Thus, the book cannot be called a memoir. And it is a fraudulent presentation to the readership. His story, with his sad little embellishments (come on, did anyone really believe a dentist would administer root canal treatment with no sedation? Really!) would not have been as compelling if presented as fiction. But I do think his story without the pathetic dramatization would have been just fine as a memoir.
The lines are fine, but they are lines nevertheless. We need to differentiate between memoir (a particularized focus on memories, feelings and recollections) and autobiography (recalling one’s own life and times), between a roman a clef (telling the tale the way the author would have liked it to have gone) and autobiographical fiction (a novel based on the life of the author). Readers and writers need to be able to make the distinction between “fact” and “remembered fact”, “fiction” and “fictionalized biography.” Maybe some books straddle the line (is The Bell Jar autobiographical fiction, roman a clef, or both?), but even these books should be measured against some sort of literary parameters.
For some reason (perhaps the high premium we place on entertainment?), we are a society that tolerates the stretching of truth, misinformation, straw-man arguments, and plain old flying in the face of scientific fact – particularly in the guises of verbal arguments. Maybe we simply don’t have the critical faculty to be able to separate wheat from chaff. The James Frey affair, among other recent literary brouhahas, makes me think we still hold the printed word to a higher standard than we accept from our politicians or corporate executives. I think that’s a good sign. It’s a starting place, anyway.
How do we differentiate between:
Memoir
Autobiography
Autobiographical fiction
Roman a clef
Nonfiction novels
…and do we need to?
Frankly, I don’t care which genre a work falls into, but it is vitally important to me to have a work presented in a “truthful” light, in terms of the relationship between the author and the content. This ties in with the concept of plagiarism: When authors present their work as one genre when it really is another, they are being fraudulent.
To take a recent example: James Frey and his Million Little Pieces was presented by him (and his publisher) as fact; we now know he took wholesale liberties with the truth. Thus, the book cannot be called a memoir. And it is a fraudulent presentation to the readership. His story, with his sad little embellishments (come on, did anyone really believe a dentist would administer root canal treatment with no sedation? Really!) would not have been as compelling if presented as fiction. But I do think his story without the pathetic dramatization would have been just fine as a memoir.
The lines are fine, but they are lines nevertheless. We need to differentiate between memoir (a particularized focus on memories, feelings and recollections) and autobiography (recalling one’s own life and times), between a roman a clef (telling the tale the way the author would have liked it to have gone) and autobiographical fiction (a novel based on the life of the author). Readers and writers need to be able to make the distinction between “fact” and “remembered fact”, “fiction” and “fictionalized biography.” Maybe some books straddle the line (is The Bell Jar autobiographical fiction, roman a clef, or both?), but even these books should be measured against some sort of literary parameters.
For some reason (perhaps the high premium we place on entertainment?), we are a society that tolerates the stretching of truth, misinformation, straw-man arguments, and plain old flying in the face of scientific fact – particularly in the guises of verbal arguments. Maybe we simply don’t have the critical faculty to be able to separate wheat from chaff. The James Frey affair, among other recent literary brouhahas, makes me think we still hold the printed word to a higher standard than we accept from our politicians or corporate executives. I think that’s a good sign. It’s a starting place, anyway.
1.16.2007
More on My Uncle Napoleon
I feel behind in everything lately. Think I am going through another mid-life crisis. Does anyone have any recommended reading (no Gail Sheehy, please!) to remedy such matters? I know men go out and buy motorcycles and have affairs with young women...what are women supposed to do?
Anyway, despite the machinations of aging, I am making progress on My Uncle Napoleon -- only a hundred more pages to go! According to the Kirkus Review, the book is about an "extended family, living within and around a walled enclave in Tehran in the early 1940s---and specifically of said family's domination by its Dear Uncle Napoleon (the portentous rubric by which its fussbudget megalomaniac despot is addressed) as observed and recorded by Uncle's unnamed nephew, whose idealistic love for his beautiful cousin Layli forms one of the two major plotlines here. The other is Uncle's paranoid conviction that all evil flows from his country's ill-advised friendliness with foreign nations, especially Great Britain (the story is set at a time when England and Russia separately schemed to control Iran's oil resources, and preferential trade status was granted the hated British by an impoverished national treasury)."
It is an interesting book, which I first found very humorous and now slightly less so. It is a marvel of plot and dialogue...here is just a sample of a scene to give you an idea, with more to come when I finish:
Mash Qasem had picked the ladder up from its place before Dear Uncle's order was given. Those present didn't for a moment take their eyes off the form of Dustali Khan, which was shaking on the roof like a nocturnal phantom. Mash Qasem leaned the ladder against the wall, and went up it a few rungs to help Dustali Khan come down.
A few moments later Dustali Khan put his feet on the ground and fainted in Mash Qasem's arms.
They more or less dragged him over to the carpets and laid him down. Everyone started discussing what had happened and offering opinions as to what it meant.
Dear Uncle Napoleon kept lightly slapping him on the face with the palm of his hand and asking,
"Dustali Khan, what is it? What happened?"
But Dustali Khan, with his dishevelled hair, in his shirt and white, mud-stained longjohns, lay there motionless, with only his lips trembling. We were all gathered in a circle around him.
Mash Qasem, who was massaging Dustali Khan's feet, said, "It's like a snake's bit him some place."
Dear Uncle threw an angry look at him, "You're talking rubbish again!"
"Well sir, why should I lie? There was a man in our town who . . ."
"The hell with you and the man in your town. Will you let me see what's happened?" And then
once again he gently slapped Dustali across the face.
Dustali Khan opened his eyes. Suddenly he seemed to come back to himself and looked from one side to the other. With a nervous movement he clasped both hands to his groin and shouted,
"Cut . . . it's been cut . . ."
"Who's cut? What's been cut?"
Dustali Khan didn't answer Dear Uncle's question but in the same terrified voice repeated, "Cut . . . she wanted to cut it . . . with a knife . . . with a kitchen knife . . . she was going to cut . . ."
"Who cut? Who wanted to cut?"
"Aziz . . . that rotten bitch Aziz . . . my wife . . . that witch of a woman . . . that unnatural bitch of a murderer . . ."
Asadollah Mirza, who had pricked up his ears, came forward, holding back his laughter with some difficulty. "Moment . . . moment . . . wait . . . wait, let me see . . . God forbid, Mrs. Aziz al-Saltaneh didn't want to cut off your . . ."
"Yes, yes . . . that witch, if I'd jumped a moment later she'd have cut it off."
Asadollah Mirza burst out with a loud guffaw of laughter and said, "Right from the bottom?"
As everyone laughed Dear Uncle Napoleon suddenly remembered that there were women and children present. He stood up and, stretching out his arms wide on each side and so making a curtain with his cloak between Dustali Khan and the children, he shouted, "Women and children over there!"
Now, in my view, that is a funny and well-handled scene in dialogue. In a few short paragraphs, even the casual reader glimpses the various characters: feckless Dustali Khan, imperious Uncle Napoleon, naive Mash Qasem, sophisticated Asadollah Mirza and the shrewish wife, Aziz al-Saltaneh. The author keeps this up throughout the novel, scene after scene, thickening the plot as he goes along. However, about 3/4 of the way in, I find that the scenes are starting to be more repetitive, versus enlightening or deepening, and therefore less engaging.
There are also some cultural differences that affect my reading; for example, Dustali Khan is the apparent father of his stepdaughter's future child, a fact that is treated satirically in the novel and which doesn't seem terribly funny to me, in any shape or form. I hope to write more about this aspect, but I do want to finish the novel and also think through specifics. So, onward!
Anyway, despite the machinations of aging, I am making progress on My Uncle Napoleon -- only a hundred more pages to go! According to the Kirkus Review, the book is about an "extended family, living within and around a walled enclave in Tehran in the early 1940s---and specifically of said family's domination by its Dear Uncle Napoleon (the portentous rubric by which its fussbudget megalomaniac despot is addressed) as observed and recorded by Uncle's unnamed nephew, whose idealistic love for his beautiful cousin Layli forms one of the two major plotlines here. The other is Uncle's paranoid conviction that all evil flows from his country's ill-advised friendliness with foreign nations, especially Great Britain (the story is set at a time when England and Russia separately schemed to control Iran's oil resources, and preferential trade status was granted the hated British by an impoverished national treasury)."
It is an interesting book, which I first found very humorous and now slightly less so. It is a marvel of plot and dialogue...here is just a sample of a scene to give you an idea, with more to come when I finish:
Mash Qasem had picked the ladder up from its place before Dear Uncle's order was given. Those present didn't for a moment take their eyes off the form of Dustali Khan, which was shaking on the roof like a nocturnal phantom. Mash Qasem leaned the ladder against the wall, and went up it a few rungs to help Dustali Khan come down.
A few moments later Dustali Khan put his feet on the ground and fainted in Mash Qasem's arms.
They more or less dragged him over to the carpets and laid him down. Everyone started discussing what had happened and offering opinions as to what it meant.
Dear Uncle Napoleon kept lightly slapping him on the face with the palm of his hand and asking,
"Dustali Khan, what is it? What happened?"
But Dustali Khan, with his dishevelled hair, in his shirt and white, mud-stained longjohns, lay there motionless, with only his lips trembling. We were all gathered in a circle around him.
Mash Qasem, who was massaging Dustali Khan's feet, said, "It's like a snake's bit him some place."
Dear Uncle threw an angry look at him, "You're talking rubbish again!"
"Well sir, why should I lie? There was a man in our town who . . ."
"The hell with you and the man in your town. Will you let me see what's happened?" And then
once again he gently slapped Dustali across the face.
Dustali Khan opened his eyes. Suddenly he seemed to come back to himself and looked from one side to the other. With a nervous movement he clasped both hands to his groin and shouted,
"Cut . . . it's been cut . . ."
"Who's cut? What's been cut?"
Dustali Khan didn't answer Dear Uncle's question but in the same terrified voice repeated, "Cut . . . she wanted to cut it . . . with a knife . . . with a kitchen knife . . . she was going to cut . . ."
"Who cut? Who wanted to cut?"
"Aziz . . . that rotten bitch Aziz . . . my wife . . . that witch of a woman . . . that unnatural bitch of a murderer . . ."
Asadollah Mirza, who had pricked up his ears, came forward, holding back his laughter with some difficulty. "Moment . . . moment . . . wait . . . wait, let me see . . . God forbid, Mrs. Aziz al-Saltaneh didn't want to cut off your . . ."
"Yes, yes . . . that witch, if I'd jumped a moment later she'd have cut it off."
Asadollah Mirza burst out with a loud guffaw of laughter and said, "Right from the bottom?"
As everyone laughed Dear Uncle Napoleon suddenly remembered that there were women and children present. He stood up and, stretching out his arms wide on each side and so making a curtain with his cloak between Dustali Khan and the children, he shouted, "Women and children over there!"
Now, in my view, that is a funny and well-handled scene in dialogue. In a few short paragraphs, even the casual reader glimpses the various characters: feckless Dustali Khan, imperious Uncle Napoleon, naive Mash Qasem, sophisticated Asadollah Mirza and the shrewish wife, Aziz al-Saltaneh. The author keeps this up throughout the novel, scene after scene, thickening the plot as he goes along. However, about 3/4 of the way in, I find that the scenes are starting to be more repetitive, versus enlightening or deepening, and therefore less engaging.
There are also some cultural differences that affect my reading; for example, Dustali Khan is the apparent father of his stepdaughter's future child, a fact that is treated satirically in the novel and which doesn't seem terribly funny to me, in any shape or form. I hope to write more about this aspect, but I do want to finish the novel and also think through specifics. So, onward!
1.12.2007
Plagiarism: It's a lot of hard work
Here's an interesting (if flawed) article from Slate on plagiarism. The article by Meghan O'Rourke quotes from a new study on the phenomenon, The Little Book of Plagiarism by law professor and Judge Richard A. Posner.
O'Rourke seems to conclude from Posner and other sources that the reason we (Americans versus anyone else, who presumably either don't care or care for different reasons about plagiarism) have issues with copycats is their compromised work ethic:
The cribbed student essay—which Posner views as a particularly insidious form of plagiarism, committed by approximately one-third of high-school and college students—isn't an academic crime because a C student has tried to pass himself as a Matthew Arnold in the making. It's an academic crime because the student who buys his thesis from a paper mill has shirked the labor that his fellow students actually perform.
Um, no, sorry: It bugs me that anyone, C student or Honor Roll star, would try to pass himself off as a Matthew Arnold in the making. Yes, the fact that the plagiarizer hasn't done the work is certainly partly why I consider it unethical, but what about the fact that the person is trying to portray a thought or idea as his own when, in fact, it is not?
The argument that shirking is more of an issue than fraud seems to me to say more about how our workaholic society is shaping our ethics than about authors who copy other author's sentences. Are we really so impoverished of ideas that we believe original thinking is an impossibility, and that plagiarism is inevitable (therefore, crediting someone else for their work becomes more key than the fact that the idea is ripped off)? Do we so worship blood and sweat that we value the measurement of these sacred liquids we pour into an activity versus the quality or originality of the work itself? Maybe Ian McEwan spent a lot of time finding the exact sentences he copied in Atonement: Shouldn't that count?
And, are the ubiquitous "we" really obsessed with the act of plagiarism itself, or are we just pissed off about the fact that we got duped?
O'Rourke seems to conclude from Posner and other sources that the reason we (Americans versus anyone else, who presumably either don't care or care for different reasons about plagiarism) have issues with copycats is their compromised work ethic:
The cribbed student essay—which Posner views as a particularly insidious form of plagiarism, committed by approximately one-third of high-school and college students—isn't an academic crime because a C student has tried to pass himself as a Matthew Arnold in the making. It's an academic crime because the student who buys his thesis from a paper mill has shirked the labor that his fellow students actually perform.
Um, no, sorry: It bugs me that anyone, C student or Honor Roll star, would try to pass himself off as a Matthew Arnold in the making. Yes, the fact that the plagiarizer hasn't done the work is certainly partly why I consider it unethical, but what about the fact that the person is trying to portray a thought or idea as his own when, in fact, it is not?
The argument that shirking is more of an issue than fraud seems to me to say more about how our workaholic society is shaping our ethics than about authors who copy other author's sentences. Are we really so impoverished of ideas that we believe original thinking is an impossibility, and that plagiarism is inevitable (therefore, crediting someone else for their work becomes more key than the fact that the idea is ripped off)? Do we so worship blood and sweat that we value the measurement of these sacred liquids we pour into an activity versus the quality or originality of the work itself? Maybe Ian McEwan spent a lot of time finding the exact sentences he copied in Atonement: Shouldn't that count?
And, are the ubiquitous "we" really obsessed with the act of plagiarism itself, or are we just pissed off about the fact that we got duped?
1.08.2007
What are you optimistic about and why?
I like this: What are you optimistic about and why?
And I think this is interesting; may have to check out his book.
GARY MARCUS
Psychologist, New York University; Author, The Birth of the Mind
Metacognition For Kids
We can use the discoveries of cognitive science to improve the quality of education in the US and abroad. To do this, however, we need to radically rethink how our schools work. Going back to the Industrial Revolution, the main emphasis as been on memorization, force-feeding our children with bite-sized morsels that are easily memorize—and quickly forgotten. (Recall the words of Dickens' stern schoolmaster Mr. Gradgrind, "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts... Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.") I am not sure it ever served a purpose for children to memorize the capitals of all 50 states (as I failed to do in junior high school), but in the age of Google, continued emphasis on memorization is surely largely a waste of time.
Five decades of cognitive science have taught us that humans are not particularly good memorizers—but also that we as a species have bigger fish to fry. Hamlet famously marveled that humans were "noble in reason", "infinite in faculty", but experimental psychologists like Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky have shown that humans are actually often poor reasoners, easily fooled. The average person tends to have a shaky grasp on logic, to believe a lot of what he (or she) hears unreflectively, and to be overly confident in his (or her) own beliefs. We tend to be easily fooled by vivid examples, and to notice data that support our theories—whilst forgetting about or ignoring data that go against our theories. Yet I cannot recall a single high school class on informal arguments, how to spot fallacies, or how to interpret statistics; it wasn't until college that anybody explained to me the relation between causation and correlation. In the age of the internet, our problem is not that children can't find information, but that they can't evaluate it.
What children of today need is not so much a large stock of readily Googleable information as a mental toolkit for parsing what they hear and read. As the old saying goes, it is better to teach a man how to fish than to simply give him fish; the current curriculum largely gives children fish, without teaching them a thing about how to fish for themselves.
How to teach children to fish for themselves? I would start with a course in what cognitive scientists call metacognition, knowing about knowing, call it The Human Mind: A User's Guide, aimed at say, seventh-graders.. Instead of emphasizing facts, I'd expose students to the architecture of the mind, what it does well, and what it doesn't. And most important, how to cope with its limitations, to consider evidence in a more balanced way, to be sensitive to biases in our reasoning, and to make choices in ways that better suit our own long-term goals. Nobody ever taught me about these things in middle school (or even high school), but there's no reason why they couldn't be taught; in time, I expect they will.
And I think this is interesting; may have to check out his book.
GARY MARCUS
Psychologist, New York University; Author, The Birth of the Mind
Metacognition For Kids
We can use the discoveries of cognitive science to improve the quality of education in the US and abroad. To do this, however, we need to radically rethink how our schools work. Going back to the Industrial Revolution, the main emphasis as been on memorization, force-feeding our children with bite-sized morsels that are easily memorize—and quickly forgotten. (Recall the words of Dickens' stern schoolmaster Mr. Gradgrind, "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts... Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.") I am not sure it ever served a purpose for children to memorize the capitals of all 50 states (as I failed to do in junior high school), but in the age of Google, continued emphasis on memorization is surely largely a waste of time.
Five decades of cognitive science have taught us that humans are not particularly good memorizers—but also that we as a species have bigger fish to fry. Hamlet famously marveled that humans were "noble in reason", "infinite in faculty", but experimental psychologists like Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky have shown that humans are actually often poor reasoners, easily fooled. The average person tends to have a shaky grasp on logic, to believe a lot of what he (or she) hears unreflectively, and to be overly confident in his (or her) own beliefs. We tend to be easily fooled by vivid examples, and to notice data that support our theories—whilst forgetting about or ignoring data that go against our theories. Yet I cannot recall a single high school class on informal arguments, how to spot fallacies, or how to interpret statistics; it wasn't until college that anybody explained to me the relation between causation and correlation. In the age of the internet, our problem is not that children can't find information, but that they can't evaluate it.
What children of today need is not so much a large stock of readily Googleable information as a mental toolkit for parsing what they hear and read. As the old saying goes, it is better to teach a man how to fish than to simply give him fish; the current curriculum largely gives children fish, without teaching them a thing about how to fish for themselves.
How to teach children to fish for themselves? I would start with a course in what cognitive scientists call metacognition, knowing about knowing, call it The Human Mind: A User's Guide, aimed at say, seventh-graders.. Instead of emphasizing facts, I'd expose students to the architecture of the mind, what it does well, and what it doesn't. And most important, how to cope with its limitations, to consider evidence in a more balanced way, to be sensitive to biases in our reasoning, and to make choices in ways that better suit our own long-term goals. Nobody ever taught me about these things in middle school (or even high school), but there's no reason why they couldn't be taught; in time, I expect they will.
1.07.2007
New Author Month - Margaret Atwood
Yes, it's official: I am biting off more than I can chew, eat and digest, book-wise. But I'm trying to challenge myself. I am making very slow progress on My Uncle Napoleon, being only a third through the 500-page book. And I just started an Anne Boleyn bio that is incredibly interesting. AND I signed up for a course on two Faulkner novels, which (if enrollment goes through and course isn't canceled) starts tomorrow night.
With all of that, I still intend to stick to my plan as January being New Author Month. I could take the easy way out and use My Uncle Napoleon's author, Iraj Pezeshkzad, as my "new author." But the goal wasn't just to read an author I hadn't read before; I wanted to read a prominent author I feel as a Literate Kitten (read: Educated and Sophisticated Reader) I should read. Thanks to several blogger recommendations, I decided to go with Margaret Atwood and her novel Cat's Eye. As part of my dedicated reading to my chosen "New Author," I hope to explore some essays and critique of her work.
Okay, I haven't started it yet, but it's only the first week of January. As long as I start it in January, it will count.
First, though, must finish My Uncle Napolean. This is quite a fun romp, with lots of characters and drama and satire. The novel kicks off with the unnamed narrator, a 13-year-old boy living in Iran, falling madly in love with the young daughter of the strict and pompous family patriarch -- Dear Uncle Napolean, so-called because of his excessive admiration of France's military leader. Not many affairs, puppy-love or otherwise, are attested to so eloquently:
One hot summer day, to be precise on Friday the thirteenth of August, at about a quarter to three in the afternoon, I fell in love. The bitterness and longing I've been through since have often made me wonder whether if it had been the twelfth of the fourteenth of August things would have turned out differently.
How could I put down a novel that starts with THAT?
More as I near the finish line...
With all of that, I still intend to stick to my plan as January being New Author Month. I could take the easy way out and use My Uncle Napoleon's author, Iraj Pezeshkzad, as my "new author." But the goal wasn't just to read an author I hadn't read before; I wanted to read a prominent author I feel as a Literate Kitten (read: Educated and Sophisticated Reader) I should read. Thanks to several blogger recommendations, I decided to go with Margaret Atwood and her novel Cat's Eye. As part of my dedicated reading to my chosen "New Author," I hope to explore some essays and critique of her work.
Okay, I haven't started it yet, but it's only the first week of January. As long as I start it in January, it will count.
First, though, must finish My Uncle Napolean. This is quite a fun romp, with lots of characters and drama and satire. The novel kicks off with the unnamed narrator, a 13-year-old boy living in Iran, falling madly in love with the young daughter of the strict and pompous family patriarch -- Dear Uncle Napolean, so-called because of his excessive admiration of France's military leader. Not many affairs, puppy-love or otherwise, are attested to so eloquently:
One hot summer day, to be precise on Friday the thirteenth of August, at about a quarter to three in the afternoon, I fell in love. The bitterness and longing I've been through since have often made me wonder whether if it had been the twelfth of the fourteenth of August things would have turned out differently.
How could I put down a novel that starts with THAT?
More as I near the finish line...
1.05.2007
Seen reading
Seen reading on 1/4/07, 5:45 p.m. (PST), E bus (San Francisco to Caldecott Lane)
Daniel Mason, A Far Country
Edith Wharton, Age of Innocence
Elmore Leonard, When the Women Come Out to Dance (Stories)
Daniel Mason, A Far Country
Edith Wharton, Age of Innocence
Elmore Leonard, When the Women Come Out to Dance (Stories)
1.04.2007
Thoughts for Thursday - less-than-articulate musings
Upon being catapulted unceremoniously into 2007, I’ve reflected on my past year of reading and litblogging, both of which have been illuminating in unexpected ways.
For one thing, I have a greater understanding of my reading tastes and patterns. I love nonfiction and enjoy it in great mouthfuls, like eating popcorn. Fiction, however, is like eating a seven-course, gourmet meal: I need to savor each morsel. Unlike nonfiction, which I pick up and put down whenever I feel like reading, I prefer to read fiction when there is no distraction. Hence, I read fiction at a much slower pace than nonfiction and need to set time aside for my fiction reading, if I want to make any progress in it. Maybe this isn’t a new and brilliant insight, for me or anyone else, but there’s something to be said for making an assumption a fact.
The other thing I’ve learned is that I tend to use archaic words, such as “hence” and “alas” and “hail” in my blog entries. Maybe this penchant for antiquated punch words derives from my preoccupation with all things Tudor.
And why do I use exclamation points, especially in my comments to other blog posts? I would never allow effusive punctuation to creep into my professional or fiction writing.
Only one question remains: Will I curtail these bad grammatical habits in 2007? Dunno! Heretofore, this seemed unlikely. Thence, looks like it may continue.
For one thing, I have a greater understanding of my reading tastes and patterns. I love nonfiction and enjoy it in great mouthfuls, like eating popcorn. Fiction, however, is like eating a seven-course, gourmet meal: I need to savor each morsel. Unlike nonfiction, which I pick up and put down whenever I feel like reading, I prefer to read fiction when there is no distraction. Hence, I read fiction at a much slower pace than nonfiction and need to set time aside for my fiction reading, if I want to make any progress in it. Maybe this isn’t a new and brilliant insight, for me or anyone else, but there’s something to be said for making an assumption a fact.
The other thing I’ve learned is that I tend to use archaic words, such as “hence” and “alas” and “hail” in my blog entries. Maybe this penchant for antiquated punch words derives from my preoccupation with all things Tudor.
And why do I use exclamation points, especially in my comments to other blog posts? I would never allow effusive punctuation to creep into my professional or fiction writing.
Only one question remains: Will I curtail these bad grammatical habits in 2007? Dunno! Heretofore, this seemed unlikely. Thence, looks like it may continue.
1.02.2007
Months of reading for 2007
All hail to you, dear Bloggers, as we head into a brand new year of books, books, books!
This year I am trying to avoid the approach of "chasing my tail" with books -- you know the drill: hearing about a new book and immediately setting off the read it while simultaneously dropping or halfheartedly finishing a current book. Or (worse, in my view) starting too many projects (such as my goal to read through Proust, read Middle Eastern fiction and join in some blog reading challenges or groups, read new genres) and neglecting some or all.
Hence, I am planning my year of reading by month. The goal is to structure reading yet allow room for flexbility while covering coveted reading goals (such as reading the classics or essays). That is a mouthful, but I hope you get my drift. I'll report my progress, such as it may be, as the year progresses.
Here is the outline I've developed:
January – New Author Month
February – Romance is in the Air
March – Exploring Essays
April – Read a Classic Month
May – New in the Stacks
June – Summer Solstice Reading Month
July – Neglected Books Month
August – Dog Days of Nonfiction
September – RIP Challenge
October – RIP Challenge
November – Pick a Genre, Any Genre
December – Winter Solstice Short Story Month
In addition to the above, I intend to continue with the Proust Project and my Middle Eastern Fiction reading, plus add in any other books that I can fit in or which tickle my fancy. I'll report on my "New Author Month" this week.
Until then, here's to Happy Booking & Blogging in the New Year!
This year I am trying to avoid the approach of "chasing my tail" with books -- you know the drill: hearing about a new book and immediately setting off the read it while simultaneously dropping or halfheartedly finishing a current book. Or (worse, in my view) starting too many projects (such as my goal to read through Proust, read Middle Eastern fiction and join in some blog reading challenges or groups, read new genres) and neglecting some or all.
Hence, I am planning my year of reading by month. The goal is to structure reading yet allow room for flexbility while covering coveted reading goals (such as reading the classics or essays). That is a mouthful, but I hope you get my drift. I'll report my progress, such as it may be, as the year progresses.
Here is the outline I've developed:
January – New Author Month
February – Romance is in the Air
March – Exploring Essays
April – Read a Classic Month
May – New in the Stacks
June – Summer Solstice Reading Month
July – Neglected Books Month
August – Dog Days of Nonfiction
September – RIP Challenge
October – RIP Challenge
November – Pick a Genre, Any Genre
December – Winter Solstice Short Story Month
In addition to the above, I intend to continue with the Proust Project and my Middle Eastern Fiction reading, plus add in any other books that I can fit in or which tickle my fancy. I'll report on my "New Author Month" this week.
Until then, here's to Happy Booking & Blogging in the New Year!
Well, it's 2007
I've been felled by a nasty cold, which left me voiceless from the day after Christmas until now. And I still sound like a cross between Demi Moore and a geriatric parrot. So much for getting caught up during my vacation.
And now I'm behind in the blogworld. Alas.
At least the damned holidays are over.
I think the New Year was rung in at some point, was it not? Wishing peace, health and prosperity in 2007 for all.
And now I'm behind in the blogworld. Alas.
At least the damned holidays are over.
I think the New Year was rung in at some point, was it not? Wishing peace, health and prosperity in 2007 for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)