by T. C. Boyle
This novel follows a few people -- the peace-and-love hippies Star, Marco, and Ronnie, and a husband and wife that live in the Alaskan wilderness, Pamela and Sess -- through about a year in the late sixties when the hippies get kicked out of their California commune by the health department and choose to go live "off the land" in Alaska.
What struck me the most was how much I could relate to the hippies. I didn't expect that, and I certainly thought they were naive and ridiculous and disconnected with real life outside their drug-supported dreamland. Even so, they were idealistic and trying to connect with the beauty of human emotion and togetherness and the inner wonder that we have as children, and to be honest that is what art is about so I often have similar thoughts.
In the end, though, what is the use of the quicksilver moments of unity and happiness when their lives ultimately congeal in uselessness and in-fighting? The women especially found that they didn't like to be seen as sex machines, and felt used. Their connectedness broke down when the drugs wore off. The happiest that they ever were was when they were doing something actually useful and drug-free, like cooking dinner with the girls or running a trap line. I think their problem wasn't their ideals, but that most of them lacked the capacity for hard work, and they refused to use any good judgment in their come-one-come-all brotherly love.
The way they ended up in their rambling, drugged lives was all too easy to imagine: mostly they grew up happy but then felt lost in a world that chased after money, and they didn't know what to do about it, and then a stranger showed up and offered them a way out, a life that would accept them and that offered adventure.
Everyone in the novel was looking for one thing: happiness. They all found out that the reality of their choices was a bit different than their dreams, but the ones that managed to balance the reality and the dream (rather than chasing off after the next magic bullet) seemed to find life the most fulfilling. They all wondered "is this all life is?" at every step of the way, even though they had eschewed suburbian and city life for the wilderness challenges. More and more I think that no one has come up with a reason for living or a way of life that is "right", and that everyone has to build their own idea of paradise (and recognize that it comes with its share of mosquitoes, irritating people, and hardships).
I loved the way that Boyle wrote, as if you were right inside the heads of the characters. Each of his five characters had a different flavor to his or her thoughts, and I love peering into other people's lives and seeing the world through their eyes.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Family Matters
by Rohinton Mistry
While the characters in this book were charmingly drawn, the actual story was a scattering of small bright moments punctuating a very realistic, depressing cycle: parents dictating (or trying to dictate) their children's lives through the very narrow-minded rules of their religion, thus ruining not only that relationship but many more relationships in the fallout.
The rampant corruption in Bombay was shocking to me. It seemed like no one could succeed at anything honestly. If you were honest, you would never get ahead. I think of corruption as something that happens in dark corners and under-the-table, but this was all in the open and impossible to avoid. It makes me appreciate my world, my country a little more. America is by no means perfect, and I tend to dwell on all of its flaws, but every place has its problems. There is corruption, I'm sure, but not nearly as widespread. It is disapproved of and rooted out where possible, whereas in India it is a way of life. And no one here rents space in apartments in 8 or 12-hour shifts just so they can sleep. That I know of.
Whatever parts lay untouched by the corruption were polluted by the rigid and bigoted religious factions. The most poignant part of the book for me was at the very end when the now-15 Jal looks at how his father has gone from a robust, changeable man who brought sunshine with his jokes and laughter and stormy clouds with his anger, to a serene religious fanatic who seems detached from realy life. Perhaps he is hiding from the world that dealt him such a blow: he worked and worked and was honest but got nothing for it, so now he earns nothing and spends his days diving deeper into a world where reality is built on faith. Jal looks sadly at the father who used to be so strong and vibrant and close to him, and sees a stranger who is in the process of repeating the mistakes Nariman's parents made.
At any rate, I enjoyed the book quite a bit because of the characters, though I was disappointed in Nariman. He was so smart, wise, charming, indomitable in his old age, but he was a total pushover in his youth when his parents demanded that he leave the love of his life who was--gasp!-- a foreigner, a non-Parsi, and marry a "good Parsi woman". I guess I would have wished that he defied his family, who he obviously didn't like too much anyway, and leave Bombay for a place where he and his love could live together in peace. Instead he cause himself, his Parsi wife, the foreign woman he loved, and his step-kids a heck of a lot of misery.
Maybe it's realistic, it's life, it's complicated, but it makes me a bit depressed.
While the characters in this book were charmingly drawn, the actual story was a scattering of small bright moments punctuating a very realistic, depressing cycle: parents dictating (or trying to dictate) their children's lives through the very narrow-minded rules of their religion, thus ruining not only that relationship but many more relationships in the fallout.
The rampant corruption in Bombay was shocking to me. It seemed like no one could succeed at anything honestly. If you were honest, you would never get ahead. I think of corruption as something that happens in dark corners and under-the-table, but this was all in the open and impossible to avoid. It makes me appreciate my world, my country a little more. America is by no means perfect, and I tend to dwell on all of its flaws, but every place has its problems. There is corruption, I'm sure, but not nearly as widespread. It is disapproved of and rooted out where possible, whereas in India it is a way of life. And no one here rents space in apartments in 8 or 12-hour shifts just so they can sleep. That I know of.
Whatever parts lay untouched by the corruption were polluted by the rigid and bigoted religious factions. The most poignant part of the book for me was at the very end when the now-15 Jal looks at how his father has gone from a robust, changeable man who brought sunshine with his jokes and laughter and stormy clouds with his anger, to a serene religious fanatic who seems detached from realy life. Perhaps he is hiding from the world that dealt him such a blow: he worked and worked and was honest but got nothing for it, so now he earns nothing and spends his days diving deeper into a world where reality is built on faith. Jal looks sadly at the father who used to be so strong and vibrant and close to him, and sees a stranger who is in the process of repeating the mistakes Nariman's parents made.
At any rate, I enjoyed the book quite a bit because of the characters, though I was disappointed in Nariman. He was so smart, wise, charming, indomitable in his old age, but he was a total pushover in his youth when his parents demanded that he leave the love of his life who was--gasp!-- a foreigner, a non-Parsi, and marry a "good Parsi woman". I guess I would have wished that he defied his family, who he obviously didn't like too much anyway, and leave Bombay for a place where he and his love could live together in peace. Instead he cause himself, his Parsi wife, the foreign woman he loved, and his step-kids a heck of a lot of misery.
Maybe it's realistic, it's life, it's complicated, but it makes me a bit depressed.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Lambs of London
by Paul Ackroyd
The message of this novel was difficult to decipher. A young man, dissatisfied with how unnoticed he is by everyone, writes several things and attributes them to Shakespeare, and a few gullible people believe him until some others who possess actual functioning brains question the legitimacy of the documents. Since the story arc is so obvious (you know basically from the minute it starts that the documents are false and the young man made them up, although you aren't "told" until close to the end-- not sure if it was supposed to be so obvious or not but I can't imagine anyone missing the boat), the focus is more on the individual lives and thoughts of the characters. Unfortunately, I found the three main characters rather flat and hard to sympathize or empathize with. The woman in particular led such an empty life that it depressed me to read the book, and the man she fixated on neither understood her nor cared about her. A whole day could go by where she either stayed in bed or the highlight was fixing tea for her father. Her brother was clueless and also led a loveless, frustrated life.
So what were we supposed to glean from this? That it is always a bad idea to try to pass off your own work as that of another's? That the yearning for attention can wreck people's characters and cause them to be dishonest while being a normally good (if childlike and emotionally stunted) person? That the masses (all the people who so desperately wanted another Shakespeare work that they would believe whoever had the guts to produce one without proof) are easily led? That young women can and will go literally crazy if they fall in a river and/or have too much excitement in their lives? WHAT???
At any rate, I'm glad to be done with this one. I'm not really a fan of depressing fiction.
The message of this novel was difficult to decipher. A young man, dissatisfied with how unnoticed he is by everyone, writes several things and attributes them to Shakespeare, and a few gullible people believe him until some others who possess actual functioning brains question the legitimacy of the documents. Since the story arc is so obvious (you know basically from the minute it starts that the documents are false and the young man made them up, although you aren't "told" until close to the end-- not sure if it was supposed to be so obvious or not but I can't imagine anyone missing the boat), the focus is more on the individual lives and thoughts of the characters. Unfortunately, I found the three main characters rather flat and hard to sympathize or empathize with. The woman in particular led such an empty life that it depressed me to read the book, and the man she fixated on neither understood her nor cared about her. A whole day could go by where she either stayed in bed or the highlight was fixing tea for her father. Her brother was clueless and also led a loveless, frustrated life.
So what were we supposed to glean from this? That it is always a bad idea to try to pass off your own work as that of another's? That the yearning for attention can wreck people's characters and cause them to be dishonest while being a normally good (if childlike and emotionally stunted) person? That the masses (all the people who so desperately wanted another Shakespeare work that they would believe whoever had the guts to produce one without proof) are easily led? That young women can and will go literally crazy if they fall in a river and/or have too much excitement in their lives? WHAT???
At any rate, I'm glad to be done with this one. I'm not really a fan of depressing fiction.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Outliers
by Malcolm Gladwell
This book surprised me. I think I had some idea that it would tell us about certain outliers and why they became outliers, but the reasons were completely different from what I had expected. I thought outliers were formed because people had an extraordinary ability or talent, but what Gladwell is saying is that Outliers are often ordinary people or situations that, through a series of lucky coincidences, become extraordinary. Often the only additional attribute they have is that they are willing to work hard. What matters much more than our individual personality is our family and cultural background: when we were born, who our parents are, what country and community we were raised in.
One of my immediate thoughts was how easy it would be for people to point to this book and say, "Aha! That's why I wasn't successful-- I wasn't lucky enough to be born in the right circumstances!" But Gladwell wants us to use this information to improve our lives. If we understand where and who we came from, and look at the forces on our thinking and decision-making, we can take more control of our lives. Most mistakes are made by not understanding the source of a problem, and Gladwell is pointing out the source of problems or advantages. For example, I am wired to desire security and a nice house and plenty of money for a nice comfortable lifestyle in exchange for some kind of career chosen for its salary, because that is what most of the families and adults I know cultivate. I always thought that this lifestyle was the "right" one. However, once someone pointed that out to me and I began reading about and exploring all the different ways people live, I realized that I wanted to do something else. I still have times when I feel that what I'm doing is wrong and worthless, but knowing that these feelings come from my background help me work through them.
The other main idea that this book impressed upon me was the 10,000 hour rule, the idea that to become an expert on something requires about 10,000 hours of practice. That's equivalent to a 40-hr/wk job for 5 years. Ray and I calculated up the hours I have spent doing ceramics, and came to only about 1,000 hours. No wonder I feel like an amateur! I have been expecting myself to do great and fantastic things, when I have only accomplished 10% of the practice I need. Also, with ceramics encompassing so many completely different skills (throwing, handbuilding, glaze and clay chemistry and mixing and testing, firing the different types of kilns, tons of decorative materials and techniques, and running a business, to name a few), I probably need about twice the normal amount of hours to become an expert. So I have been expecting far too much of my skills, which has led to frustration at my lack of wonderfulness, which has made me less likely to practice. What I need to do is get back to basics and simply keep doing it and not expecting world-class art for another 5 years. What a relief!
This book surprised me. I think I had some idea that it would tell us about certain outliers and why they became outliers, but the reasons were completely different from what I had expected. I thought outliers were formed because people had an extraordinary ability or talent, but what Gladwell is saying is that Outliers are often ordinary people or situations that, through a series of lucky coincidences, become extraordinary. Often the only additional attribute they have is that they are willing to work hard. What matters much more than our individual personality is our family and cultural background: when we were born, who our parents are, what country and community we were raised in.
One of my immediate thoughts was how easy it would be for people to point to this book and say, "Aha! That's why I wasn't successful-- I wasn't lucky enough to be born in the right circumstances!" But Gladwell wants us to use this information to improve our lives. If we understand where and who we came from, and look at the forces on our thinking and decision-making, we can take more control of our lives. Most mistakes are made by not understanding the source of a problem, and Gladwell is pointing out the source of problems or advantages. For example, I am wired to desire security and a nice house and plenty of money for a nice comfortable lifestyle in exchange for some kind of career chosen for its salary, because that is what most of the families and adults I know cultivate. I always thought that this lifestyle was the "right" one. However, once someone pointed that out to me and I began reading about and exploring all the different ways people live, I realized that I wanted to do something else. I still have times when I feel that what I'm doing is wrong and worthless, but knowing that these feelings come from my background help me work through them.
The other main idea that this book impressed upon me was the 10,000 hour rule, the idea that to become an expert on something requires about 10,000 hours of practice. That's equivalent to a 40-hr/wk job for 5 years. Ray and I calculated up the hours I have spent doing ceramics, and came to only about 1,000 hours. No wonder I feel like an amateur! I have been expecting myself to do great and fantastic things, when I have only accomplished 10% of the practice I need. Also, with ceramics encompassing so many completely different skills (throwing, handbuilding, glaze and clay chemistry and mixing and testing, firing the different types of kilns, tons of decorative materials and techniques, and running a business, to name a few), I probably need about twice the normal amount of hours to become an expert. So I have been expecting far too much of my skills, which has led to frustration at my lack of wonderfulness, which has made me less likely to practice. What I need to do is get back to basics and simply keep doing it and not expecting world-class art for another 5 years. What a relief!
Friday, December 26, 2008
Vagabonding
An Uncommon Guide to the Art of Long-Term World Travel
by Rolf Potts
As I expected, this book awakened in me a yearning for travel, for freeing myself from the constraints, expectations, and routines of this civilized, cushioned world. The best thing about the book for me was its wealth of inspiring quotes that speckled the pages, but the most incisive quote for me was:
"We travel, initially, to lose ourselves; and we travel, next, to find ourselves." -Pico Iyer, Why We Travel
Vagabonding focused not on the nuts and bolts of how to travel for less, but on the philosophy and mental attitudes that allow vagabonding to occur. It is purely an inspirational book, and as such grew a little repetitive-- how many different ways can you say "Leave your expectations at home, be adaptable, and you will grow within your own soul"? It didn't tell me anything new, but it reminded me of important things that get smothered in daily concerns. I preferred the small details that Potts and other travelers shared, about adventures small, large, annoying, trivial, or life-changing. These stories make me want to go out and find life for myself, to experience all these little things and find out what and how I think. Almost like throwing grains of sand at myself to figure out how I'm shaped.
One of the things I realized, however, is that I differ greatly from the author in an important aspect: I don't want to spend my whole life traveling. The author belongs to a sect whose overarching ambition is to grow spiritually in ways that traveling encourages, to learn about the world and themselves by experiencing as much of it as they can. I, on the other hand, have dreams of building an art studio, of developing certain specific skills that require learning my materials and tools and aesthetics. This would be incredibly difficult if not impossible on the road, because I want to develop depth instead of breadth. Vagabonders travel and find out about the people who stay rooted, but what if you want to have some of those roots? Roots allow trees to grow tall and strong and healthy. Both ways have value, and I think my challenge will be in combining the two aspects of life, since I want to incorporate certain lessons from each way into my own life.
Raising a family is also a dream, and although the author commented vaguely about families traveling together, I have doubts about the wisdom of vagabonding with children in tow. It is often not their choice to travel, since they have friends and a life at home, so unless they are on board you are forcing someone else to live your own dream. Traveling cheaply can be done only through the acceptance of hardship and sacrifice, and someone forced into that has reason to be angry and resentful. On the other hand, I can definitely see reasons to take older children along on shorter trips (i.e. one to three months) if you are prepared to provide for a few more creature comforts than you would if you were on your own.
Overall, I would like to put some of the principles of vagabonding into effect: live simply and save money, and then just GO. We think too much about the ramifications of such a trip on the rest of our lives, and so we talk ourselves out of going every time. I would like to simply decide to take a trip when our lease runs out, pick a preliminary destination and a budget, and then go vagabond for as long as our money holds and our travels enliven us. Let our futures figure themselves out-- I have absolutely no fears about what we will do when we get back. We are smart and adaptable, and that will stand us in good stead no matter where and what we do.
by Rolf Potts
As I expected, this book awakened in me a yearning for travel, for freeing myself from the constraints, expectations, and routines of this civilized, cushioned world. The best thing about the book for me was its wealth of inspiring quotes that speckled the pages, but the most incisive quote for me was:
"We travel, initially, to lose ourselves; and we travel, next, to find ourselves." -Pico Iyer, Why We Travel
Vagabonding focused not on the nuts and bolts of how to travel for less, but on the philosophy and mental attitudes that allow vagabonding to occur. It is purely an inspirational book, and as such grew a little repetitive-- how many different ways can you say "Leave your expectations at home, be adaptable, and you will grow within your own soul"? It didn't tell me anything new, but it reminded me of important things that get smothered in daily concerns. I preferred the small details that Potts and other travelers shared, about adventures small, large, annoying, trivial, or life-changing. These stories make me want to go out and find life for myself, to experience all these little things and find out what and how I think. Almost like throwing grains of sand at myself to figure out how I'm shaped.
One of the things I realized, however, is that I differ greatly from the author in an important aspect: I don't want to spend my whole life traveling. The author belongs to a sect whose overarching ambition is to grow spiritually in ways that traveling encourages, to learn about the world and themselves by experiencing as much of it as they can. I, on the other hand, have dreams of building an art studio, of developing certain specific skills that require learning my materials and tools and aesthetics. This would be incredibly difficult if not impossible on the road, because I want to develop depth instead of breadth. Vagabonders travel and find out about the people who stay rooted, but what if you want to have some of those roots? Roots allow trees to grow tall and strong and healthy. Both ways have value, and I think my challenge will be in combining the two aspects of life, since I want to incorporate certain lessons from each way into my own life.
Raising a family is also a dream, and although the author commented vaguely about families traveling together, I have doubts about the wisdom of vagabonding with children in tow. It is often not their choice to travel, since they have friends and a life at home, so unless they are on board you are forcing someone else to live your own dream. Traveling cheaply can be done only through the acceptance of hardship and sacrifice, and someone forced into that has reason to be angry and resentful. On the other hand, I can definitely see reasons to take older children along on shorter trips (i.e. one to three months) if you are prepared to provide for a few more creature comforts than you would if you were on your own.
Overall, I would like to put some of the principles of vagabonding into effect: live simply and save money, and then just GO. We think too much about the ramifications of such a trip on the rest of our lives, and so we talk ourselves out of going every time. I would like to simply decide to take a trip when our lease runs out, pick a preliminary destination and a budget, and then go vagabond for as long as our money holds and our travels enliven us. Let our futures figure themselves out-- I have absolutely no fears about what we will do when we get back. We are smart and adaptable, and that will stand us in good stead no matter where and what we do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
