Now reading...

[A Lark Ascending]

Read this, Dave-boy; then hang your head in shame.

[danasgoodstuff]

Glyn Johns, Sound Man. Enjoyable but not very insightful on the people or very detailed on the technical end. Claims he was the first UK engineer to make the transition to producer. Some interesting observations on the many musicians and industry people he's met. Not afraid to say he doesn't like someone. I think he can afford to be candid.

[jlhoots]

Richard Price: The Whites

[ejp626]

I've been reading some relatively contemporary short stories -- Chabon's A Model World and Somerville's The Universe in Miniature in Miniature.

[BillF]

[Leeway]

THE MIGHTY AND THEIR FALL - 1955- Ivy Compton-Burnett

Written almost entirely in dialogue (or one might better say, aphorisms posing as dialogue), this is the story of the corruption of a family. The near-complete lack of narrative guideposts can be disturbing or confusing at times, but if one stays with it, ICB demonstrates a surgeon's hand in dissecting the power plays, hatreds, exploitations and general nastiness of family members bound together by self-interest, arrogance, and pride (or the lack of it). If you like that sort of thing, it can even be funny at times, with a mordant humor.

[BillF]

THE MIGHTY AND THEIR FALL - 1955- Ivy Compton-Burnett

Written almost entirely in dialogue (or one might better say, aphorisms posing as dialogue), this is the story of the corruption of a family. The near-complete lack of narrative guideposts can be disturbing or confusing at times, but if one stays with it, ICB demonstrates a surgeon's hand in dissecting the power plays, hatreds, exploitations and general nastiness of family members bound together by self-interest, arrogance, and pride (or the lack of it). If you like that sort of thing, it can even be funny at times, with a mordant humor.

I haven't read any Compton-Burnett, but she's on my list of authors to look into. Wikipedia says that Manservant and Maidservant (published in the US as Bullivant and the Lambs) is often considered to be her best work and the university library has a copy, so we shall see ....

[jlhoots]

Phil Klay: Redeployment

[Leeway]

Phil Klay: Redeployment

I thought that was some pretty strong/moving reading.

[Leeway]

10:04 - Ben Lerner (novel)

Lerner's 2014 novel is prefaced by a Hasidic saying:

"The Hasidim tell a story about the world to come that says everything there will be just the same as it is here. Just as our room is now, so it will be in the world to come; where our baby sleeps new, there too it will sleep in the other world. And the clothes we wear in this world, those too we will wear there. Everything will be as it is now, just a little different."

I loved that last line. It reminded me of the discussion here on the Org Board of MOPDTK's album "Blue," a note for note transcription of "Kind of Blue," around which the argument swirled, "same but different."

Anyway, it's sort of the metaphysical premise of Lerner's metafictional fiction; deflections of reality that leave the story same but different, real but unreal.

[ejp626]

10:04 - Ben Lerner (novel)

Sounds interesting. Quite a long queue at the library, so I may get it in a few months.

I'm nearly done with Somerville's The Universe in Miniature in Miniature. Quirky. A lot like reading early Jonathan Lethem, which is good and bad.

[kinuta]

Hawks On Hawks - Joseph McBride

[kinuta]

1913 : In Search Of The World Before The Great War - Charles Emmerson

Fascinating up to now.

[paul secor]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

[Leeway]

THE GOLDEN CHILD - 1977- Penelope Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald's first novel, an amusing satire on museums (or at least the British Museum), blockbuster exhibits (think Tutankhamen), and globe-trotting academics (think French deconstructionists), wrapped in a rather silly, certainly implausible, murder mystery.

[BillF]

THE GOLDEN CHILD - 1977- Penelope Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald's first novel, an amusing satire on museums (or at least the British Museum), blockbuster exhibits (think Tutankhamen), and globe-trotting academics (think French deconstructionists), wrapped in a rather silly, certainly implausible, murder mystery.

Good summary, Leeway. The book's readable, but not treasurable like Offshore and The Bookshop IMHO.

Edited March 8, 2015 by BillF

[erwbol]

Thomas Pynchon - Inherent Vice

Finished the first of the four Fall Revolution novels by Ken MacLeod yesterday. Now quickly on to Pynchon's Inherent Vice so the movie's Blu-ray won't spoil the book for me.

A waste of money and effort. At one point I felt like reading some non-fiction, so I put it away for a day or two. This is normal for me. When I picked Inherent Vice up again the book had lost its hold on me. It feels like this could have happened anywhere in its 400 or so pages.

[sidewinder]

Dipping into Steve Isoardi's 'Central Avenue Sounds' (signed by some of the participants) and the Horace Tapscott bio 'Songs of the Unsung'.

Edited March 8, 2015 by sidewinder

[ejp626]

In the on-deck circle, Julian Barnes's A History of the World in 10½ Chapters and Djuna Barnes Nightwood.

I made it through the first chapter, which was a very tedious retelling of the Noah and the Ark story. I realize there is no way to tell the story literally in a way that doesn't sound absurd, but somehow the tone was so off and Barnes kept layering on one thing after another -- that's why there are no basilisks and no unicorns and so forth. Maybe what really killed it for me was the combination of the Ark legend with Kipling's Just So Stories (how Noah's beatings gave the zebras their stripes; how hiding from Noah caused chameleons to change their color; etc.). See Timothy Findley's Not Wanted on the Voyage for tackling the same legend/myth (including an on-board unicorn!) but somehow done in a far superior manner.

I'll probably slog through, but this generally reinforces my opinion that Julian Barnes is a writer who thinks he is far cleverer than he actually is. While it's been a long, long while since I read it, I am actually revising my opinion of Flaubert's Parrot somewhat downwards in retrospect. I'm probably going to strike him (Barnes) off the list and not read anything further by him.

I am looking forward to the reread of Nightwood, however. Pretty sure I will find that a lot more rewarding.

[Leeway]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Congratulations on making Jane's acquaintance. Additional pleasures await. I had a mind to read through her novels (it's been a while) after "Clarissa," since Austen was a fan of Samuel Richardson's writings, and I thought it would be fun to trace connections or influences. I may still do that, especially as I picked up a set of Austen's Oxford Illustrated pb edition of the novels at a library sale.

[ejp626]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Congratulations on making Jane's acquaintance. Additional pleasures await. I had a mind to read through her novels (it's been a while) after "Clarissa," since Austen was a fan of Samuel Richardson's writings, and I thought it would be fun to trace connections or influences. I may still do that, especially as I picked up a set of Austen's Oxford Illustrated pb edition of the novels at a library sale.

I believe I've read 3: Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility (probably). I plan on reading or rereading all her novels, more or less in order, though I would recommend Northanger Abbey to be read first. It is in many ways her first novel, which she later re-edited and improved after the success of her intervening novels. I actually don't care that much for Northanger Abbey, and think the pleasures of the later novels far outweigh it, so you probably don't want that to be the last Austen novel you read.

Edited March 9, 2015 by ejp626

[BillF]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Congratulations on making Jane's acquaintance. Additional pleasures await. I had a mind to read through her novels (it's been a while) after "Clarissa," since Austen was a fan of Samuel Richardson's writings, and I thought it would be fun to trace connections or influences. I may still do that, especially as I picked up a set of Austen's Oxford Illustrated pb edition of the novels at a library sale.

I believe I've read 3: Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility (probably). I plan on reading or rereading all her novels, more or less in order, though I would recommend Northanger Abbey to be read first. It is in many ways her first novel, which she later re-edited and improved after the success of her intervening novels. I actually don't care that much for Northanger Abbey, and think the pleasures of the later novels far outweigh it, so you probably don't want that to be the last Austen novel you read.

I have never read Austen for pleasure, but always on academic courses, both as learner and teacher. I recall that passages from her novels were masterpieces (if I can use that term in the context) of perfectly judged prose and it's at this level that I most appreciated her. As for her plots, I found it difficult to remember the tiny (trivial) details and only managed to teach her with the aid of a (carefully concealed) plot summary. I found some support for my misgiving from a university tutor of mine who pointed out that the biggest event to happen in Austen's oeuvre was a fall from a wall a few feet high. He also found her prissy and said that after reading her, he felt like "taking a bath in Rabelais." I much prefer her forerunners in the development of the English novel, in particular Fielding. Joseph Andrews is marvellous.

[ejp626]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Congratulations on making Jane's acquaintance. Additional pleasures await. I had a mind to read through her novels (it's been a while) after "Clarissa," since Austen was a fan of Samuel Richardson's writings, and I thought it would be fun to trace connections or influences. I may still do that, especially as I picked up a set of Austen's Oxford Illustrated pb edition of the novels at a library sale.

I believe I've read 3: Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility (probably). I plan on reading or rereading all her novels, more or less in order, though I would recommend Northanger Abbey to be read first. It is in many ways her first novel, which she later re-edited and improved after the success of her intervening novels. I actually don't care that much for Northanger Abbey, and think the pleasures of the later novels far outweigh it, so you probably don't want that to be the last Austen novel you read.

I have never read Austen for pleasure, but always on academic courses, both as learner and teacher. I recall that passages from her novels were masterpieces (if I can use that term in the context) of perfectly judged prose and it's at this level that I most appreciated her. As for her plots, I found it difficult to remember the tiny (trivial) details and only managed to teach her with the aid of a (carefully concealed) plot summary. I found some support for my misgiving from a university tutor of mine who pointed out that the biggest event to happen in Austen's oeuvre was a fall from a wall a few feet high. He also found her prissy and said that after reading her, he felt like "taking a bath in Rabelais." I much prefer her forerunners in the development of the English novel, in particular Fielding. Joseph Andrews is marvellous.

I think there is room for all, especially Austen, but that quote about Rabelais is hilarious!

I probably did not get around to Joseph Andrews, but I did read Tom Jones in my salad days. Would be nice to get through it again (and Joseph Andrews), but I'm not making any such commitments at the moment...

[A Lark Ascending]

I enjoyed Austin - luckily she was not forced on me in school so I picked up on her in my own time (along with Elliot, Hardy and the Brontes) in my early 20s. Will revisit when I have eternal Sundays in the Autumn.

Tend to stick to thrillers in the fiction department - brain too frazzled for 'literature':

Enjoyable Scandi-thriller set in the far north. Lots of snow. And strange meats.

Just started:

Been on my shelves for a year or so and finally got to it. I love Furst's tales of the 30s and 40s.

Also working through the Attlee biography. Interesting but not a writing style that has me gripped. A bit too keen to point out what a wonderful man he was - doesn't really get to any depth of analysis.

[BillF]

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice

I'd never read any Jane Austen before this and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Congratulations on making Jane's acquaintance. Additional pleasures await. I had a mind to read through her novels (it's been a while) after "Clarissa," since Austen was a fan of Samuel Richardson's writings, and I thought it would be fun to trace connections or influences. I may still do that, especially as I picked up a set of Austen's Oxford Illustrated pb edition of the novels at a library sale.

I believe I've read 3: Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility (probably). I plan on reading or rereading all her novels, more or less in order, though I would recommend Northanger Abbey to be read first. It is in many ways her first novel, which she later re-edited and improved after the success of her intervening novels. I actually don't care that much for Northanger Abbey, and think the pleasures of the later novels far outweigh it, so you probably don't want that to be the last Austen novel you read.

I have never read Austen for pleasure, but always on academic courses, both as learner and teacher. I recall that passages from her novels were masterpieces (if I can use that term in the context) of perfectly judged prose and it's at this level that I most appreciated her. As for her plots, I found it difficult to remember the tiny (trivial) details and only managed to teach her with the aid of a (carefully concealed) plot summary. I found some support for my misgiving from a university tutor of mine who pointed out that the biggest event to happen in Austen's oeuvre was a fall from a wall a few feet high. He also found her prissy and said that after reading her, he felt like "taking a bath in Rabelais." I much prefer her forerunners in the development of the English novel, in particular Fielding. Joseph Andrews is marvellous.

I think there is room for all, especially Austen, but that quote about Rabelais is hilarious!

I probably did not get around to Joseph Andrews, but I did read Tom Jones in my salad days. Would be nice to get through it again (and Joseph Andrews), but I'm not making any such commitments at the moment...

A word of encouragement - Joseph Andrews is about a third of the length of Tom Jones.