Intellectual Curiosities and Provocations

January 2006

Literary Resolutions: 2006

As we're recovering from the holidays and winding down the new year celebrations, the LitKicks team is looking forward to an interesting and busy year in 2006. In addition to our own personal resolutions for the coming year, we thought it would be a good time to ask ... What are your literary resolutions for 2006? Though we definitely want to know what you are reading, we also want to know what you have brewing on a larger scale in the literary realm. Are you planning to re-read some favorite authors?

Jamelah Reads the Classics: Anna Karenina

Let me begin this by saying that everything I write after what I'm about to tell you next is entirely secondary to Tolstoy's classic, Anna Karenina. There are several things that people may point out about this particular Russian novel, but they're not that important. What is important? It's simple, really: the most essential fact about Anna Karenina is that Jesus Lord, this book is long. It is so long, in fact, that I have not finished reading it, and may not ever finish reading it.

This article is part of the Jamelah Reads The Classics series. The next post in the series is Jamelah Reads the Classics: Heart of Darkness. The previous post in the series is Jamelah Reads the Classics: Mansfield Park.


Reviewing the Review: January 8 2006

As I begin a new year of weekly encounters with the Sunday New York Times Book Review, I'd like to re-affirm what I am doing with each week's entry. My presumption is that the critics who write for the New York Times Book Review are writers, and I am interested in judging them on this basis. I am not interested in the office politics on 43rd Street, nor am I paying a lot of attention to the weekly league tables regarding which writer got a full two-page review on 10-11 and which got stuck with two paragraphs on 29.

This article is part of the Reviewing the New York Times Book Review series. The next post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 15 2006. The previous post in the series is Reviewing the Review: December 18 2005.


Close To Home: Finding Art Spiegelman's Maus House

 
The real-life subway entrance immortalized in Art Spiegelman's comic-strip novel "Maus"
 

A walk through Art Spiegelman's childhood neighborhood, Rego Park, Queens, where his modest "Maus House" and a familiar creepy-looking subway entrance can still be found.

I have a lot of respect for Art Spiegelman, a manic-depressive comic strip artist and writer who holds nothing back from his craft. In the great self-effacing tradition of Robert Crumb, a Spiegelman comic is always "too much information", splattering personal urges and anxieties and weird notions around like a loose garden hose. But the best confessional comix artists have the artistry and wit to make the splatter beautiful. Spiegelman's graphical autobiography promises to be a deeply personal document, and it's off to a great start with the first two sections.

One reason I relate to Art Spiegelman is that he grew up about three and a half blocks from where I live now, in sunny Rego Park, Queens. I know this because Spiegelman drew a map of his street as part of the back cover of his signature work, Maus. Maus is the terribly sad and odd true story of Spiegelman's parents (who could have been role models for George Costanza's parents in Seinfeld, except reality beats fiction). Both were holocaust survivors, but Spiegelman's father adopted an infuriatingly contrary, almost cheerful tone about the experience, which apparently taught him important survival skills (but also made him cruel to women, emotionally dense with his son and generally crazy). Spiegelman's mother, on the other hand, never recovered from the shock of the camps. She committed suicide when Spiegelman was a young man. He had been recently released from a mental hospital when he walked home one day to find police cars outside his house. This was how he found out about his mother's suicide.

Reviewing the Review: January 15 2006

The New York Times Book Review needs to publish a good slash-up job at least once every few weeks -- if nothing else, just to satisfy us bloodthirsty readers and keep us from subscribing to Vanity Fair. This week delivers a good mugging, although you're likely to miss it if you habitually skip over reviews of Anita Brookner books.

This article is part of the Reviewing the New York Times Book Review series. The next post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 22 2006. The previous post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 8 2006.


Truth-Force

I spent some time yesterday reading Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail for the first time. It's a powerful document, and among other things it shows us the depth of King's personal scholarship. He cites two modern existentialist philosophers, Martin Buber and Paul Tillich, and quotes St. Thomas Aquinas and T. S. Eliot. Intrigued by this, I did some further research into King's intellectual roots, and found a vast array of influences.

Memetastic: Either vs. Or #4

Below is a list of ten arbitrary pairings. (Yet are they truly arbitrary? You decide.) Out of each pairing, pick the one that you like the best, for whatever reason. No need to explain, because power means never having to say why you pick Jay-Z. Or something like that.

Here goes:

1. Nietzsche vs. Jay-Z
2. The Squid and the Whale vs. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Moby-Dick
3. Moby-Dick vs. Moby
4. James Frey vs. Augusten Burroughs
5. Tom Hanks vs. Dan Brown
6. Shirley Hazzard vs. The Dukes of Hazzard

Reviewing the Review: January 22 2006

A book review should be well-written, but a poetry book review must be well-written. Why should we trust a poetry critic who can't turn out a great sentence? It's fitting, then, that one of the two worthwhile pieces in today's Sunday New York Times Book Review is Joshua Clover's study of the career of Charles Reznikoff, whose retrospective has just been published by Black Sparrow Press.

This article is part of the Reviewing the New York Times Book Review series. The next post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 29 2006. The previous post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 15 2006.


What Are You Reading?

(Well, besides the latest scandal expose, of course.) Give us the scoop on your latest picks, pans and plans. Slogging through a tough classic? Discovering a new favorite? Check in here with your latest reads or get some recommendations. And don't try to fake it, because we will find you out and you will face the wrath of Oprah. And no one wants that.

This article is part of the What Are You Reading? series. The next post in the series is What Are You Reading?. The previous post in the series is What Are You Reading?.


Reviewing the Review: January 29 2006

There are a few self-indulgent editorial routines I wish the New York Times Book Review would cut out. One that irks me the most is the "I'm not worthy" routine, which always rings phony. The Book Review really should have spared us Garrison Keillor's aw-shucks display in which Sam Tanenhaus's quotes the author deprecating his reviewing skills: "This is just plain old journalism, nothing so fancy as criticism. Criticism is the work of giants like Edmund Wilson ..." The revolting exhibit of puffy humility goes on for two long paragraphs.

This article is part of the Reviewing the New York Times Book Review series. The next post in the series is Reviewing the Review: February 5 2006. The previous post in the series is Reviewing the Review: January 22 2006.


All That Glisters

Apropos of nothing, this is a good poem:

Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes
Thomas Gray, 1747-8

'Twas on a lofty vase's side,
Where China's gayest art had dyed
The azure flowers, that blow;
Demurest of the tabby kind,
The pensive Selima reclined,
Gazed on the lake below.

Her conscious tail her joy declared;
The fair round face, the snowy beard,
The velvet of her paws,