May 2018 books read

  • The Lord of the Rings  – J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955. I couldn’t make my way through this until having seen the first Peter Jackson movie, and, for one of the biggest classics in a genre I love, I’m not that fond of it still.
  • The Soul of An Octopus – Sy Montgomery, 2015.
  • How To Be Both – Ali Smith, 2014.
  • Play it as it Lays – Joan Didion, 1970.
  • Dragonsinger – Anne McCaffrey, 1977 – Still one of my favorite re-reads!
  • Why Buddhism is True – Robert Wright, 2017 – Great and prompted me to try a meditation practice again.

Play It As It Lays – Joan Didion, 1970

Read for the Great Books group. The opening is famous: “What makes Iago evil? some people ask. I never ask,” but I don’t really understand it. I flagged a bunch of passages, but in looking back at them it wasn’t so much for the language or thought as for referring to in our discussion. I felt sorry for poor Maria and her gambling parents, separated from her daughter Kate, having had an awful abortion, and aging in Hollywood.

Carter: “Maria has difficulty talking to people with whom she is not sleeping.”

Maria fantasizes about a house by the sea where she would live with Kate doing her lessons at a pine table, and later “they would eat the mussels and drink a bottle of cold white wine and after a while it would be time to lie down again, on the clean white sheets.” But then (this is a 2-page chapter, Didion is nothing if not concise) “[they] understood as she did that the still center of the daylight world was never a house by the sea but the corner of Sunset and La Brea. In that empty sunlight Kate could do no lessons, and the mussels on any shore Maria knew were toxic.”

Chapter 52 in its entirety:

Maria made a list of things she would never do. She would never: walk through the Sands or Caesar’s alone after midnight. She would never: ball at a party, do S-M unless she wanted to, borrow furs from Abe Lipsey, deal. She would never: carry a Yorkshire in Beverly Hills.

I wondered what a “cheese glass” could be – a book group member suggested a glass container that cottage cheese came in.

“five-to-one were the best odds Benny would lay on the sun rising”

Great ending too:

One thing in my defense, not that it matters: I know something Carter never knew, or Helene, or maybe you. I know what “nothing” means, and keep on playing.
Why, BZ would say.
Why not, I say.

How To Be Both – Ali Smith, 2014

The Second Monday book group reads a lot of contemporary fiction that I wouldn’t be drawn to on my own, and since I no longer work at a public library, it exposes me to authors I wouldn’t necessarily hear about. A number of the group members had read Ali Smith before. I wish there had been color plates because so much rides on seeing the work of Francesco del Cossa. The novel was published in two versions; I was glad to get the version that started with George as the narrator, because those of us who had Francesco at the beginning found it harder going, and I would have too.

I feel like it makes a lesser work to rely on something external so heavily, and a related annoyance were too-clever-by-half references, like Francesco mentioning George’s “Monica Victims” poster (Monica Vitti); it somehow feels cheap. Which is a shame because it’s otherwise wonderful.

Brief quotes

  • George’s mother’s phone: “All her mother’s playlists were on her phone. .. She never even looked at the playlists. It was her mother’s music. It was bound to have been rubbish. Now she has no idea and will never know what song her mother listened to every day to do the dance thing, or on the train, or walking along the street.”
  • “Imagine if you made something and then you always had to be seen through what you’d made, as if the thing you’d made became you.”
  • “there’s a very pure pleasure in a curve like the curve of a buttock: the only other thing as good to draw is the curve of a horse and like a horse a curved line is a warm thing, good-natured, will serve you well if not mistreated”
  • Mother’s saying “when you’ve nothing at least you have all of it”
  • Francesco is confused by everyone holding up their “votive tablets” (phones): “Is it possible then that all the people of this place are painters going about their world with the painting tools of their time? Perhaps I have been placed in a specific painters’ purgatorium.”
  • Going to a brothel: “So I learned plenty of dark things too, learned plenty of things that were the opposite of pleasure, at the pleasure house.”
  • “Barto and I were soon friends again : no time at all : many things get forgiven in the course of a life : nothing is finished or unchangeable except death and even death will bend a little if what you tell of it is told right”
  • “We go out anonymous into the insect air and all we are is the dust of colour, brief engineering or wings towards a glint of light on a blade of grass or a leaf in a summer dark.”

Longer quotes

Interesting insight – mourning with porn:

And you’ll drive yourself mad if you keep watching stuff like that, her father said. You’ll do damage to yourself.
Damage has already happened, George said.
George, her father said.
This really happened, George said. To this girl. And anyone can just watch it just, like, happening, any time he or she likes. And it happens for the first time, over and over again, every time someone who hasn’t seen it before clicks on it and watches it. So I want to watch it for a completely different reason. Because my completely different watching of it goes some way to acknowledging all of that to this girl.

When love is starting with H, they flirt by text of song titles in Latin (“Quingenta milia passuum ambulem”):

It is … like H is trying to find a language that will make personal sense to  George’s ears. No one has ever done this before for George. She has spent her whole life speaking other people’s languages. It is new to her. The newness of it has a sort of power that can make the old things—as old as those old songs, even as ancient as Latin itself—a kind of new…
… she sensed, like something blurred and moving glimpsed through a partition whose glass is clouded, both that love was coming for her and the nothing she could do about it. [sic]

As a child Francesco sees a seed fall into a puddle and wonders where the ring went:

It went, I said. It’s gone.

Ah, she said. Is that why you’re crying? But it hasn’t gone at all. And that’s why it’s better than gold. It hasn’t gone, it’s just that we can’t see it any more. In fact, it’s still going, still growing. It’ll never stop going, or growing wider and wider, the ring you saw. You were lucky to see it at all. Cause when it got to the edge of the puddle it left the puddle and entered the air instead, it went invisible. A marvel. Didn’t you feel it go through you? No? But it did, you’re inside it now. I am too. We both are. And the yard. And the brickpiles. And the sandpiles. And the firing shed. And the houses. And the horses, and your father, your uncle, and your brothers, and the workmen, and the street. And the other houses. And the walls, and the gardens and houses, the churches, the palace tower, the top of the cathedral, the river, the fields behind us, the fields way over there, see? See how far your eye can go. See the tower and the houses in the distance? It’s passing through them and nothing and nobody will feel a thing but there it is doing it nonetheless. And imagine it circling the fields and the farms we can’t see from here. And the towns beyond those fields and farms all the way to the sea. And across the sea. The ring you saw in the water’ll never stop travelling till the edge of the world and then when it reaches the edge it’ll go beyond that too. Nothing can stop it.

The great Alberti says that when we paint the dead, the dead man should be dead in every part of him all the way to the toe and finger nails, which are both living and dead at once : he says that when we paint the alive the alive must be alive to the very smallest part, each hair on the head or the arm of an alive person being itself alive : painting, Alberti says, is a kind of opposite to death : and though he knows that when we are bared back to nothing but our bones ourselves only God can remake us into humans, put faces back on our skulls on the final day and so on &c, which means there is no blasphemy in what I’m about to say –

cause Alberti said it and it is true –

all the same it’s many a person who can go to a painting and see someone in it as if that person is as alive as daylight though in reality that person has not lived or breathed for hundreds of years.

Alberti it is who teaches, too, how to build a body from nothing but bones : so that the process of drawing and painting outwits death and you draw, as he says, any animal by isolating each bone of the animal, and on to this adding muscle, and then clothing it all with its flesh : and this giving of muscle and flesh to bones is what in its essence the act of painting anything is.

April 2018 books read

  • The Devil’s Children – Peter Dickinson, 1970
  • Scoop – Evelyn Waugh, 1937
  • Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind – Yuval Harari, 2011
  • Adele And Co. – Dornford Yates, 1931
  • These Possible Lives – Fleur Jaeggy, translated by Minna Zallman Proctor (Italian 2015, English 2017) – Interesting prose poem bios (labeled “Essays”) of Thomas De Quincey, John Keats, and Marcel Schwob. A tiny book (hand-sized, 60 pages) that New Directions has the face to charge 12.95 for.
  • Triggers: Creating Behavior That Lasts—Becoming the Person You Want to Be – Marshall Goldsmith, 2015 – I love self-help but haven’t been reading as much of it lately (that’s a good sign). This came highly recommended by Trent Hamm of The Simple Dollar, one of my favorite bloggers, in a post where he specifically referenced the technique of setting a daily goal to “do my best” on some measure and then rating yourself at the end of the day. I’ve been doing that during the month of May (“Today I will do my best to eat and drink in moderation with maximum enjoyment”) and it hasn’t been nearly as helpful for me as it was for Trent. But doing anything at all for an entire month is an achievement for me, so that’s a recommendation of some sort…
  • James and the Giant Peach – Roald Dahl, 1961 – A perennial favorite.
  • The Group – Mary McCarthy, 1963
  • If This Goes On— – Robert Heinlein, 1940
  • Methuselah’s Children – Robert Heinlein, 1958

The Group – Mary McCarthy, 1963

Read for the  Great Books Group. I found it interesting especially as a time-travel novel of social history—amazingly candid about life for an intellectual woman in the 1930s, prisoners of gender roles and of their class—but the characters are somewhat interchangeable and cardboard. The women in the “group” (eight members of the Vassar class of 1933) are supportive of each other but mostly seem to dislike each other.

I learned about these trends/ideas from the 1930s-1940s:

  • Lucy Stone and “Lucy Stonerism” (keeping your own name after marriage)
  • the poet Thomas Carew (Epitaph on the Lady Mary Villiers)
  • William Dean Howells (I downloaded the first in the Altrurian trilogy, though that’s not mentioned)
  • Liebfraumilch (“a May bowle, made of Liebfraumilch and fresh strawberries and sweet woodruff”)
  • and indirectly from sweet woodruff I identified a European flower I remember picking in spring, which must be cowslip (Primula veris)
  • sortes Virgilianae (and you can do it online!)
  • Lovestonites and Musteites
  • Old Catholics
  • “a D.A. at Macy’s” (direct account—money deposited ahead of time)
  • the Morris Plan
  • glass straws (must have been terrible to clean!) (Wow, they are a thing again now; much better than plastic, certainly)
  • pacifiers were new and trendy
  • why one of the theaters at Smith is named Hallie Flanagan
  • people smoked cigarettes and served martinis in hospital rooms!

It’s very revealing of the early roots of consumerism, fashionable hipsterism/snobbery, and the role of money. Lots of fascinating discussion of food, very revealing of the times: “a marvelous jellied salad called Green Goddess, made with lime gelatin, shrimps, mayonnaise, and alligator pear” (MINT JELLO???); Maxwell House coffee as status marker; these passages:

They were all tremendously interested in cooking and quite out of patience with the unimaginative roasts and chops followed by molds from the caterer that Mother served; they were going to try new combinations and foreign recipes and puffy omelets and soufflés and interesting aspics and just one hot dish in a Pyrex, no soup, and a fresh green salad.

…yet the prejudice [against canned goods] lingered, which was a pity since many canned products, like vegetables picked at their peak and some of the Campbell soups, were better than anything the home cook could achieve. “Have you tasted the new Corn Niblets?” asked Kay. Dottie shook her head “You ought to tell your mother about them. It’s the whole-kernel corn. Delicious. Almost like corn on the cob. Harald discovered them.” She considered. “Does your mother know about iceberg lettuce? it’s a new variety, very crisp, with wonderful keeping powers. After you’ve tried it, you’ll never want to see the old Boston lettuce again.”

…[M]argarine, Harald maintained, was just as tasty and nourishing, but the butter interests had conspired to keep the margarine people from coloring their product; he was right, yet she could not bear to have that oily white stuff on her table, even if her reaction to the whiteness was a conditioned reflex based on class prejudice.

Consumerism/status distorting lives: “…her training had instilled the principle that it was a mark of low breeding to consider that you might have been wrong in a person”; “…becoming a Trotskyite had merely given him one more thing to be snobbish about.”

Every item in [the apartment] seemed to be saying something, asserting something, pontificating; [they] were surrounded by articles of belief, down to the last can of evaporated milk and the single, monastic pillow on the double bed. It was different from Kay’s apartment, where the furniture was only asking to be admired or talked about. But here, in this dogmatic lair, nothing had been admitted that did not make a “relevant statement…”

[Gus’s] liking for name brands was what had sold him on Communism years ago, when he graduated from Brown spank into the depression. Shaw had already converted him to socialism, but if you were going to be a socialist, his roommate argued, you ought to give your business to the biggest and best firm producing socialism, i.e., the Soviet Union.

Kay has a mental breakdown and wants to go to New York Hospital instead of Harkness because it’s “so much more attractive—I loved the room Priss had with those rough-weave yellow curtains and pure white walls; it had such a modern feeling.” But that’s also poor old Kay, who when they offer her a bed on a different floor says (this also shows McCarthy’s non-standard way of mixing speakers in a paragraph, which gives an interesting effect):

“You mean I can skip the fifth? Do they let patients do that?” “Not as a usual thing. But this isn’t a usual case, is it?” Kay smiled happily; she had always wanted to skip a grade in school, she confided.

It’s revealingly awful about various societal constraints, and difficult to read in parts. Poor Stephen as a baby is let to cry and cry (“It was against the rules for the nurses to pick him up; they were allowed to change him and give him a drink of water, and that was all. The babies were not supposed to be ‘handled.'” “for the doctors agreed it did not hurt a baby to cry; it only hurt grown-ups to listen to him” and they offer her cotton for her ears!) Later he refuses to be toilet-trained and his mother thinks he’s getting back against his father the doctor.

There was a side of Sloan, she had decided, that she mistrusted, a side that could be summed up by saying he was a Republican. Up to now this had not mattered; most men she knew were Republicans—it was almost part of being a man. But she did not like the thought of a Republican controlling the destiny of a helpless baby. In medicine, Sloan was quite foward-looking, but he was enamored of his own theories, which he wanted to enforce, like Prohibition, regardless of the human factor. She wondered, really, whether he was going to make a very good pediatrician. … [L]ike all doctors, he would not admit openly to having made a mistake or even to having changed his mind.

The awful Harald, one of many awful men, shares a name, profession, and presumably personality with McCarthy’s first husband:

[Being a stage manager] was like starting from the bottom in a factory, of course, which lots of nice boys were doing, and there was probably no difference between backstage in a theater, where a lot of men in their undershirts sat in front of a mirror putting on make-up, and a blast furnace or a coal mine, where the men were in their undershirts too.

Even worse later, one of his mistresses says:

“We had a few rolls in the hay years ago—nothing much. Then for him it was over: Harald is like that. But he kept coming around, as a friend; he made me his confidante, told me all about his other women. Did you know he had other women?” Priss nodded. “Did he ever make a pass at you?” “No. But he did at Dottie. After she was married. He tried to make an assignation with her.” “Women were necessary to him,” Norine said. “But I thought I was special. I figured he was laying off me because of Kay, because he respected our relationship. Every now and then, he used to undress me and study my body. Then he’d slap my flank and go home. Or off to some other woman. Afterward, he’d tell me about it. Whenever he slept with a woman, he told me. What he didn’t tell me, though, was about the women he didn’t sleep with. I wasn’t the only one, I found out. He went around town undressing his old flames and then leaving them. Just to know they were available. Like somebody checking stock.”

—and Harald to Lakey at the very end, on the day of Kay’s funeral:

“You and I understand each other. I might have loved you, Lakey, if you weren’t a lover of women. You might have saved me; I might have saved you. You can’t love men; I can’t love women. We might have loved each other—who knows? We’re the two superior people in a cast of fools and supernumeraries. At last we meet to match swords. Let’s duel in her grave, shall we?”

The women’s relationships with each other never feel like true friendship to me. They are gossipy about each other, busybodies in each other’s lives, treat each other as instruments. For example, Lakey “collecting” girls who “ran true to type”: “In private, they often discussed her, like toys discussing their owner…” “Kay used to take their love affairs… away from them and returned them  shrunk and labeled, like the laundry.”

One of the most fascinating social history passages is Harold on the “pessary” (diaphragm):

This mistrust, Harald said, which was deep in the male nature, made even middle-class and professional men wary of sending a girl for a pessary; too many shotgun weddings had resulted from a man’s relying on a woman’s assurance that the contraceptive was in. Then there was the problem of the apparatus. The unmarried girl who lived with her family required a place to keep her pessary and her douche bag where her mother was not likely to find them while doing out the bureau drawers. This meant that the man, unless he was married, had to keep them for her, in his bureau drawer or his bathroom. The custodianship of these articles (Harald was so entertaining in his slow-spoken, careful, dry way) assumed the character of a sacred trust. If their guardian was a man of any delicacy, they precluded the visits of other women to the apartment, who might open drawers or rummage in the medicine cabinet or even feel themselves entitled to use the douche bag hallowed to “Her.”

With a married woman, if the affair were serious, the situation was the same: she brought a second pessary and a douche bag, which she kept in her lover’s apartment, where they exercised a restraining influence if he felt tempted to betray her. A man entrusted with this important equipment was bonded, so to speak, Harald said, like a bank employee; when he did stray with another woman, he was likely to do it in her place or in a hotel room or even a taxi—some spot not consecrated by the sacral reminders. In the same way, a married woman pledged her devotion by committing her second pessary to her lover’s care; only a married woman of very coarse fiber would use the same pessary for both husband and lover. So long as the lover had charge of the pessary, like a medieval knight with the key to his lady’s chastity belt, he could feel that she was true to him. Though this could be a mistake. One adventurous wife Harald described was said to have pessaries all over town, like a sailor with a wife in every port, while her husband, a busy stage director, assured himself of her good behavior by a daily inspection of the little box in her medicine cabinet, where the conjugal pessary lay in its dusting of talcum powder.

Classism:

Birth control, she argued, was for those who knew how to use it and value it—the educated classes. Just like those renovated tenements; if poor people were allowed to move into them, they would wreck them right away, through lack of education.

She commenced to curl her hair. Soon the smell of singed hair was added to the smell of cigarette smoke, of dog, pipe tobacco, and of a soured dishcloth in the sink. Watching her, Helena granted Norine a certain animal vitality, and “earthiness” that was underscored, as if deliberately, by the dirt and squalor of the apartment. Bedding with her, Helena imagined, must be like rolling in a rich moldy compost of autumn leaves, crackling on the surface, like her voice, and underneath warm and sultry from the chemical process of decay.

The Prothero family, on both sides…, was dim-witted and vain of it, as a sign of good breeding; none of them, as far back as they could trace their genealogy, had received a higher education…

In her ignorance, Polly had thought that you “lived happily ever after,” unless your husband was unfaithful, but the Class of ’33 seemed to feel that you could not relax for a minute in your drive to make your marriage “go.”

I don’t have a category for this final passage, it’s just brilliant: after a couple splits up “… she still felt their love affair had not quite finished: it lived somewhere underground, between them, growing in the dark as people’s hair and fingernails grew after their death.”

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind – Yuval Noah Harari, 2015

The best comment from the Nature and Environment group was that this is “a TED talk turned into a book.” It is quite gee-whiz in parts, and it’s ridiculous how very tiny observations are footnoted, then wild generalizations go without support. There’s no bibliography. The most-shared observation was how freakin’ heavy it is—some people had trouble reading it for that reason! It’s printed on heavy glossy magazine stock, which is a very weird choice.

But it’s full of interesting ideas and thoughts, whether they are well-supported or not. There’s a great critique of animal suffering in agriculture. I loved the idea of “the legend of Peugeot”—ie a company like Peugeot SA “is a figment of our collective imagination.”

According to the French legislators, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus—a new company was incorporated.

Tidbits:

  • gossip “is essential for cooperation in large numbers”
  • the earliest named person was probably Kushim—“It is telling that the first recorded name in history belongs to an accountant, rather than a prophet, a poet or a great conqueror.”
  • “History is something that very few people have been doing while everyone else was ploughing fields and carrying water buckets.”
  • “Imagined orders are not evil conspiracies or useless mirages. Rather, they are the only way large numbers of humans can cooperate effectively.”

But here’s an example of the gee-whiz: “The leading project of the Scientific Revolution is to give humankind eternal life.” Really??? Ugh. “A few serious scholars suggest that by 2050, some humans will become a-mortal (not immortal, because they could still die of some accident, but a-mortal, meaning that in the absence of fatal trauma their lives could be extended indefinitely).” No citation, but the lifespan of C. elegans in the same paragraph gets one.

On to the quote-dump:

Most mammals emerge from the womb like glazed earthenware emerging from a kiln—any attempt at remoulding will only scratch or break then. Humans emerge from the womb like molten glass from a furnace. They can be spun, stretched and shaped with a surprising degree of freedom.

Ever since the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens have thus been living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and corporations. As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as the United States and Google.

The Agricultural Revolution certainly enlarged the sum total of food at the disposal of humankind, but the extra food did not translate into a better diet or more leisure. Rather, it translated into population explosions and pampered elites. The average farmer worked harder than the average forager, and got a worse diet in return. The Agricultural Revolution was history’s biggest fraud.

Romanticism tells us that in order to make the most of our human potential we must have as many different experiences as we can. We must open ourselves to a wide spectrum of emotions; we must sample various kinds of relationships; we must try different cuisines; we must learn to appreciate different styles of music. One of the best ways to do all that is to break free of our daily routine, leave behind our familiar setting, and go travelling in distant lands, where we can ‘experience’ the culture, the smells, the tastes and the norms of different people…
Consumerism tells us that in order to be happy we must consume as many products and services as possible… Romanticism, which encourages variety, meshes perfectly with consumerism. Their marriage has given birth to the infinite ‘market of experiences,” on which the modern tourism industry is founded.

The inter-subjective is something that exists within the communication network linking the subjective consciousness of many individuals. If a single individual changes his or her beliefs, or even dies, it is of little importance. However, if most individuals in the network die or change their beliefs, the inter-subjective phenomenon will mutate or disappear. Inter-subjective phenomena are neither malevolent frauds nor insignificant charades. They exist in a different way from physical phenomena such as radioactivity, but their impact on the world may still be enormous. Many of history’s most important drivers are inter-subjective: law, money, gods, nations.

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is ‘Biology enables, Culture forbids.” Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It’s culture that obliges people to realise some possibilities while forbidding others.

I loved the notion of “human worlds” like separate planets:

How many different human worlds coexisted on earth? Around 10,000 BC our planet contained many thousands of them. By 2000 BC, their numbers had dwindled to the hundreds, or at most a few thousand. By AD 1450, their numbers had declined even more drastically. At that time, just prior to the age of European exploration, earth still contained a significant number of dwarf worlds such as Tasmania. But close to 90 per cent of human lived in a single mega-world: the word of Afro-Asia.

[The other 10% are divided between Mesoamerican, Andean, Australian, Oceanic]

The first millennium BC witnessed the appearance of three potentially universal human orders, whose devotees could for the first time imagine the entire world and the entire human race as a single unit governed by a single set of laws. Everyone was ‘us,’ at least potentially. There was no longer ‘them.’ The first universal order to appear was economic: the monetary order. The second universal order was political: the imperial order. The third universal order was religious: the order of universal religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

…[T]he fact that another person believes in cowry shells, or dollars, or electronic data, is enough to strengthen our own belief in them, even if that person is otherwise hated, despised or ridiculed by us. Christians and Muslims who could not agree on religious beliefs could nevertheless agree on a monetary belief, because whereas religion asks us to believe in something, money asks us to believe that other people believe in something.

Since all social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures. Religions assert that our laws are not the result of human caprice, but are ordained by an absolute and supreme authority. This helps place at least some fundamental laws beyond all challenge, thereby ensuring social stability.

…[M]onotheism explains order, but is mystified by evil. Dualism explains evil, but is puzzled by order. There is one logical way of solving the riddle: to argue that there is a single omnipotent God who created the entire universe—and He’s evil. But nobody in history has had the stomach for such a belief.

In fact, monotheism, as it has played out in history, is a kaleidoscope of monotheist, dualist, polytheist and animist legacies, jumbling together under a single divine umbrella. The average Christian believes in the monotheist God, but also in the dualist Devil, in polytheist saints, and in animist ghosts. Scholars of religion have a name for this simultaneous avowal of different and even contradictory ideas and the combination of ritual and practices taken from different sources. It’s called syncretism. Syncretism might, in fact, be the single great world religion.

…[T]he relationship between science and technology is a very recent phenomenon. Prior to 1500, science and technology were totally separate fields. When Bacon connected the two in the early seventeenth century, it was a revolutionary idea.

…[O]bsession with military technology—from tanks to atom bombs to spy-flies—is a surprisingly recent phenomenon. Up until the nineteenth century, the vast majority of military revolutions were the product of organisational rather than technological changes. When alien civilisations met for the first time, technological gaps sometimes played an important role. But even in such cases, few thought of deliberately creating or enlarging such gaps. Most empires did not rise thanks to technological wizardry, and their rulers did not give much thought to technological improvement. The Arabs did not defeat the Sassanid Empire thanks to superior bows or swords, the Seljuks had no technological advantage over the Byzantines, and the Mongols did not conquer China with the help of some ingenious new weapon. In fact, in all these cases the vanquished enjoyed superior military and civilian technology.

Throughout history, societies have suffered from two kinds of poverty: social poverty, which withholds from some people the opportunities available to others; and biological poverty, which puts the very lives of individuals at risk due to lack of food and shelter. Perhaps social poverty can never be eradicated, but in many countries around the world biological poverty is a thing of the past.

Alas, science and progress pursued [the dying-out Tasmanians] even to the afterlife. The corpses of the last Tasmanians were seized in the name of science by anthropologists and curators. They were dissected, weighed and measured, and analysed in learned articles. The skulls and skeletons were then put on display in museums and anthropological collections. Only in 1976 did the Tasmanian Museum give up for burial the skeleton of Truganini, the last native Tasmanian, who had died a hundred years earlier. The English Royal College of Surgeons held on to samples of her skin and hair until 2002.

But awww…. “As the twenty-first century unfolds, nationalism is fast losing ground,” and later “White supremacy remained a mainstream ideology in American politics at least until the 1960s.” Yes, and not enough people acknowledge that, but it hurts now to think how far back we’ve swung.

Scoop – Evelyn Waugh, 1938

I went through a huge Waugh kick sometime in my late teens/early 20s and read everything, ending up quite sick of him/sickened by him. So I wasn’t really looking forward to this re-read for the Second Monday book group, dreading that this was one of the really dark ones. It was a lot funnier than I expected/remembered, but quite as offensive. The first third and the ending are most enjoyable. I wish we’d seen more of Mrs. Algernon Stitch, the ultimate multi-tasker, dictating crossword puzzle solutions to her maid while she interrogates her secretary (“‘Why should I go to Viola Chasm’s Distressed Area; did she come to my Model Madhouse?'”), supervises her kid, etc. I also love poor Mr. Salter, foreign editor of the Daily Beast and yes-man to the awful Lord Copper, who loved matching illustrations to funny legends for Clean Fun but was “thrown into the ruthless, cut-throat, rough-and-tumble of the Beast Woman’s Page” and then into his current post:

Mr. Salter’s side of the conversation was limited to expressions of assent. When Lord Copper was right he said, “Definitely, Lord Copper”; when he was wrong, “Up to a point.”
“Let me see, what’s the name of the place I mean? Capital of Japan? Yokohama, isn’t it?”
“Up to a point, Lord Copper.”
“And Hong Kong belongs to us, doesn’t it?”
“Definitely, Lord Copper.”

The Beast is housed in “The Megalopolitan building, Copper House, Numbers 700-853 Fleet Street.” At Copper’s behest, Salter hires William Boot (not the John Boot that Mrs. Stitch had asked for) to go to Ishamaelia. Salter dreads the necessity of broaching “country topics” (mangel-wurzels), but Boot has no idea what he’s talking about. It’s true that Boot’s column “Lush Places by William Boot, Countryman” covers “maternal rodents and their furry brood.” The family home, Boot Magna, is full of classic English eccentrics who care more about how to get the right horse to the hunt than making guests comfortable. The one that’s stuck in Boot’s mind about foreign travel is that he’ll need a lot of cleft sticks: “‘We can have some cloven for you,” [Miss Barton] said brightly. ‘If you will make your selection I will send them down to our cleaver.'”

The fake news is scarily relevant; we’re told “how Wenlock Jakes, highest paid journalist of the United States, scooped the world with an eye-witness story of the sinking of the Lusitania four hours before she was hit; how Hitchcock, the English Jakes, straddling over his desk in London, had chronicled day by day the horrors of the Messina earthquake.” “‘News is what a chap who doesn’t care much about anything wants to read.”

Great images: “fibrous spindles of chicken with grey-green dented peas”; “an entire Christmas dinner designed for four children or six adults”

The only (to me) touching and beautiful passage in the book comes when Boot falls in love with the unreliable Kätchen, at sea:

For twenty-three years he had remained celibate and heart-whole; landbound. Now for the first time he was far from shore, submerged among deep waters, below wind and tide, where huge trees raised their spongy flowers and monstrous things without fur or feather, wing or foot, passed silently, in submarine twilight. A lush place.

March 2018 books read

  • Station Eleven – Emily St. John Mandel, 2014
  • Running with the Mind of Mindfulness: Lessons for Training Body and MindSakyong Mipham, 2012
  • Candide – Voltaire, 1759 – Wow, I thought I had marked passages in this, since I read it for the Great Books group, but no record of a draft post or anything. I’ll come back if something turns up!
  • The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate; Discoveries from a Secret World – Peter Wohlleben, 2016.
  • Lost Boys – Orson Scott Card, 1989 – multiple re-read
  • Amphigorey (1972) and Amphigorey Too (1975) – Edward Gorey, re-reads because of the very interesting exhibit at the Wadsworth Atheneum. I was given the second when it came out (I would have been 11 or so) and pored over it many times, but didn’t get the first until later. I really want to visit the Gorey house on Cape Cod someday…
  • The “Odessey”: The Zombies in Words and Images – Rod Argent, Colin Blunstone, Hugh Grundy, Chris White, with Scott B. Bomar and Cindy Da Silva, 2017
  • AnnihilationJeff VanderMeer, 2014 – I saw the movie first and actually prefer it quite a bit.
  • Cold Mountain – Han-shan, tr. Burton Watston, 1992
  • Why We Run: A Natural History – Bernd Heinrich, 2002
  • High Stakes – Dick Francis, 1975 – Comfort reading but I think I’m getting a little sick of DF, even the good stuff that was written by his wife. I can’t unread the hysterical take-down in Lord Gnome’s Literary Companion, a great book I have somewhere and want to re-read.

The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate; Discoveries from a Secret World – Peter Wohlleben, 2016

For the Nature and Environment book group but I couldn’t make the meeting so didn’t flag many passages. I found it frustrating overall; the underlying science is amazing enough, but Wohlleben (unless the translator is partly to blame, but I don’t think so) dresses it up far too much with inappropriately-anthropomorphic and extremely value-laden language. Lab Girl is on the exactly-right side of that (of course subjective) line (and yikes, that post is still in draft as of 3/31/2018…). This is full of things that are “awful” and “painful” for trees and cause “suffering.” Some examples, good and bad:

  • He calls urban landscaping trees “street kids,”  because they live rough, sometimes-short lives away from their forest families and need to be tough survivors. Great, love that—colorful, memorable, accurate.
  • In a very interesting passage about why leaves are green—the chlorophyll “green gap”—he  ends up calling green a “trash color” (from the point of view of the trees). Borderline I guess; it’s sticky certainly.
  • “Whereas most deciduous trees leap at chances to grab more light, most conifers stubbornly refuse. They vow to grow straight or not at all.” Leap, stubborn, vow all feel a little cliched as well as unnecessary to me.

I was also struck by his airy assurance that even a softwood monoculture will quickly turn into a healthy forest. He says that sure, most of the trees will die quickly from bark beetle infestations and look ugly for a while, but fire doesn’t even seem to be on his radar.  That makes sense from his personal forestry experience in Germany, because apparently ” the ecological importance of forest fires in central Europe is relatively low,” but in most parts of the world that’s a recipe for damaging fires and subsequent erosion.

February 2018 books read

  • City of Gold and Other Stories from the Old Testament – Peter Dickinson, 1980 – Interesting re-tellings in various forms.
  • Two Little Pilgrim’s Progress: A Story of the City Beautiful – Frances Hodgson Burnett, 1895 – A new-to-me Burnett (she’s one of the authors I’m completist about), set at the World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago (the “White City” of Devil in the White City and of a huge contemporaneous tattered photo book I used to own but can’t identify right now). Not great but it did re-awaken my time travel desire to experience it myself.
  • The Pilgrim’s Regress – C.S. Lewis, 1933 – If I had read this before I don’t remember it. I found it very annoying initially, featuring the most insufferable aspects of Lewis (sexuality as “brown girls”), but it had some interesting aspects later on.
  • 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created – Charles Mann, 2011
  • The Joy Luck Club – Amy Tan, 1989 – re-read for Great Books but I couldn’t be there (midterm)! I liked it fine but didn’t mark any passages.
  • Captains Courageous – Rudyard Kipling, 1897 – Multiple multiple re-read, one of my all-time favorites. I think Moby-Dick triggered my desire to go back to it, even though  “CC in space” would be a great plot; why doesn’t it exist?