Showing posts with label Why We Write About Ourselves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why We Write About Ourselves. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2016
Happy 8th Birthday
It's not like I have a ton of responsibilities. I should be able to produce more than 21 posts a year, particularly when 3 of them are written by others.
Yes, you read that right, there were exactly as many posts written between April 1, 2015 - April 1, 2016 as there were from April 1, 2014 - April 1, 2015. Flying Houses is not even a bi-monthly newsletter.
It's pathetic is what it is! You know I've spent a lot of time over the past 8 years building this database, but does anybody really care about it? We've had a few "celebrity visitors" in our time, but overall, this blog is not going viral anytime soon.
We now currently sit at 93,445 page views. So we should hit 100,000 this year. I should say that my page views are roughly current with the miles on my '05 Civic, but that car is 3 years older than this blog. I hope to use that car for another 10 years (at least) and I hope to keep this blog another 30 years (or until I write my special comment on "facing the void"). Is it fatalistic to expect to die at 62? I think if I got married I could go into my 80's, but if life continues its present course, I will remain single and yes, die prematurely.
Our growth slowed slightly, but again I haven't made many efforts to make many new friends or publicize the blog. The current balance on my Google AdSense earnings is now $30.95, which means I "made" $1.74 on ad revenue over the past year (I have never been paid, as has been previously explained). (Note: I am testing out a new ad layout in an attempt to get paid more quickly. If you find it particularly obnoxious--I am concerned it draws attention away from the links on the upper right, as well as the archived posts--please let me know in a comment.)
Perhaps our MD&A over here at FH harps on the same points every April Fool's Day, the primary point being "WTF."
WTF, why can't I get paid to write?
WTF, why doesn't anyone offer me a book deal?
WTF, can't you see I'm trying very hard here, on top of being a full-time attorney?
WTF, don't you think if I devoted myself full-time to writing that I could turn out a better product?
WTF, don't you think the product is pretty damn good as it stands?
WTF, who else is putting out content as relentlessly independent as FH?
WTF, do you like me or should I just STFU?
These April Fool's Day MD&As do not consist of falsehoods, but operate as sarcastic truths.
You can't get paid to write because you are, in fact, a bad writer (at least one person has assured me).
You can't get a book deal because your blog is not a cultural phenomenon, and does not suggest that you will develop a bankable audience.
You may be trying hard, but it's getting to the point where you need to prioritize. Everybody can't just be Scott Turow if they want to be.
You will never know because the only time when you would be able to devote yourself full-time to writing is when you might be otherwise unemployed, and at such times you are hounded by doubts that you are spending your time as productively as possible (i.e. writing instead of job searching).
Your product is pretty damn good, I agree, but sometimes you also get lazy and write tons of shit that would never be considered publishable by a reputable source of book reviews like the NYT or Bookslut.
Everyone else whose head isn't on straight and still thinks they've been misunderstood and discounted for the past 32 years.
Me personally, I like you, but sometimes I really don't, and I think you should STFU on your insecurities and focus on the more palatable truths on which you'll have greater agreement from the masses.
Nobody ever got a book deal by whining and saying, I really am good--look at all I've done! So without further ado, here are the top 5 posts of the past year.
Wait, before I get there, here are the top 5 most popular posts of the past year (the number is total page views--yes my numbers really are that sad):
(1) NIED #26: 185 (because I'll always be most famous for my comments on legal education)
(2) Happy 7th Birthday: 150 (because people love reading lists and MD&As)
(3) The Pale King: 95 (because DFW is gone but not forgotten)
(4) WITAWITAR: 84 (because Murakami is so in right now)
(5) Why We Write About Ourselves: 82 (tie with Please Kill Me) (because it got retweeted by the author)
#5: S/M: Experience #4
This is the final chapter in my second novel which has managed to avoid serialization on a blog to this point. It may not survive 2016 in its hidden form because it is quickly becoming obsolete. Whatever I wrote about in 2007-2008 has already changed. Regardless, it was posted on 9/11/15 because this chapter depicts that very as-yet-unknown date in the future. I had predicted that 9/11 would be made a national holiday. While that was wrong, it remains a "holiday week" at the Daley Center, and all attorneys must pass through security in remembrance of how dangerous we all might be.
#4: Raymond Carver: A Writer's Life
This is just an extremely long review of a very long book that is also very good (one of the "Best Books of Flying Houses"). Carver is one of the greatest writers of the 20th century and I hope to review each of his collections before the end comes.
#3: Modern Romance
This is just a controversial choice that I'm surprised did not get more views. I thought it was more titillating than any of the other reviews (except perhaps NIED #26).
#2: Chicago Cubs 2015 Report Card
A yearly Chicago Cubs report card has become as great a tradition on FH as has this MD&A. Truly, this was the most sublime yet, though my younger brother suggested that there were many things he disagreed with (Jason Hammel and Tommy LaStella in particular). I was worried about tweeting it @ Jon Lester when I suggested that he must have a complex over the fact that he was getting paid 40 times more than Kyle Hendricks and yet barely pitched any better than him (Michael also suggested that I oversold Hendricks, but I do not think that is the case as he has retained the #5 spot in the rotation, at this juncture, at least).
#1: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao
Really I think any of the above are better than this, but I felt this was one of the few instances where I offered a "critique." It's possible I'm susceptible to the accusation that I'm not a real "critic" because I don't say enough books are bad. Certainly, this is not a bad book, but I didn't consider it the greatest of the 21st century.
Finally, thank you all for reading. I never really address you often enough, but if you are paying attention, know that I appreciate it. All too often I feel as if I am speaking into a void, though even if I am, I am glad to lay down a body of work which at least includes an ur-text on The Beautiful and Damned (821 views on April 1, 2012; 5,597 views on April 1, 2016).
Sunday, March 20, 2016
City on Fire - Garth Risk Hallberg (2015)
I first heard about City on Fire on NPR. Usually I listen to NPR when I drive out to courthouses in collar counties, so this must have been in August or later of last year. (Update: I believe that day was October 20, 2015, a.k.a. the Day Before Back to the Future Day, or the Day Before the Cubs Would Not Win the World Series Day, due to this.) It had just come out, with a huge buzz attached. I had no immediate interest to read it, because in fact I had just re-read Please Kill Me and the idea of reading about a fictional group in the same milieu struck me as dull: what fun is it when it's populated by characters we don't recognize? Ragtime and Underworld successfully blended recognizable personas into their narratives--and yeah, even though Hallberg doesn't reference DeLillo in his acknowledgements at the end, this is basically an alternate version of that heavy tome about New York in the 70's (mostly). Some remark that it owes a debt to The Bonfire of Vanities and other works by Tom Wolfe, an author I have never read but have always been mildly curious about (in fact my sister recommended that very volume to me recently).
Then, the Christmas season rolled around and my parents asked me to send a letter to Santa to them. I had been requested in the comments to the review of Modern Romance to consider City on Fire or Book of Numbers and I gave Santa the choice. On Christmas morning I felt a hardcover heavy gift and unwrapped it to find this.
I started reading it January 9, 2016, and took brief breaks to read and review Why We Write about Ourselves and Hunger Makes Me a Modern Girl. This book lurked in the background. And I was writing the review of Just Kids as I began City on Fire, and will now be reading M Train as I write the review of City on Fire. For some reason, this feels a little too close for comfort:
"Two days before the shooting, Samantha dreamed of Patti Smith. She herself was in a pitch-black room somewhere. She could not see the walls or reach them--she was unable to move--but the room felt small. And there was a window nearby, she sensed, a vista of mountains and seas and tiny humans paddling around in canoes and just generally going about their business, if only she could see it. And then Patti appeared above her in a caul of low blue wattage and informed her that a time was coming when she would have to choose." (739)
So it took me about two months, and I really don't read all that often--just mainly at lunch and on the train ride home and sometimes before bed. If I'm taking more time out to read something than that, it usually means I really like it. In this case, I liked it, but I also was pressed to finish it because I don't think I'll be able to renew M Train and need to finish and review that in the next three weeks. So I was trying to make progress.
Recently a friend of mine posted on Facebook to ask if he should read Infinite Jest and another friend proposed a 100 page test to determine if a book was worth reading. It made me think of this. I couldn't finish IJ and tried twice. City on Fire is significantly easier reading. It has relatively broad appeal, but it might fail the 100 page test. This is mainly because it operates with a cast of characters that doesn't fully coalesce for several hundred more pages. Still, the writing is engaging, and once one finishes it, somewhat awe-inspiring. Don't misunderstand--this will not be named to the Best Books of Flying Houses--but it's certainly in the "also ran" category with that Brownstein memoir read concurrently. Then again, this book is much more entertaining than the Raymond Carver biography. Basically, Hallberg establishes himself right out of the gate as an Ambitious Writer. I actually think this would be a much better book if it were about 300 pages shorter, but in spite of some annoying qualities, one must respect the sheer gesture. This is much much more than a rehash of Please Kill Me.
***
What is the plot of this book? Well, it opens on William and Mercer, a gay couple, white 33-year-old and black 24-year-old, moving a Christmas tree down a block in a shopping cart. William is a former heroin addict and Mercer is a high school English teacher at an all-girl's school. It then shifts to Regan, (William's sister) and her husband Keith, and their two kids, Will and Cate. Regan and Keith are separated as the novel opens, around Christmas--and here I should mention a unique feature of this book: it shifts around in time a lot. As in, each new section seems to begin at some point further back in the past. Or rather, the chapters alternate in time. Effectively, there is a "present" part of the book, a "past" part, and a "future" part (which really could be one of the best parts about the entire book, but feels oddly underdeveloped, or tacked on). The "present" encompasses December 1976 through July 1977 (New Year's Eve and the night of the NYC Blackout serve as bookends). The "past" primarily concerns 1959 - 1976, and the "future" concerns 1980 - 2004.
William and Regan are the children of a corporate scion, heirs to a fortune. William used to be in a punk band called Ex Post Facto, which was "taken over" by an imitator known as Nicky Chaos. At certain points, there is reference to a t-shirt that reads "Please Kill Me," but this band does not sound at all like Richard Hell and the Voidoids. A number of young people have gotten into the punk scene, and one of them is Samantha, who lives on Long Island. She is the daughter of a "fireworker," which supplies one of the novels primary motifs. She is also friends with Charlie, who is adopted but raised Jewish by his parents, and later reads the Bible and establishes himself as a "prophet." Charlie is in love with Samantha, but in practice they are "best friends." They go to a show on New Year's Eve and meet other band members/groupies D.T. (Delirium Tremens), Solomon Grungy and Sewer Girl. In a way, these other band members feel oddly cliched or underdeveloped--but I really shouldn't complain about underdeveloped characters in a 900+ page book.
But then, Samantha has to go, and Charlie later plans to meet her at 72nd St just before midnight. Meanwhile, nearby on the upper west side, Regan is at her family's lavish annual ball, feeling awkward, and runs into Mercer, who is also feeling awkward and crashing the ball as a way of finding William, who has walked out and disappeared after a small fight. It occurs to me that Mercer spends way too much of this novel trying to find William.
William and Regan's father, also named William, is being held over in Chicago because of "bad weather," so he cannot attend the party. His first wife passed away, and he remarried Felicia. Her brother, Amory, is soon invited into William's family business. Amory is sort of a sinister character and feels more cartoonish than the rest. Note: I have never seen a character named Amory anywhere else except here, and I'd prefer that future authors do not use the name for villains.
Now something happens this evening in Central Park--there is a shooting. One of the characters (it's really not a spoiler to say who, but I will keep mum) ends up spending the majority of this novel on life support in Beth Israel Hospital, and one of the most unsatisfying elements of the ending is the ambiguity of their fate. Perhaps another reader could elucidate the intended effect, or probable truth.
This shooting is so compelling that a journalist begins investigating all of the involved characters. This journalist later meets up with his neighbor, a Vietnamese-American girl named Jenny, and share nightly whiskey nightcaps. Jenny works for Bruno, an art gallery owner and dealer, who has been something of a mentor and protector of William.
I think I've covered most of the characters. At this point I must comment, as I often do, that this also reminded me of my first novel, Daylight Savings Time. There is a cast of characters with interlocking narratives and coincidences. It concerns a relatively specific time and place. One of the characters is heir to a mini-fortune and has no anxieties or insecurities about his lack of a professional life. There are drug sequences. And both include a fantasy about being interviewed by The Paris Review. All comparisons aside, City on Fire is more ambitious and much better.
***
I forgot one more character: the polio-stricken NYPD detective that is friends with the journalist. It's fair to say that some characters come across more strongly than others, and Pulaski initially interviews Mercer after he discovers the shooting victim. Then he kind of fades out of the narrative for a while and later gets introduced as one of the characters that get "first personish-third person" treatment. The novel only breaks into first person when Will narrates. That feels like a bit of a spoiler, so I'm sorry, but part of the fun of this novel is trying to figure out how everything is going to end, or who that person was in the opening pages talking about their cell phone vibrating.
One reviewer commented that most readers will identify with one character most strongly, if not all of them. For him, it was Charlie. And I've got to admit, I found Charlie's chapters oddly tedious at first. To me, they were the most cliche. However, as it went on, I grew to like them, and maybe that is just because Charlie is one of the few characters that undergoes something of a transformation in the novel. Many of the characters change, but he is the only one that transforms. And I did find one passage from one of his chapters notably beautiful, the kind of writing that I've sometimes endeavored to produce.
But I've just re-read that segment (from pages 576-579), which is basically when he kisses Sam for the first time, under kind of gross circumstances, and none of the passages are especially beautiful. I guess what I meant was, the whole atmosphere of the scene, as it takes place on July 4, 1976, the bi-centennial, and the setting is just sort of perfect.
Also, I've re-read the last chapter discussing the shooting victim, and it appears that there is something of a definitive resolution. I'm surprised I missed it the first time, but Hallberg does have his way of obfuscating that can sometimes seem like he is just showing off his vocabulary. Again the book could be a lot shorter with a fair amount of fluffy stuff taken out, but it doesn't feel that bloated due to its large cast of characters. Many of the same events get repeated over and over again, and retold from different perspectives. To some this may seem tedious, and it can be, but on balance remains entertaining.
***
Another one of my friends posted a link to the "50 Most Unacceptable Sentences in City on Fire" and I glanced at it when I was still in the first couple hundred pages. A couple other links showed up on Facebook beneath it, like one from the NY Post that rips this novel to shreds. The negative reviews have a point, but the NY Post gets it wrong. They make fun of Hallberg for listening to Billy Joel instead of the Ramones or Television, but there's nothing wrong with Billy Joel! "Captain Jack" was pretty much my soundtrack to NYC in late 2001.
Clearly there are flaws in the novel, and there are some really pretentious sentences. But on the whole, the book is pretty down-to-earth. It's readable. It's not a challenge like IJ. A couple critics have made comparisons to Jonathan Franzen and something about the tone did remind me a lot of The Corrections (read almost a year ago, sad!). I think the film rights have already been sold and an HBO Series may or may not be in the cards, and another review focused on how Hallberg's writing was "televisual" and influenced by The Wire and seemingly made to be adapted. I would watch the show, and I think the show would be one of those that has the potential to eclipse its written precursor.
Final point: I think this book grows on you. It can be a little awkward at the beginning, but by the end, you will probably be invested in the characters and know them better than most people you know in real life. And if you have lived in NYC, it will probably feature a scene close to your past neighborhood(s). "You can usually find a cab up on Clinton," (116) rang true to me, at least in 2011.
And with several of the characters as artists, Hallberg uses the novel as something of a mirror to the work created by his characters:
"It was as if William Hamilton-Sweeney, despite to her knowledge never having sold so much as a painting, had been trying to re-create the face of the entire city, right here in this attic. She couldn't tell if it was good, exactly, but no one could say it wasn't ambitious." (667)
Hallberg is only a few years older than me, so he couldn't have firsthand knowledge of the way the city felt in 1977, but it feels pretty real.
***
What is the plot of this book? Well, it opens on William and Mercer, a gay couple, white 33-year-old and black 24-year-old, moving a Christmas tree down a block in a shopping cart. William is a former heroin addict and Mercer is a high school English teacher at an all-girl's school. It then shifts to Regan, (William's sister) and her husband Keith, and their two kids, Will and Cate. Regan and Keith are separated as the novel opens, around Christmas--and here I should mention a unique feature of this book: it shifts around in time a lot. As in, each new section seems to begin at some point further back in the past. Or rather, the chapters alternate in time. Effectively, there is a "present" part of the book, a "past" part, and a "future" part (which really could be one of the best parts about the entire book, but feels oddly underdeveloped, or tacked on). The "present" encompasses December 1976 through July 1977 (New Year's Eve and the night of the NYC Blackout serve as bookends). The "past" primarily concerns 1959 - 1976, and the "future" concerns 1980 - 2004.
William and Regan are the children of a corporate scion, heirs to a fortune. William used to be in a punk band called Ex Post Facto, which was "taken over" by an imitator known as Nicky Chaos. At certain points, there is reference to a t-shirt that reads "Please Kill Me," but this band does not sound at all like Richard Hell and the Voidoids. A number of young people have gotten into the punk scene, and one of them is Samantha, who lives on Long Island. She is the daughter of a "fireworker," which supplies one of the novels primary motifs. She is also friends with Charlie, who is adopted but raised Jewish by his parents, and later reads the Bible and establishes himself as a "prophet." Charlie is in love with Samantha, but in practice they are "best friends." They go to a show on New Year's Eve and meet other band members/groupies D.T. (Delirium Tremens), Solomon Grungy and Sewer Girl. In a way, these other band members feel oddly cliched or underdeveloped--but I really shouldn't complain about underdeveloped characters in a 900+ page book.
But then, Samantha has to go, and Charlie later plans to meet her at 72nd St just before midnight. Meanwhile, nearby on the upper west side, Regan is at her family's lavish annual ball, feeling awkward, and runs into Mercer, who is also feeling awkward and crashing the ball as a way of finding William, who has walked out and disappeared after a small fight. It occurs to me that Mercer spends way too much of this novel trying to find William.
William and Regan's father, also named William, is being held over in Chicago because of "bad weather," so he cannot attend the party. His first wife passed away, and he remarried Felicia. Her brother, Amory, is soon invited into William's family business. Amory is sort of a sinister character and feels more cartoonish than the rest. Note: I have never seen a character named Amory anywhere else except here, and I'd prefer that future authors do not use the name for villains.
Now something happens this evening in Central Park--there is a shooting. One of the characters (it's really not a spoiler to say who, but I will keep mum) ends up spending the majority of this novel on life support in Beth Israel Hospital, and one of the most unsatisfying elements of the ending is the ambiguity of their fate. Perhaps another reader could elucidate the intended effect, or probable truth.
This shooting is so compelling that a journalist begins investigating all of the involved characters. This journalist later meets up with his neighbor, a Vietnamese-American girl named Jenny, and share nightly whiskey nightcaps. Jenny works for Bruno, an art gallery owner and dealer, who has been something of a mentor and protector of William.
I think I've covered most of the characters. At this point I must comment, as I often do, that this also reminded me of my first novel, Daylight Savings Time. There is a cast of characters with interlocking narratives and coincidences. It concerns a relatively specific time and place. One of the characters is heir to a mini-fortune and has no anxieties or insecurities about his lack of a professional life. There are drug sequences. And both include a fantasy about being interviewed by The Paris Review. All comparisons aside, City on Fire is more ambitious and much better.
***
I forgot one more character: the polio-stricken NYPD detective that is friends with the journalist. It's fair to say that some characters come across more strongly than others, and Pulaski initially interviews Mercer after he discovers the shooting victim. Then he kind of fades out of the narrative for a while and later gets introduced as one of the characters that get "first personish-third person" treatment. The novel only breaks into first person when Will narrates. That feels like a bit of a spoiler, so I'm sorry, but part of the fun of this novel is trying to figure out how everything is going to end, or who that person was in the opening pages talking about their cell phone vibrating.
One reviewer commented that most readers will identify with one character most strongly, if not all of them. For him, it was Charlie. And I've got to admit, I found Charlie's chapters oddly tedious at first. To me, they were the most cliche. However, as it went on, I grew to like them, and maybe that is just because Charlie is one of the few characters that undergoes something of a transformation in the novel. Many of the characters change, but he is the only one that transforms. And I did find one passage from one of his chapters notably beautiful, the kind of writing that I've sometimes endeavored to produce.
But I've just re-read that segment (from pages 576-579), which is basically when he kisses Sam for the first time, under kind of gross circumstances, and none of the passages are especially beautiful. I guess what I meant was, the whole atmosphere of the scene, as it takes place on July 4, 1976, the bi-centennial, and the setting is just sort of perfect.
Also, I've re-read the last chapter discussing the shooting victim, and it appears that there is something of a definitive resolution. I'm surprised I missed it the first time, but Hallberg does have his way of obfuscating that can sometimes seem like he is just showing off his vocabulary. Again the book could be a lot shorter with a fair amount of fluffy stuff taken out, but it doesn't feel that bloated due to its large cast of characters. Many of the same events get repeated over and over again, and retold from different perspectives. To some this may seem tedious, and it can be, but on balance remains entertaining.
***
Another one of my friends posted a link to the "50 Most Unacceptable Sentences in City on Fire" and I glanced at it when I was still in the first couple hundred pages. A couple other links showed up on Facebook beneath it, like one from the NY Post that rips this novel to shreds. The negative reviews have a point, but the NY Post gets it wrong. They make fun of Hallberg for listening to Billy Joel instead of the Ramones or Television, but there's nothing wrong with Billy Joel! "Captain Jack" was pretty much my soundtrack to NYC in late 2001.
Clearly there are flaws in the novel, and there are some really pretentious sentences. But on the whole, the book is pretty down-to-earth. It's readable. It's not a challenge like IJ. A couple critics have made comparisons to Jonathan Franzen and something about the tone did remind me a lot of The Corrections (read almost a year ago, sad!). I think the film rights have already been sold and an HBO Series may or may not be in the cards, and another review focused on how Hallberg's writing was "televisual" and influenced by The Wire and seemingly made to be adapted. I would watch the show, and I think the show would be one of those that has the potential to eclipse its written precursor.
Final point: I think this book grows on you. It can be a little awkward at the beginning, but by the end, you will probably be invested in the characters and know them better than most people you know in real life. And if you have lived in NYC, it will probably feature a scene close to your past neighborhood(s). "You can usually find a cab up on Clinton," (116) rang true to me, at least in 2011.
And with several of the characters as artists, Hallberg uses the novel as something of a mirror to the work created by his characters:
"It was as if William Hamilton-Sweeney, despite to her knowledge never having sold so much as a painting, had been trying to re-create the face of the entire city, right here in this attic. She couldn't tell if it was good, exactly, but no one could say it wasn't ambitious." (667)
Hallberg is only a few years older than me, so he couldn't have firsthand knowledge of the way the city felt in 1977, but it feels pretty real.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Hunger Makes Me a Modern Girl: a memoir - Carrie Brownstein (2015)
I first became aware of Carrie Brownstein and Sleater-Kinney when I was a sophomore in college, back when they were touring behind One Beat. There were a couple girls I met that burned me a copy of Dig Me Out and let me accompany to them to the show they played at Irving Plaza, one of a series of NYU concerts that cost $5 or $10 per ticket. I would see them several times over the next few years, and collect all of their albums (except their first). I kind of had a crush on Carrie Brownstein when I saw them, though people seemed to intimate that she wouldn't necessarily appreciate that crush. I got my hair cut in the spring semester of my sophomore year and a friend remarked that I looked like "that girl from Sleater-Kinney" (that I presumed wasn't Corin Tucker due to our facial features). I just assumed that Carrie Brownstein was old, because they had been together for so long. I come to find out that she was younger than I am now when they went on their hiatus in 2006. She's like, barely older than me (at least to me--and maybe I'm alone, except for Nicki Minaj, when I say that '06 feels like yesterday), may or may not be single, and has one of the greatest and most unique catalogs of any rock band in history under her belt, and what, six seasons of a seminal sketch comedy show? She's like, perfect. Whatever she is on, I want to be on.
I'm only not naming this book one of the Best Books of Flying Houses because I didn't bestow that recognition upon Kim Gordon's Girl in a Band. Both deserve to be on the list, but in a way they are too easy: they both had such incredible stories to tell that the books must have written themselves, to an extent. I feel a little dirty saying this, particularly in light of my previous review of an anthology of the genre, but I think memoirs are easier to write than fiction--except for the requisite "bloodletting" that they generally require. All the source material is there before you; all you need to do is to decide where to start, where to end, and what to leave out. You don't need to think up names for characters, or build whole mythologies out of imaginary people. Having said that, Hunger Makes Me a Modern Girl is probably better written than Girl in a Band, but Kim Gordon has her own separate barometer of authenticity or credibility that renders it more powerful. Gordon is certainly vulnerable and confessional in hers; Brownstein opens up a lot in hers, but keeps most of her ex-lovers anonymous. Sonic Youth is a bit more of an institution than Sleater-Kinney--at least, it was, when it broke up, before Sleater-Kinney came back. Now, who knows, Kim was nearly 60 when Sonic Youth folded, so if Sleater-Kinney goes on another ten or fifteen years, then I would say they're of equal cultural import. Frankly, though I love Sonic Youth deeply and dearly, so much that they must be included if ever asked to name my top five favorite bands, Sleater-Kinney has a stronger and more consistent catalog, and albums that are generally more solid from top to bottom. I like them all--except maybe for The Hot Rock--I mean, I like The Hot Rock, I'd prefer the album to music by most other bands, but it's just my least favorite by them. Maybe the self-titled is my least favorite because I don't have it on my iPod, but I actually don't have No Cities to Love on it (owing mostly to my own cheapness and reliance on Spotify and my unwillingness to load up my precariously aged device), though that album sits comfortably alongside their best work, which, to my estimation, includes The Woods and One Beat. I love Dig Me Out and Call the Doctor, and All Hands on the Bad One to a slightly lesser degree, and The Hot Rock to a slightly less degree than that--but they're just a band that seems to get better with each new album they release. I saw them about a year ago in Chicago and they were as good as they've ever been. I seriously hope they come back every few years or so with new music, but another longer hiatus seems inevitable, particularly after reading about the exhaustion that Brownstein recounts occurring after each album and tour cycle.
So I love the music and I love her work on "Portlandia." Do you really think I would say this is a bad book?
For a while near the end, I thought she was getting a little bit boring, writing about her pets. I was like, oh, I wrote about my pets in my memoir, so that's normal. Regardless, just writing about your pets can sometimes be boring. However, she writes about her pets, in this segment, to ridiculously powerful effect, to the point that it is one of the most heartbreaking moments of the entire book. There's a quote on the back from Miranda July, whom I learned was a friend and collaborator of Brownstein's in their earlier days (and more recently if I'm not mistaken)--Brownstein admits at one point that they both wondered if they should be together--as well as a noteworthy artist herself. Me and You and Everyone We Know is a modern indie classic, and she also has a pretty good book of short stories, from what I've read. July writes, as the last sentence in her blurb, "I wept." I wonder if this story about her pets instigated those emotions.
Make no mistake, this is a great book. It's a must read for Sleater-Kinney fans and musicians everywhere. But it takes a really incredible memoir (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, for example) to make the Best Books list. Brownstein is a terrific writer, but I must admit that she doesn't seem to employ the "be harder on myself than anyone else" rule of memoir-writing. Now she might say, "Come on, I'm pretty hard of myself a lot here!" And truthfully, she is pretty hard on herself a lot of the time. But she still could have gone harder, more embarrassing, more vulnerable, more revealing. This is a personal preference for memoir writers, and I totally understand not wanting to give out the most painful, secret, unflattering memories one has of oneself, but it's my personal preference that memoirs are as honest and unflinching as possible. I would never say this memoir is dishonest in any way, shape or form, but I would have liked to have known more about Brownstein's personal feelings on bisexuality. I believe she identifies as bi, though in practice mostly sees women, and she keeps a fair number of her exes anonymous and gender neutral. It would be a generous act, if somewhat unsettling, for a writer to open up about such personally confounding matters. Brownstein certainly describes her first moments "experimenting," but never really addresses the "choice" that's implicit in identifying as bisexual. That would be something that I just personally would like to read.
It's also pretty much where my criticism stops, because even in that last paragraph, I had to qualify every blanket statement I made about this book. It took me about a week to read this book, and I loved most every minute of it. If you go purely by ease of reading and entertainment and occasional moments of profundity, this book should definitely be on the Best Books list. It's only out of my snobbishness towards memoirs that it's not.
***
Carrie Brownstein grew up in the suburbs outside of Seattle--mostly Redmond, WA. At this point I must make another personal statement: Brownstein's childhood memories are primarily set in the 1980's, and as such feel very close to mine. At least in the sense that, I had three older siblings who were closer in age to her, so we had some Cabbage Patch Dolls in our home. Our father also went to Australia on business and brought back a few things. And we were also in the suburbs of a big city and we also had a dog named Buffy. The similarities pretty much end there, though. Brownstein had one younger sister. Her parent's marriage broke up while she was in high school, her mother suffering from anorexia nervosa and her father suffering from repressed homosexual feelings. These are delicately detailed in the third and fourth chapters "Disappearance" and "No Normal."
These very personal chapters showcase Brownstein's exemplary talent for writing (as if she needed to be talented at one more thing). Earlier I've accused her of not being hard enough on herself in this book, but I want to say something else to tip the balance: she is extremely modest in this book. She never once even seems to admit that she is a good musician, guitarist, songwriter, performer--anything. Sometimes she admits that Sleater-Kinney is a very good band, but she is always laying the praise on Corin and Janet (in truth, Sleater-Kinney is such a good band because all three of them--like, say, Shellac--are ferocious players). In writing about her mother's disease and her father's guarded lifestyle, she exhibits tenderness, strength, empathy, and realness. She doesn't pity them for their troubles and she is very level-headed about she handles them. She laments that her family was not "together" throughout most of her life, but she really seems like one of the best sisters or children anyone could have. She learned from these troubles and became a stronger person for it. (There could be more details about exactly what happened with her mother leaving the family--she briefly mentions staying at her house with her 2nd husband during the recording of Dig Me Out, I think--but I'm not going to push that criticism too hard.)
Most of this book, however, is about Sleater-Kinney. And while the details about their earlier records are interesting (I had no idea they started the band in Australia, and the chapter about that is super weird--I don't know how they survived in the early part of their career, and I would have liked to see a few more paragraphs devoted to their ostensible poverty), it is really the material on the later stuff that is the most compelling. Because despite their steady growth, they were never "really big" until the end, when they opened for Pearl Jam on the One Beat tour and when they finished up with The Woods. When they got really big, Brownstein seemed more prone to depression, which seems odd but makes sense in a "Kurt Cobain kind of way" (which she references, and must reference, as this book is also thoroughly a document of the Pacific Northwest scene, K Records, Olympia, Seattle, Portland, grunge and riot grrl). In fact, the book opens up in a kind of "teaser chapter" (not unlike Girl in a Band) about the shingles she developed on The Woods tour and her increasing frustrations with the band. It's sort of unbelievable that anyone making what must have been pretty good money, doing what they love, could ever be unhappy with their situation, but Brownstein convincingly portrays the Big Picture and why it wasn't working for them (primarily due, it seems, to Tucker wanting to be a good mother to her children, which Brownstein completely understands).
Here is one example of how Brownstein takes this memoir to another level--her ability to write like a writer:
"The ways that oddity and detachment intersected in the family might best be summed up in the story of the family dog. Buffy, a forty-pound golden retriever mix we adopted from the pound when I was six and my sister was three, had been smothered with love in her youth. Buffy, for whom we took a pet first-aid class in order to learn how to be responsible owners, who was the muse for my grade-school poetry exercises ('Buffy is fluffy!'), our sidekick for picnics and outings, on the sidelines for soccer games, and the subject most featured in my first roll of film--posing on my baby blanket and wearing sunglasses--after I was given a camera for my birthday. Buffy, who followed us around the cul-de-sacs while we engaged in dirt clod fights with the neighbor kids, and trotted after us while we rode Big Wheels and eventually bikes. Buffy, who suffered the sting of the archaic idea that you could punish a dog by smacking it on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and whose tail was run over by my mother as she backed the car out of the driveway. And Buffy, turned back into a stray in her own home on account of the rest of us surrendering to emptiness, drifting away from anything we could call familiar, her skin itching and inflamed, covered with sores and bites, like tattoos, like skywriting, screaming with redness, as if to say Please, please pet me! But we didn't. When we decided to put her down, not because she was sick but because she was old and neglected--a remnant of a family we no longer recognized--my father asked my sister to do it. My sister was sixteen. She drove the dog to the vent one day after school by herself. No one else said good-bye." (34-35)
And then beneath that is a hilarious picture of Brownstein as a young girl with Buffy and a Cabbage Patch Doll. It was moments such as this that reminded me of my earliest memories from the mid-to-late 80's. The only thing that would have made that paragraph more literary is if the word "the" had been excised before "cul-de-sacs." Brownstein may as well write a novel whenever Portlandia wraps.
There are great little references to other musicians in this book. One of my favorites involves Jeremy Enigk, because he's relatively obscure, but not to those that understand what "emo" really means. I guess I was surprised to read that he was pretty popular. There is also this shocking anecdote about tour bus listening:
"We smoked cigarettes and weed, when available, ate copious amounts of chocolate and cheese, and fell asleep mostly tipsy if not outright drunk. On one long drive, in a fit of giddiness and in the spirit of sisterhood and spreading cheer, Corin and I convinced Janet to throw a mixtape out of the van window. It was a cassette she'd been listening to nonstop, made for her by a friend, a boy she was trying to no longer have a crush on. That boy was Elliott Smith. I still think about that tape, flung, and how I urged it to be so. Gone." (147)
Harsh! Finally, there is a priceless one about Jack White near the very end. It's not really worth excerpting, just a funny story. There is also a funny story about Sleater-Kinney's groupies, or lack thereof. Brownstein does open up about her personal life here, and it is quite endearing to read about trying to maintain a relationship while on tour. We will end with another extremely literary passage, this one in the fashionable 2nd person:
"Here's one way not to go about diminishing the distance: Obsessively call your girlfriend, who is eleven years older than you, crying and telling her you hate being on tour. Rack up more than $1,000 in pre-cellphone calling card fees on various payphones because you are hopelessly in love, willing to ditch everything for this person, and paranoid that she will go back to dating men while you are away. Get so worried that you walk into a family-run restaurant--perhaps the only restaurant--in the town of Lokev, Slovenia (population: around 1,000), ask to borrow their cordless phone, and call your girlfriend some more (sticking them with an international long-distance bill). Write lugubrious, handwritten love letters that compare thee to a summer's day. Drive your bandmates crazy by quoting your older girlfriend all the time and only reading books or listening to music that she has recommended. Now your bandmates are practically begging you to dump her. But, guess what, she dumps you. Of course she does. This girlfriend, who also plays music but who is not as successful as you in this field, you think she wants to hear how sad you are to have an album that is blowing up?! She doesn't. Months later you are still angry and confused and for the first time very, very heartbroken. You freak out and drive to her house one morning and place a bag containing every letter she ever wrote you on her doorstep. Then you write songs for what will become The Hot Rock, songs about a love that is so airless, it's suffocating. Songs about wanting to steal your heart back from someone you never feel deserved it. And thus begins a cycle, of falling in love and then getting hurt, or hurting someone else by falling out of love with them. About trying to maintain closeness despite geographical disparities, then finding inspiration from all the ways you feel splintered and separate, hurt and broken. So, this is one version, and not a pretty one, of being young and in a band and trying to be in a relationship. This is the version in which being gone and busy eats at you because you are scared of being left even though you are the one who is technically always leaving." (151-152)
You should read this book, even if you've never heard of Sleater-Kinney. You will not be disappointed.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Why We Write About Ourselves - Ed. Meredith Maran (2016)
For NaNoWriMo 2015, I wrote a 60,000 word shitty first draft of a memoir, to be published when I was 33, to document these first 33 years, with the thought that I might do it again at 66, if I live that long. This, apparently, would be a horrible memoir, because no one wants to read about every meaningful event of some random person's existence. No, they want to read about more specific events in your life, things that happened which were extraordinary--pain you suffered--which you can relate on a universal level.
This is the lesson I learned from Why We Write About Ourselves, another rare book that was sent to me by a publicist. It's ironic to mention two gifts that two of my sisters received on Christmas morning. My younger sister received a copy of Tales of Two Cities and my youngest sister received a book by Cheryl Strayed, which I think was The Beautiful Things. My sister hadn't read my review, but she specifically requested the book, and I guess neither had my mother. It's the only time I was "ahead of the curve" with this blog, and I hope that's the case here again: certainly my youngest sister would be interested in this one, as a fan of Strayed. And frankly, between this and Tales, this was the better read.
Unfortunately, it won't be named to the Best Books of Flying Houses list, to make for a perfect trifecta with Raymond Carver and Patti Smith, but that is only because the form this book takes. It is a different sort of book than I have ever read, and it reads more like a very long magazine article. It's a very good article, but it's written to be read in little candy-sized nuggets. I think that makes it especially appealing in today's socio-cultural climate of social media saturation and ADHD. Basically, it is not aiming for canonical status. Instead, this book is perfect for one of two things: checking out from the library, or gift-giving. One could certainly purchase this book for themselves if they have made up their mind to write a memoir, but it's more of a book to expose yourself to once and learn from, rather than to pore over and savor for the richness of its language.
Still, I am very happy I read this book, if only because of its ulterior motive: publicity. There are 20 chapters in this book. Here are the writers that I knew going in: Anne Lamott, Cheryl Strayed, Meghan Daum and Edmund White. There were some writers I didn't know, but knew of vaguely: Pat Conroy, David Sheff and Sue Monk Kidd. For the 13 other writers for which I had no direct reference point, I was forced to be exposed to their minds: what they wrote about, why they wrote about it, and how. And I will definitely be putting a few of their books on my reading list.
As previously mentioned with these anthologies, they make for difficult reviews. I don't want to give short shrift to any of the contributors, but I don't want the review to go on endlessly. I suppose the best thing to do is hit the highlights--for me, personally.
The first section that struck me as quotable came from Anne Lamott. Now I have mentioned Bird by Bird before on this blog, somewhere, and upon reflection I had to read it for a creative writing class my senior year in high school, and I think it did inspire me at an impressionable age to throw my whole self into the writing thing, which was a huge mistake (however, it was not nearly as big a mistake as throwing myself into the whole lawyer thing--while the law may ultimately provide me with an avenue for an outwardly respectable career, it has impoverished me, robbed me of the last vestige of youth and destroyed my self-esteem and self-respect). At least a couple times in this book, Bird by Bird is referred to as something of a "bible" of creative writing. I'll have to check it out again. Lamott's section in this book is a definite highlight:
"I wrote a piece about my mom in Traveling Mercies, and it really hurt her feelings. I thought it would be such a great thing to tell the truth about my mom, because my whole life had been about about this made-up relationship, pretending I wasn't mad about the damage she'd done to me.
I wrote this very tender piece about her in her last days, when she had Alzheimer's. It wasn't even a critical piece. It just said that she could drive me crazy. Sadly she didn't have bad enough Alzheimer's. She read it and went bonkers. My mom's twin sister called me up and said, 'You will never be forgiven for this, Annie.'
The crisis passed. Then it turned out it was great to have told the truth about deeply crazily I loved her and that she'd been a handful." (136)
These sort of themes emerge over and over throughout this book. What will my friends and family think of the memoir? How much personal information can I reveal about other people? Do I have to reveal everything about myself?
Most seem to agree that, you should always make yourself look as bad as possible. As a person that has often followed this rule without hearing anyone else say it, this felt comforting. Moreover it feels refreshing in 2016, where our public image has to be so squeaky clean on social media and anything the slightest bit non-PC can end up leading towards ostracization from the in-crowd.
Most seem to follow the rule that, if they write about one of their friends, they send it to them and make sure they are okay with it being published. I've never really had to do this because I've never been published in any meaningful way. However my younger brother became very upset when I made a reference to "wanting to kill my parents" in an unfortunate section of Think and Grow Poor, and upon reflection I should have deleted that (note: I later did after this throwaway line inspired by Tao Lin remained unforgettable after 15 years--though he only wrote he "wanted to go on a killing spree."). You can't say I don't know anything about memoir writing. I guess I just subscribed to the view that Edmund White expresses near the very end. Actually, the last sentence:
"In general, I try to be very honest in my memoirs. If I lose the friendship, so what? I believe Milosz, the Nobel-winning Polish poet, who said, 'Whenever a writer is born into a family, that family is destroyed.'
On the other hand I sometimes say the best way to keep a secret is to publish it, since no one reads. My books aren't indexed. So anyone who wants to know what I wrote about him has to read the whole thing." (254)
Speaking of White, he is the only author to appear in both this volume and Tales of Two Cities. He also makes this ridiculous, Wilt Chamberlain-esque claim:
"My protagonist in A Boy's Own Story was much less precocious intellectually and sexually than I was. He was shyer. If I'd written about myself as the freaky boy I really was, very few people could have identified with that novel. That book came out in '82. I don't think that was quite the period yet for my own true story. In real life, I had had sex with five hundred men, most of them older than I was, by the time I was sixteen. The boy in the book has one or two experiences, with boys his own age." (250)
My only response to that is, what the fuck dude!
But yeah, I'll probably check out some of his books.
***
There are a few glaring omissions from this volume. It would have been remarkable to read a section by James Frey, but instead he is just referenced by another writer (again, White):
"There have been so many scandals about memoirs that weren't true. The author of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil confessed that he'd taken two phone conversations that were crucial to the story and collapsed them into one. People were very disturbed when the author of A Million Little Pieces, which purported to be a memoir and was directed to a very vulnerable population of recovering addicts, admitted that his girlfriend hadn't really committed suicide. There were some other events that he falsified, which led to his denunciation on Oprah.
That's a good example to keep in mind. People do feel cheated when you lie in a memoir because you've broken your contract with your readers." (252)
I've never read A Million Little Pieces and I think most people nowadays would say it's not especially necessary to do so, but one cannot forget the cultural import that the book briefly possessed. The other writer that should be here is Dave Eggers. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius has not been discredited and seems to defy most of the "rules" that these writers pronounce. Eggers hasn't written anything like it since, but I still believe it's his strongest work and a true high watermark of the medium. It's far from perfect, but I still think if I read it again 14 years later, it would make the Best Books list (The Real World interview chapter alone should qualify it). Then again, this is an unfair criticism to make. It's not clear if Maran reached out to these authors or if perhaps they could not write outside of their contracts with their current publishers.
I want to mention Meghan Daum. I first became aware of her in 2008, when I was offered a limited free subscription to the Los Angeles Times. I read her column every week and looked at her picture and thought she was cute and prayed that she would be my girlfriend. She was cute and I liked what she wrote and she had a regular newspaper gig--did anything else really matter? Subsequently I left L.A. and forgot about her. Then, about a year ago, I came across her name in relation to her new book about making the conscious decision not to have children (Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decisions Not to Have Kids) and my crush was briefly renewed at an even more intense level, until I found out she was married. Also, she was 13 years older than me. Not that that's a deal-breaker or anything--she looked good for her age. I mean, she wrote an essay and then a book about being deeply indebted in her 20's called My Misspent Youth. She also made me feel better about my newest NaNoWriMo project:
"That thing I said earlier about weighing each detail to determine whether it's worthy of inclusion? That's for the third, fourth, or fifth draft. Not the first draft.
The 'morality' of any given project has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If you're writing about yourself just for the sake of writing about yourself, and other people are going to get dragged along for the hellish ride, it might it might be wise to examine the worthiness of the venture. If you have something important to say that can only--or at least most effectively--be said through the lens of your own story, then go for it." (86)
***
Randomly, in here, I'd like to excerpt a brief snippet from Darin Strauss's section, as Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish are still fresh in our memories on this blog:
"Amy Hempel tells a good story about when she was in a beginning workshop with Gordon Lish. He had the class write about the one thing that most embarrassed them. The only restriction was that you had to write it as honestly as possible. She said that out of that class of fifteen people, seven or eight published pieces they wrote in that class. If you write something honestly, it'll be worth reading. If you don't, it doesn't matter how good a writer you are. The reader will feel it." (200-201)
***
I could mention Ayelet Waldman's contribution as another highlight, or the weird celebrity spouse connections (she is married to Michael Chabon, while contributor Nick Flynn is married to Lili Taylor (ironically another unusual crush of mine)), but the last thing I want to mention is the one bit of advice on which I do not agree. Waldman mentions it as a piece of advice given by Chabon, but like other tips in this book, it shows up in various forms:
"When I first started writing, Michael told me that if you're not uncomfortable, you're not writing what you need to write. If your work feels really safe and pleasant, there's a problem." (222)
"If you're not uncomfortable and scared while you're writing, you're not writing close enough to the bone." (230)
David Sheff also adds, "If what you're writing about wasn't intense, you wouldn't be writing about it. Writing a memoir can dredge up every awful feeling all over again. Make sure you have the support you need to make it through." (192)
Now of course, a memoir about how your life has been so happy and perfect will make people want to throw up, but there are brighter sides to life as well, and we should know because we've seen them, if not very often. You know I have always wanted to read Morrissey's Autobiography. Maybe that's not a memoir, though.
Sorry for that. Anyways, sometimes when I'm writing a piece of creative non-fiction, there are some wonderful moments back in there that you want to share with a reader, you want to put them there with you, you want them to feel the happiness you felt. Is that so wrong?
That's really my only criticism of the "wisdom" of this book. I think it's okay to write about the times when life was good. It's not a useless nostalgia trip. It's a document that you were alive, and that it wasn't all pain and misery, even though much of the time it felt that way.
In short: read this book if you have any designs whatsoever on writing a memoir. It's a quick read (less than a week), it's entertaining, and it should help put you in the right frame of mind to accomplish your task. Also it lists all of these writers' Twitter accounts so I'm going to start following them right about now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



