I like Candy

Satire. I'm not always a fan. Reading it is hard work, and actually requires thinking. I'm not sure I always get it, and it's not always done very well. Jonathan Swift was pretty good at it, I guess, but maybe that's because I had professors explaining it to me at the time.

So, when a friend of mine (you should check out this blog, even though I won't tell you which of the great contributors is my friend) recommended the book "Candy" to me, and told me it is a satire of Voltaire's "Candide," I was a bit hesitant. First, I've never read "Candide," and I wasn't about to try to read it right now. I've always thought about it as one of those difficult books that requires a professor, lots of literary criticism and other background information to understand. I don't have the slightest idea what it's about, who the characters are, the plot, the importance, etc. Somehow I made it through a degree in Literature without any of this knowledge. So I was afraid I wouldn't really get the satirical remarks or nuances of Candy. Second, it's satire, and ...

But I was eventually sold on giving it a try because of one little word: sex. I'm human. And sometimes interested in the baser pleasures of life - my favorite of which is food. Sue me. So now my interest is piqued, but I'm still not sold. Then he actually gave me his copy of the book. This did it. It must be great if he wanted me to read it THAT much. Also, hey, a new free book!

So, after all my hesitation, did I like it? Short answer: Yes. Long Answer:

 Candy

by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg

Let me say that the story of "Candy" stands on its own. It's pretty good without knowing anything about "Candide" or Voltaire. I kept meaning to do a little research on Voltaire and his famous creation before reading Candy. But I always thought about it when I was not near a computer or when I didn't have time, etc. So the other night I just picked up Candy and started reading. Before I knew it, I was 100 pages in. I finished it two evenings later.

The simple story is this: a young girl with serious daddy issues encounters several different men, each with varying degrees of sexual perversions and needs. Each man does what he can to manipulate Candy into being with him, and each goes about it in a different way. She, of course, goes for it every time, not because she's completely stupid (although she's obviously not bright), but because she's overly accommodating. She wants to be nice, and she thinks really highly of herself for being so giving and generous with herself. However, she's still kind of proper and she knows that all of these sexual encounters are kind of wrong, but doing the wrong is forgivable if she's doing it for someone other than herself. Right?

One incident in particular shows Candy's willingness to give without taking. When she decides to lose her virginity to the gardener, he sneaks into her room in the middle of the night. They begin kissing and things begin to move forward. As soon as she starts to feel pleasure, though, she feels guilty. She has this moment where she realizes that she is willing to suffer pain for this man , but she does not want to suffer pleasure.

One thing I wasn't prepared for was the comedy. I know satire means a lot of ridicule, and examination of human folly. But that doesn't always mean comedy. Does it? I don't know. I'm going to have to read some more satire, I guess. In any event, every scene of this book is comical. Events unfold comically, the characters do and say comical things, and more than once I actually laughed. Well, the sort of soft, grunt of laughter one does while reading alone.

To tell you any more of the plot would do nothing other than tell the entire story, so I won't do that. It's really much better if you let the events unfold on their own. This is a fast, fun read. It seems silly and if you only read it for the story, it certainly is as empty and unsatisfying as some of the sex in the book - pure sweet, unnourishing candy. But it is also very adept, as a satire should be, at examining human nature, with all of its ignorance, innocence, embarrassments, shame, darkness, and the way strong desires of any kind - especially sexual - can bring out the worst in all of us.

Now that I've finished the book, I spent some time and looked up some information on "Candide" and Voltaire to see how things compare, and to see if it enriched my reading of "Candy." By which I mean I spent ten minutes on the Wikipedia page for "Candide." Imagine my surprise when the first sentence told me that "Candide" is also a satire! If I totally understood irony, I might be able to call this ironic. It is the story of a sheltered young man who is indoctrinated into the religion of optimism by a mentor. But he spends the bulk of the story experiencing bad things to the point he becomes disillusioned with the idea of optimism.

The description of Voltaire's novella on Wikipedia could also be an exact description of "Candy." The story is that of "a more serious bildungsroman;" it "parodies many adventure and romance clichés," and the events are "caricatured in a tone that is mordantly matter-of-fact." Also, like "Candy," "Candide" was banned when first published. Where will the similarities end?

Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg have apparently done a wonderful job of mimicking and modernizing "Candide." But they've also written a work that stands on its own and makes an impact. And beyond all of that, they've made me want to actually read Voltaire. Well done them. Although, just looking at him, I can't believe it's taken me this long to get to his work. What a nice piece of man Candy he is. I'd like to trade notes with him on skin and hair care.

Unlikeable Characters

I'm just going to pretend that it hasn't been months since the last time I posted, and that I haven't been neglecting this blog. A lot of life stuff is happening, but I don't really want to talk about all of that right now. Right now I want to talk about something I've been noticing in my reading lately.

One of my least favorite things about being pregnant is the fact that I can't sleep very well. I wake up several times a night and then sometimes it takes me a long time to go back to sleep - sometimes it's because I can't get comfortable, sometimes it's because the baby thinks that 3:00 a.m. is the perfect time for some strength-training exercises. During this time, I usually obsess about everything I have to do at work, or money, or whatever else is worrying me. But last night I started thinking about unlikeable characters.

You see, I just finished reading "Remains of the Day," by Kazuo Ishiguro yesterday morning. Then last night I watched the movie "Rampart" with Woody Harrelson. And I disliked the main characters in each so much.  The confusing thing is that I liked the book, but disliked the movie. I'm still trying to figure out the reason for my different reactions to these unlikeable characters. Maybe it's because I like Kazuo Ishiguro more than Woody Harrelson. Maybe it's because "Remains of the Day" is a book, and "Rampart" is a movie. But I think it might be a bit more involved than all that.

Woody Harrelson plays veteran LAPD officer Dave Brown. He sees himself as the last renegade cop who's out there just trying to make sure the good guys win. But he doesn't fit in with the new culture of the LAPD - what he sees as over sensitive, too politically correct police officers who are more and more concerned about police brutality lawsuits, and less concerned with getting the crooks. He gets in trouble for a couple things - like beating the crap out of a guy who crashes into his car, and killing a couple of guys who were robbing a poker game (which, oh by the way, he was trying to rob too).

I don't dislike Dave Brown just because he's a bad cop. There have been plenty of movies where I liked the bad cop character - Training Day is the first example that comes to mind. Dave Brown just can't do anything right. He's a terrible father, a terrible husband, a terrible cop and a terrible person. Absolutely no redeeming qualities. But that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that he lacks self-awareness. He doesn't realize that he's a bad guy. He thinks the world is out to get him and that he was dealt a bad hand with his daughter is so angry. When his daughter tells him that he's hurt her and her sister, he is genuinely surprised. He can't understand why they don't know he loves them. But all he does is push them away, belittle things that are important to them and treat their moms terribly.

The bad cinematography aside (someone was trying a little too hard to be artistic and make a statement with images), this movie might have been really great if there had been any sort of resolution, or even a moment of self-realization on the part of Dave Brown. There was nothing. I was so angry when the movie just ended, feeling like I wasted my time. Woody Harrelson's acting was so great, and this movie had a lot of potential. I wanted to like it. I think the real problem with this movie was the plotting. There was no arc. No climax. It just ended on the edge of a cliff, and with no change in the main character's way of thinking or looking at the world. He didn't learn a darn thing. He remained stubbornly obtuse, and I still don't like him.

As for "Remains of the Day," Kazuo Ishiguro gives us another unlikeable character who is similarly obtuse and lacking in self-awareness. Stevens is the butler of Darlington Hall, a great English estate. The story unfolds through a series of flashbacks as Stevens is on a sort of road trip through England. (I saw the movie with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson a number of years ago, and what I remembered from that viewing was the love story between the butler and the housekeeper. But there was so much more to the story this time around. Of course, this could be the difference between the movie and the novel, but I'll have to watch the movie again just to be sure.)

Stevens is an unlikeable character, specifically because he is the perfect embodiment of everything he wants to be. He is dignified and proper and basically nothing else. To him, dignity means keeping one's composure no matter what the situation, and maintaining one's professionalism at all times. In describing to the reader his idea of dignity, he tells stories of great butlers (including his distinguished father) handling uncomfortable situations, like finding a wild animal in the dining room, or dealing with overly drunken house guests. Stevens actually realizes his dream of perfect dignity during a large gathering at Darlington Hall one evening, when he succeeds in handling everything professionally in spite of the fact that his father died right in the middle of the evening.

But what Stevens can't figure out is that his "dignity" also makes him an inhuman shell. Rather than being of comfort to his father in his last moments, or returning the love that his father expresses to him he simply excuses himself saying he has things to attend to. This "dignity" to which Stevens is always aspiring is really a defense mechanism. We see him deploy it on many occasions with Miss Kenton. He can never let her see how he really feels, or what he really thinks.

I might as well warn you that there are spoilers here. The novel is really two parallel stories - the relationship (or lack thereof) between Stevens and Miss Kenton, and the downfall of Lord Darlington. Stevens cannot let himself get close to Miss Kenton, no matter how much she tries to build a genuine friendship. His defenses go up every time they get anywhere near some sort of intimacy. She teases him, he gets defensive. She tries to bring him flowers, he forbids her to enter his office. She lets her guard down, his goes up more. The best he can do is admit to himself that she is very professional and is good at her job, but he never says this to her. Instead, when he gets defensive, he nitpicks at her job performance.

As for the Lord Darlington story line, Stevens always defers to his former master, whom he respects a great deal. Until the end of the book, he denies that Lord Darlington did anything wrong other than attempt to bring about peace in Europe. Lord Darlington's actions were only ever out of gentlemanly and honorable intentions. Of course, it's easy to see later on that getting involved with Hitler's most trusted confidants was probably not the best idea, but Lord Darlington only wanted to facilitate peace and keep things civil, as any respectable gentleman would do.

Stevens spends a great deal of the book standing up for and defending Lord Darlington's actions, but he betrays his true inner feelings in a couple of instances where we see he wants to distance himself from Lord Darlington. He denies having been Lord Darlington's butler on two separate occasions. He meets several people on his travels, and does not correct them when they presume he is a gentleman himself. He does not identify himself as working for Darlington Hall if he does not have to, etc. But even to the reader, he will not admit that these deceits are related to embarrassment or shame at being associated with someone who has become a national disappointment and disgrace. It's because of dignity. It is beneath his dignity to reveal anything personal to strangers, or to discuss his past with people, or to embarrass someone because they misunderstood something. This is all very convenient and allows him to deceive himself - but the reader is not fooled.

Occasionally, Stevens will admit to having made a small mistake. After Miss Kenton receives word of the passing away of a close relative, he leaves her crying in her office and realizes he forgot to offer his condolences. He worries about this all day, but when he finally has another opportunity to express his feelings, he instead picks a fight with her about some trivial housekeeping matter. Similar things happen on several different occasions, and this is why the two of them never actually hook up. It's such a perfect situation. They clearly have a lot in common, and there is certainly chemistry. But though she makes herself available and is obviously open to a relationship and makes several efforts to that end, he is too dignified to entertain the idea.

So, like Dave Brown in "Rampart," Stevens is stubborn, stuck in an old rut, has failed to evolve with the times, fails to be honest about the mistakes he will admit, and makes mistake after mistake, without realizing it. Both characters are obtuse and lacking in self-awareness. Neither can be honest with himself. Neither can be honest with the other people in their lives. Both are terrific at their jobs - Stevens runs a flawless household, Dave Brown rids the streets of as many bad guys as possible. Both are unlikeable. So why do I feel so differently about both of them?

I think it's because of one single paragraph towards the end of "Remains of the Day." Stevens has gone on a long road trip to see Miss Kenton to see if she wants to come back and work at Darlington Hall. When they meet, there is finally a conversation where the feelings between them are addressed by Miss Kenton. She says something simple along the lines of "we could have had a future together." (Sorry, I don't have the book with me, and I can't look up the exact quote right now.) Stevens' internal reaction to this statement is perfect. He admits to himself (and the reader!) that in that moment his "heart was breaking." In that one sentence the reader is treated to a single glimpse into Stevens' soul. Not only does he have one (he's not a robot!), but it is a good one! He has regret, he has sorrow and pain. For a moment he realizes that his life could have been so different, so much fuller. In that one second he admits to himself that he maybe hasn't done everything right. For a moment we feel that pang of regret with him and we can finally empathize with him. Of course, on the outside, he remains stoic and "dignified" and does not reveal this inner turmoil to Miss Kenton (now married and with a new name, but again I don't have the book with me, so I can't remember it).

If there had been one single moment like this for Dave Brown, I think I would have liked the movie "Rampart" a lot more. I just wanted one hint that he had regret for some of the things he's done. I don't need him to be sorry that he killed a date rapist or that he killed and stole from thieves. But I did want him to be aware of how his actions affected his family and friends and others around him. I don't need to know everything that happens to him in his life. I don't need to know if he was eventually convicted or at least fired. But if there's no plot resolution to the film, then it exists solely as a portrait of Dave Brown's character. And it's an incomplete portrait at that. I think that's why the movie failed for me.

Any thoughts? What do you think about unlikeable characters?

The Unbearable Heaviness of Baking Cake

Sunday afternoon was my meeting with my book club.  I really need to remember to take pictures while we're all there.  Grrr.  Next time!  We read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" by Milan Kundera, and we had a little afternoon tea to go with it. There were cucumber sandwiches, chicken salad and both hot and iced tea.  In keeping with the spirit of the tea party, I made tea bag cookies and petit fours.  It was a LOT of work, but they were very yummy. 

I found out about the tea bag cookies from a post on Book Journey's blog, and they were so cute I had to make them.  I followed the link from her blog and found this blog, which describes how to make them.  In French.  I speak French, but not well enough to follow a recipe in it!  Google translate helped some, but not really.  In any event, the pictures were enough to give me an idea what to do, and I just used some sugar cookie dough I had in my freezer, and dipped the cookies in semi-sweet chocolate.  They turned out cute and tasty, so I'm pretty pleased. 

I also made petit fours.  They took the most time, and I actually burned one of the cakes I was making.  I don't think I've ever actually burned a cake before.  The frosting was sort of a fiasco and in the end they looked more like cake with candle wax dripped all over them than the pretty little petit fours I had envisioned, but they were really good.  That's lemon cake with raspberry filling.  I had to bring the leftovers to work so that I wouldn't eat all of them. 


Oh, did you say this is a book blog and not a baking blog? Ok.  Here are my thoughts after meeting with everyone - for once I really didn't change my mind a whole lot after talking with the group.   

It's difficult to create a synopsis for this book, because there's not a lot of plot.  Still, so much happens!  Oh sweet irony.  There is the central love story between Tereza and Tomas.  Then there's a sort of side love story - Sabina and Franz.  Sabina and Tomas were also lovers, by the way.  Tomas, obviously, is a womanizer.  He loves Tereza, and he is able to separate that love from the physical enjoyment he gets from his encounters with other women.  Unfortunately for Tereza, she is not able to separate it, and his philandering causes her a lot of distress and really strange nightmares.   


Meanwhile, the relationship between Sabina and Franz is sort of converse - with Franz having all the feelings and Sabina unable to fully give her heart to Franz (or anyone else for that matter).  Sabina is an artist, and Franz is an intellectual and a professor.  He's also married.  Eventually he screws up the courage to tell his socialite wife that he's been hooking up with a sexy artist, and he's going to go shack up with her.  When Sabina finds out he left his wife for her, she has wild, passionate sex with Franz one last time and then disappears and moves to the US.  Franz is crushed, but then moves in with some grad student who wears giant glasses. 

This book is more of a portrait of the lives of these people, rather than a story.  And those lives are basically there just as something over which Milan Kundera can drape his philosophy.  The philosophy is really the reason to read the book - it's so interesting and quotable.  And if I had to come up with a theme for the book, it's balance.  The couples are kind of extremes, and they sort of balance each other out.  There are all these contrasting ideas - strength/weakness, lightness/heaviness - and which one is better than the other just depends on your perspective.  Strength is not always better than weakness, and being weak doesn't always mean you're the victim.  Take those traditional ideas that have been put into your head and banish them from whence they came!!! 

The real star of this book is language.  Milan Kundera is Czech, but he has lived in France since 1975.  This novel was originally written in Czech, and then translated into French.  It was first published in French in 1984, and then in its original Czech a year later, when it was also translated into English.  The translation I read was so beautiful, though, I had to keep reminding myself that it was a translation.  The author uses language to explain and clarify, but it's also something more than a tool.  It's how we understand the world, and how we understand each other.  If we understand life in different ways, then we speak a different language - just like Sabina and Franz.  

I'm going to end this post with some of my favorite quotes from this book, which will do a whole lot more towards convincing you to read this book than I ever could.  But you should read it.  

"There is no particular merit in being nice to one's fellow man. ... Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals" 

"Looking out over the courtyard at the dirty walls, he realized he had no idea whether it was hysteria or love." 

"If [God] had a mouth, He had to eat.  And if He ate, He had intestines.  But that thought always gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious.  ... Thus [I] came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely, that man was created in God's image.  Either/or: either man was created in God's image - and God has intestines! - or God lacks intestines and man is not like Him."  

"When we want to give expression to a dramatic situation in our lives, we tend to use metaphors of heaviness.  We say that something has become a great burden to us. ... And Sabina - what had come over her?  Nothing. She had left a man because she felt like leaving him.  Had he persecuted her? Had he tried to take revenge on her? No. Her drama was a drama not of heaviness but of lightness.  What fell to her lot was not the burden but the unbearable lightness of being." 

I'm not entirely sure this qualifies as a classic, because it wasn't published until the mid 1980s.  BUT, I'm sort of behind on my challenges, and I had the impression this was a classic when I started it.  I'm not going to link this up to my classics challenge post yet, because if I read enough other stuff, I won't count it.  

It does count, however, for my 1001 Books to Read Before You Die Challenge. Yay!    

New Year, New Celebrity Memoirs

It is telling that my first two reads for 2012 were celebrity memoirs about a descent into, and a rising from alcoholism/addiction. I'm not sure what that says about me, but it must say something.

I read "Wishful Drinking," by Carrie Fisher and "High on Arrival" by Mackenzie Phillips. I had great expectations of both of these memoirs going in for the following reasons:

1) I know Carrie Fisher has written novels, and she's funny and for crying out loud, she was Princess Leia;




2) All I knew about Mackenzie Phillips is that her dad created The Mamas and the Papas, she is an actress and probably has lots of good stories about celebrities, and I think I remembered a scandalous rumor that her story involved incest.



I assumed that I would like "Wishful Drinking" more, because I prefer writing with a bit of cheek and because I already knew more about Carrie. But I was WRONG. Explanation below.

Wishful Drinking

By Carrie Fisher

In case you grew up under a rock, or are immune to pop culture, or just don't give a hoot, Carrie Fisher is the daughter of Debbie Reynolds (have you SEEN Singing in the Rain? She's beautiful, fun and a great singer) and Eddie Fisher, who famously left Debbie Reynolds (STUPID) for Elizabeth Taylor, who then left him for lots of other husbands (also he later married a few others). A dramatic separation of the parents when a child is really young is enough to make any childhood dysfunctional. Add in the fact that those parents are famous, that her father was largely absent, that she grew up surrounded by celebrities, and that fame and stardom came at a young age for Carrie, it seems almost inevitable that she would become an alcoholic.

I mean, obviously there must be a lot more to it than that, but that's the simple premise Carrie puts before us. That's all the explanation we really get. There is no introspection, there is no description of her thoughts or feelings as she descended into a large pit of alcohol. We're given the facts stated above, and we are told that Carrie is an alcoholic. Accept it, and move on.

It would be one thing, if Carrie was just trying to be positive about the fact that she is now in recovery. But I don't think that's all it is. I got the feeling that she didn't want to let the reader in - she didn't tell us anything about what it was like for her - she just asks us to use our imagination. We can't celebrate her victory over alcohol, because we don't know how much of a victory it is. We're told it's a victory, and that's that. We can't feel bad for the terrible things that have happened to her or because of her, because she remains distant - like she's telling the story of someone else.

It's not that she doesn't have some good stories - she does - but she doesn't really tell them. She just tells us that the story exists. She just says that one morning there was a dead, naked Republican in her bed. There's got to be a lot of background that led up to that, but she glosses over it. There must have been a lot of fallout from that, but beyond an obvious statement, we don't get to see it.

I was disappointed in her failure to let the reader in - I mean, why write a memoir about your life if you don't plan to reveal anything? BUT having said that (kind of redundantly I notice as I reread the above), Carrie Fisher is still exceedingly entertaining. She's funny, quirky and self-deprecating. I did laugh several times. I would love to see her show. But I'm guessing she doesn't put much in her show that's not in this book.

Bottom Line: Entertaining and fun, but unrevealing look at a celebrity's alcoholism.

High on Arrival

By Mackenzie Phillips

I was also surprised by this memoir. It is dark, let me tell you - the exact opposite of "Wishful Drinking." Mackenzie does not leave anything out, and her life has been one dark, tormented, and emotional whirlwind. Where Carrie didn't let me in at all, I got lost in Mackenzie's world - I felt everything she did, and I understood each justification, and I felt the triumph of each success.

A little background: Mackenzie's dad was John Phillips - a great genius in the world of music, but a TERRIBLE father. He was a prolific drug user, and had absolutely no boundaries when it came to pleasure seeking. He wasn't going to let a little thing like worrying about his children get in the way of a good high. He gave Mackenzie a lot of drugs. He taught her how to shoot cocaine. He also didn't let a thing like a blood relationship with his daughter get in the way of sexual pleasure.

But Mackenzie, after telling us all of this, wants us to be sure that we don't totally vilify him. He is an exceptionally talented musician, and he loved his family - all his children and wives - very much. The things he did were not done out of malice or evil tendencies. They were the acts of a very sick, very twisted man who was unable to realize a lot of the harm he was causing. I'll buy this to some extent, but it's hard not to vilify someone who would invite his teenage daughter to stay with him in London, and then leave her in a house with no food or heat for a week while he got high in the country with Mick Jagger. And that's just one of the mild stories.

I wanted to read this memoir because I knew it contained a lot of juicy stories and dropped a lot of names. I was not prepared for the emotional impact it would have on me. Mackenzie is very brave to be putting all of this out there. She addresses every public scandal - drug arrests, behavior that sabotaged her acting career several times, etc. - and every private misdeed - intravenous drug use while pregnant with her son, cruel treatment and use of friends in search of her next high, destruction of all relationships and her many failings as a mother.

But she doesn't just tell stories. She explains her mindset at each moment, and describes how her addiction distorted her view of the world. This makes the reader understand how it is possible to become something so hideous and low, and how unlikely it seems that someone would be able to get out of that position. That's why I was so happy to celebrate her recovery with her. What a deep pit of disease to crawl out of! And no wonder it took several attempts at sobriety to get out!

In the end, I loved this memoir because I respected Mackenzie so much for her openness and honesty, as well as her explanations of the way an addict thinks. I'm no stranger to the world of addiction, but I received quite an education from this memoir. I will think of this memoir often in the future.

Two Celebrity Addiction Memoirs, two very different reads - one light, one dark; one in-depth, one shallow. Though I clearly preferred Mackenzie's book, I appreciate the fact that both women are willing to talk about their lives and their addiction, and to help foster the discussion of addiction so that education and understanding can be spread.

The Chelsea Handler Christmas

Hello! And Happy New Year!

I had a wonderful Holiday week in New York. More on that below. First I'd like to talk about the three fun books I read over my week in New York. This is, after all, a book blog.

Introduction:

I am a Chelsea Handler fan. For some reason during law school, I stopped watching her show (probably because I got really busy and serious, and there was no time for frivolity in my life - especially once I was on Law Review), but I have always enjoyed her writing.

Now that I've read all of her books (I read My Horizontal Life and Are you There Vodka, It's Me Chelsea quite awhile ago), as well as a book by Heather McDonald, I totally feel like I am friends with all of Chelsea's crew. I have a lot in common with all of them - I pee my pants occasionally when things are really funny. I also like margaritas and tropical vacations. So you see, I would fit right in.

However, I'm not quite sure I could handle all the shenanigans they get into. I am extremely gullible, and I would fall for every lie Chelsea would tell me. I am also a terrible liar, so I could never get revenge by playing practical jokes on anyone else. This is still part of my pitch for them to invite me to parties.

Anyways, I read the following three books last week (which is kind of a record for me), and I enjoyed each of them immensely - mostly because I didn't have to think; I could just laugh. And I did. To myself. On the couch while everyone else in the room thought I was a weirdo. Now that I think about it, that's not an uncommon occurrence.

Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang

By Chelsea Handler

I guess there's not a lot to say about this book of essays other than they are great if you're a fan of Chelsea. She's not afraid to tell you embarrassing stories for a laugh. But it's not the kind of shallow or minimal revealing that you normally expect from celebrities who write memoir-type books. She really does let the reader into her life, and she makes no apology for her behavior. She is who she is. And what she is is hilarious.

There are stories from her childhood - about her father, her sisters and brothers - and about a friend who introduced her to "the feeling." Just read it. There are stories about her friends and her ex and let me be honest: I don't think I could date her. As I stated above, I'm really gullible, and she pulled some serious crap on him. He must have had the patience of Job. But, she's hilarious and fun, so that probably balances things out.

But more than just the stories she tells, I love the way Chelsea writes (yeah, I can call her by her first name). Her use of language is good, and whenever you think you know where the sentence is going, you don't. She not only knows how to tell a story, she can actually write.

Of course, if you're looking for substance or for intellectuality, you won't find it. This is a fun book - the type you can read in an afternoon. But that doesn't mean it's not smart. Enjoy!

Lies Chelsea Handler Told Me

By Chelsea's Family, Friends and Other Victims

In case you didn't know this, Chelsea loves to tell lies for the sake of laughs, and nothing makes her laugh harder than seeing her friends miserable. Paradoxically, each writer in this book will tell you that Chelsea values honesty and truthfulness over all else. She will lie to you, mock you, torture you and make you extremely uncomfortable, but only if she truly cares about you. And once she's your friend, there's no one more loyal (while she's plotting against you, of course).

Each chapter in this book is written by a family member, friend, or co-worker that has suffered as a result of Chelsea Handler's lies. Of course there are great stories from her family - stuff she pulled on them, even when she was in grade school. There are funnier stories from her current set of friends - most of whom write for or work for her show in some other capacity.

Some of the contributors tell just one big, long, torturous story about how badly they were tricked by Chelsea. Others tell a series of little lies Chelsea's told. Sometimes Chelsea tells a lie and then forgets about it, without realizing how her lie tortures her victim.

Once you read this book, you will be grateful for your work environment. Or maybe not. Maybe you would rather work in a place where you can never leave your computer unlocked, where you absolutely can never trust anything a co-worker tells you, and where practical jokes are waiting around every corner.

Again, there's not a lot of intellectual stimulation to be found here, but it's a great book for an airplane or to read a chapter here and there in waiting rooms or during your lunch hour.

You'll Never Blue Ball in This Town Again

By Heather McDonald

I rather enjoyed Heather's chapter in the Lies Chelsea Told Me book, so I had high expectations for this book. Heather is a funny writer. She's also a funny girl. It's just that she's got a different writing style than Chelsea, that's not always quite as LOL funny.

The premise for this book is that Heather was a virgin until she was 27. In Hollywood! While trying to make it as a comic and a writer! This is the story of how she eventually lost her virginity and met the man of her dreams, who eventually became her husband. It's a modern day love story - with a lot of dry humping.

Heather's choices for the stories to tell about men she dated are great - all of the men are different, but none are total cliches, which I kind of expected. None are totally one-dimensional, and Heather is honest about her mistakes and her naivete. I was instantly hooked with the title of the first chapter: "Can't a Girl Dress Like a Hooker, Dance like a Stripper and Kiss Like a Porn Star and Still be a Nineteen-Year-Old Virgin?"

Her humor isn't as in-your-face as Chelsea, but sometimes I prefer things a little more subdued. This is another great book for an airplane or an afternoon at home with a cup of tea and box of cookies.

Alright, now we can move on to other stuff that happened over Christmas.

Christmas Break:

We flew in on Christmas Eve and went to dinner with Mike's mom and her boyfriend. It was delicious. Christmas Day we got up, had a delicious breakfast cooked by Mike's Aunts and opened gifts. I was full. Then all of Mike's family came over as well as some of our sister-in-law's family. We had a HUGE meal, and a ton of dessert. Then more gifts. Also, I kind of drank a lot of wine and some champagne. Therefore, I spent the day after Christmas with a big hangover. Luckily, I had books to get me through it.

I saw my friend Tara, and that was really fun - even though all we did was hang out at her house and make cupcakes. We also took a day and went into the city, and we even brought the baby. Afterwards, we had a nice dinner at Mike's Great Aunt's house. Mostly it was just a really great time, visiting with family. And eating.

I ate a literal ton of food. Ok, not a literal ton, since I only gained 6 pounds, but it felt like it. Do you like how I phrased that? "only gained 6 pounds." Like it's an accomplishment to gain less than 10 pounds on a trip to New York - especially over the holidays. But actually, it kind of is. So what? It's a new year, and with that comes new resolve to get healthier and stay that way.

To that end, Mike and his family (and me, of course) have started a blog together to track our weight loss attempt this year. It's a private blog - just for us, so there's no link here, but I wanted to tell you about the idea, because I am kind of excited about it. Participating in the challenge are Mike's two aunts, and his brother and wife. That's a total of 6 people. The challenge is simple: lose as much weight as possible and get healthy. For each pound lost, $10 is contributed to a communal pot. We pay for Mike's aunts' weight loss, they pay for Mike's brother and his wife's, who in turn pay for ours. That way everyone is accountable. At the end of the year, we'll use the money to go on a trip together, where we can all take pictures of our new bodies. I can't wait. I'll be keeping track of my progress here throughout the year too, so stay tuned.

We also spent a lot of time with our adorable little niece over our trip. Here are some pictures for your viewing pleasure, since I know you're dying to see them:

The Typewriter is Holy

As you know (since I've said it 300 times), my wonderful husband took us to San Francisco as a celebratory trip for our seventh anniversary. It was awesome. One of the highlights for me, of course, was our trip to the City Lights bookstore. The store is famous for its publishing and its politics. It is three floors of gloriousness (still less than Powell's in Portland, but impressive nonetheless). This is my husband standing outside the door waiting for me to get pictures and get over the idea of being at the store enough to actually go inside.


Before going to this store, I had only a vague notion of The Beat Generation. I knew it included Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, and they did drugs, traveled and wrote poetry and books. I saw the movie Howl, which gave me a bit more of an idea, but it was still pretty fuzzy. I majored in English in undergrad, but I think the only stuff I read by any of The Beats was a poem or two in a survey course. The point is that when we walked into City Lights, I knew it was a big deal, but I didn't know how much or exactly why. So, my goal was to find a book there that would tell me more, and I did indeed find such a book - on the third floor in the poetry room.


The Typewriter is Holy

By Bill Morgan

The author of this book is Bill Morgan. He is a friend and the personal archivist for Allen Ginsberg. He has made a life documenting Ginsberg's life and career. He noticed throughout his research that there are biographies and books on all The Beats separately, but there was not a book that told the story of The Beat Generation as a whole, and there was nothing that put all of their stories together in one place. Now we have it.

This makes it the perfect book for someone (like me) who knows very little about The Beats as a whole - even after reading the book, I'm not sure whether I should be calling them "The Beats," or if I should be typing out "The Beat Generation" every time.

The Irritating:

I will quickly start off with the two major flaws I found with this biographical retelling, and then get on with the good and interesting things about this book. The most irritating thing about this novel is that the author is inconsistent with names. There is a HUGE cast of characters, and it's nearly impossible to keep everyone straight. For example, it took me a long time to figure out that Bill = William S. Burroughs, but sometimes the author also called him Burroughs, and at other times just William, and still other times, he used the whole name. A good editor would have fixed this problem right away.

The other flaw with this biography, in my opinion, is the overwhelming bias towards Allen Ginsberg. The author is clear in the Introduction about his relationship with Ginsberg, so it shouldn't have been surprising that he says mostly favorable things about Ginsberg when so many of the other Beats were described as careless, shallow, self-indulgent people. Some of Ginsberg's faults are stated quickly, but they are not dwelt on like Neal Cassady's womanizing or William S. Burroughs's drug dependency. That takes away some of my belief in the author's version of events. Since the author was upfront about things, this may be forgivable. Nevertheless, it bothered me, and it made me want to seek out other biographies on The Beats, just for clarity.

The Good:

There is a core group of people that make up The Beat Generation: Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, and Neal Cassady are kind of the 4 central characters, but there are a lot of other names that come and go. This author's thesis is that The Beat Generation would not have happened the way it did without Allen Ginsberg's knack for introducing people, encouraging them to write, promoting their work to his (and every other) publisher, and his ability to keep them all in contact with each other on a surprisingly regular basis. Ginsberg's apartment - whether in New York or San Francisco - was often the place where people gathered, stayed, slept, lived, etc. It was also often the place where the group experimented with drugs, and where groups of people would work together writing, editing and refining books of poetry or stories.

The core group met in New York, and branched out from there: Kerouac traveling across the US on many occasions, Burroughs living overseas mostly (Mexico City and then Tangier), Cassady traveling across the US and Mexico with Jack, his wife, other women, etc. But they all wrote each other a lot, and therefore, it's easy to document their movements and what each was doing while the rest were writing elsewhere.

Their story is extremely interesting and compelling. There is no denying that the works of literature and poetry that this group contributed to the world is amazing and worthy of attention. Social boundaries were pushed and broken. But the stories of these men are kind of sad - there is so much tragedy that follows each of them, and most of them ended their lives, penniless and alone. But great art often comes from such events, and that's what they gave us - great art.

The Takeaway:

Or so I'm told. I've never actually read much of the work written by The Beats. I'm not generally a big fan of poetry (I'm either too stupid or too lazy for it), so I probably won't be pouring over Howl or any of Ginsberg's other poetry. However, this book did give me a list of a few books I should probably read:


On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. This is a largely biographical story of Kerouac's travels with Neal Cassady, and it was the book that made The Beats famous. It was not Kerouac's favorite, though, and he struggled with the fame it brought him, not only because of the attention, but also because it wasn't always positive attention and praise. This fame was his ultimate downfall. This makes me curious.



Junkie by William Burroughs. It tells the story of a man's decline into addiction - something with which Burroughs struggled his entire life. It wasn't published initially because publishers didn't want to glorify addiction or even talk about it at all. That's something better left under the rug. Heaven forbid we have a conversation about addiction or try to understand addicts.



I also have a book called Kerouac, A Biography, by Ann Charters. I've had it awhile, but I think it might be about time to read it. From what I read in The Typewriter is Holy, I think that Kerouac's story is one of the most tragic, and I'd like to know more about him.


Have you read anything about The Beats? Have you read any of their work? I think I'm more interested in the movement as a whole, and its impact on the literary community, but I'm always open to suggestions of what to read.

A Jane Austen Education

It's Christmas. So nice to have the music and the smells and the great movies on TV. I especially enjoy some of these:



They only come out at Christmas time. I always try to stock up, but I usually eat through my supply by February and then I'm left to suffer without Mint M&Ms for nearly 9 months. It's a tragedy, I know.

I'm also excited about all the Holiday baking I'll get to do. Our office Holiday party is Wednesday, and I'm planning to bring my famous Cranberry Bread - if you're good, I'll do a post on it and all of its glory. I also want to make some good Christmas cookies - maybe some of my mom's glorious Cream Cheese Flakes and maybe some old fashioned Sugar Cookies. Luckily, it's cold out, so giant sweaters and sweatshirts are totally acceptable.

Also, the holidays mean lots of reading under blankets (in theory), so maybe I should just get to talking about books. (Disclaimer: I read this book in September sometime. Don't judge. Or do, but take the below lessons into consideration.)

A Jane Austen Education

By: William Deresiewicz

I loved this book before I ever opened it. The rest of the title tells you everything you need to know: "How Six Novels Taught Me About Love, Friendship, and the Things that Really Matter."

Of course you know I'm a big Jane Austen fan. Of course you can guess that I've read all of her novels at least once and a few of them have been read several times. And we know the message from The Jane Austen Book Club - using Jane's novels as a rulebook is not a bad way to fumble our way through life. Really, what WOULD Jane do?

But William Deresiewicz takes things a bit further than that simple mantra. The lessons he learned were (no spoilers here, because these things are written on the back of the book):

1. EMMA - Everyday events (especially the ones that seem mundane and meaningless) are the things that really matter in life.

2. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE - You aren't perfect, but making mistakes is the only way to grow up and to find out who you really are.

3. NORTHANGER ABBEY - Stay awake; don't take things for granted. By opening yourself to new experiences, you can turn your life into an adventure that will never end.

4. MANSFIELD PARK - Being entertained is not the same thing as being happy. Perpetual amusement leads only to the perpetual threat of boredom.

5. PERSUASION - Be honest with your friends. Unconditional acceptance is not real friendship. A true friend points out your mistakes - even at the risk of losing your friendship.

6. SENSE AND SENSIBILITY - Love is about growing up, not staying young. A true lover is someone who is different from you and is willing to challenge you. It means a never-ending clash of opinions and perspectives.

So, why would you want to read the book, when I've just laid out all the lessons for you? Well, for one thing, the author spends a considerable amount of time with the text of each novel - analyzing the events, language and characters to draw his conclusions. It's scholarly and intellectual, but it's relatable because it's also a memoir. He tells us the story of his life as a student before, during and after the discovery of Jane's works - how he matured and grew up. I'm still working on the maturity thing, but I found myself relating to the different milestones in his life.

I will say that having read all the Jane Austen novels beforehand made this book a lot easier to read and understand. However, don't be afraid to pick this up if you have only read a couple of her novels, or even none. He explains some of the more important plot points and the relationships of the characters so that it would be easy for anyone to follow along. And it's extremely likely that reading his thoughts on the novels will make you want to read the ones you haven't yet read.

Reading his points on some of the novels, specifically Persuasion, made me want to go back and reread it. Persuasion has been one of my least favorite Jane Austen novels (I usually put it at 5 out of 6), but now I'm willing to go back and give it another chance. Conversely, even after his remarks, I am not ready to reread Emma (number 6 out of 6). I can appreciate the lessons he learned without going back to that one.

Overall, this was an interesting, entertaining and educational read - the perfect combination. I would definitely recommend this to any Jane fan, and to anyone who wonders if he could be a fan of Jane and her work.

Addition After the Fact:

I forgot to add in this fun little fact: Did you know that Rudyard Kipling wrote a book called "The Janeites" about Austen worship in the trenches of World War I? How crazy is that? Long before loving Jane Austen was mainstream (have you seen the millions of Jane Austen spin-off books?), people - ok not just ANY people, Rudyard Kipling for crying out loud! - were writing about the cult of Jane Austen love. This book is going right at the top of my list of books to read immediately.

Frankenstein and A Confederacy of Dunces

Have I ever told you how awesome my book club is? Well, they are. It's a group of people from law school that I initially lured into the group by offering booze and snacks, and they keep coming for the same reason(I presume). Here's an old picture of the group - some of these people don't come anymore, and there are a couple of new members, but you get the general idea. I'm going to have to remember to take a new picture at every meeting.


We've met twice in the last few months, and read two really interesting books.

A Confederacy of Dunces

By John Kennedy Toole

This meeting was quite awhile ago, and I read a library copy of the book, so I don't have much to go on other than my memory. The general plot of the book follows Ignatius J. Reilly through some "adventures." Ignatius is a bit off - really intelligent, but socially inept. The book is basically a series of unfortunate events, and through it all, Ignatius continues to declare his intellectual superiority, while being unable to see what an utter failure he is. He expects everyone to do things for him - especially his mom.

There are a lot more absurd things and weirdness, but here are the things I remember most from my reading and from our discussion:

The Language

The language was so great. There was a lot of alliteration and interesting phrasing. Each character had his/her own linguistic tics and unique phraseology. I loved how the author used language to help create the characters and to set each scene. I remember on several occasions making notes about the use of language even though I didn't like what was happening in general.

Each reader sees what they want

At the beginning of our discussion, we all felt pretty blah about the book. It was interesting, I guess, and we all liked bits and pieces, and we were generally glad to have read a book that has gotten so much attention over the years. But we felt like it lacked an actual plot and I personally felt like I didn't quite get what the author was getting at. This feeling conflicted with reports we'd all read about how genius the book is and how it's the best book ever, and how our lives would only be complete after reading it.

But after an hour or so of conversation, Professor Leary (our former faculty adviser, who so generously still shows up and helps make the discussion coherent and dazzles us with her brilliant insights) says: "maybe this book is genius in that it brings out something different in each person." As soon as she said it, we all realized it was true. I was especially interested in the relationship between Ignatius and his mother. Others focused on the psychological aspects of the character and what made him the way he is. Others honed in on Ignatius's attempts at social reform, and what statement the author might be making about society in general.

So, I'm really glad I read this book, but I'm even more glad that I read this with this group of people. Some books are so much better with a discussion, and this is one of those books.

Frankenstein

By Mary Shelley

This is my third time with this novel, so obviously I like it. Even so, I still forgot so much about the plot that it still felt fresh for me.

Things I forgot: 1) Frankenstein is the name of the creator, not the monster; 2) the story is told to the reader by a ship captain (on a mission to sail across the North Pole), who was told the story by Dr. Frankenstein himself; 3) How caught up in himself the creator is that he can't see how things will unfold - his selfishness really stood out to me this time around.

The plot is fairly simple: doctor becomes obsessed with the idea of reanimating the dead and creating life from nothing. He slaves away, forsaking his family and friends to focus solely on his project without one thought to the potential consequences (well, the potential bad consequences - he thinks about the potential glory a lot). When he was confronted with the reality of his actions, he abandons everything, flees and tries to forget - but he can't. He'll be haunted by his actions for the rest of his life.

There is so much to say about this novel - thousands of papers have been written on it - but my focus during this read was on the author of the novel: Mary Shelley. What a life she had! Her mother was Mary Wollstonecraft was a famous Feminist (she wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman). Her father was a writer too - on politics, and he was a friend, benefactor, and later a sponge off of several poets and other literary players of the time. Mary grew up with the likes of Samuel Taylor Colridge reciting their work in her living room.

This is how she met Percy Shelley, one of the most celebrated of the Romantic Poets. They had a tumultuous relationship - one that started while Percy was still married to another woman. His first wife granted him a divorce when Mary became pregnant so that he could marry Mary and make sure that his new child was not born a bastard.

Mary and Percy were always in debt, and Percy was often in danger of being put into debtor's prison. When those serious times rolled around, he left Mary to hide out elsewhere, and she would have to sit home (often pregnant) and wait for the officers to knock on her door looking for Percy. She never quite got over the feeling of abandonment and exile she felt during those years. Abandonment is one of the great themes of the novel - the need for companionship and nurturing is one of the most basic human needs.

Meanwhile, Mary was reading everything she could, and she began making attempts to write stories and poetry. During one particularly lucrative time in their lives, the Shelleys met up with their friend, Lord Byron, and rented a cottage on a lake in Italy. It was here that the dare was issued: each person (Shelley, Byron and Mary) would have to write a ghost story to tell to the others the next night. Shelley and Byron both made feeble attempts, but Mary didn't let the idea go. She laid awake many nights trying to think of how best to tell the story. Frankenstein took many months to perfect, but perfect it she did.

Mary and Percy were together for about 7 years when Percy died (another abandonment). After giving birth to 4 children, only one of them was still alive when Percy died. Mary regularly visited Percy's grave, often reading Milton's "Paradise Lost," crying and mourning her lost husband. She continued to write, and she was fairly successful, but nothing has outlasted her masterpiece - her own creation, Frankenstein.

Child of Light

By Muriel Spark

I read bits and pieces of this biography as a supplement to the novel. It's fairly comprehensive, and is clearly well-researched, but it is also dry and not very compelling. There MUST be a better biography out there! Mary Shelley's life was very dramatic - it shouldn't be difficult to tell her story in a compelling and page-turning way. Right?

If you have never read Frankenstein, I would encourage you to do so. The first few chapters are a little bit dry, but all in all, the story of Frankenstein's monster is surprisingly human - full of the love, fear and misunderstanding that are so prevalent in human nature. There is so much more to discuss - not the least of which are the many feminist issues within the text - and I could go on and on, but this seems like enough for now. Please leave a comment if you have input. I'd love to continue the discussion.

Every book we read as a group is so much better than when I read it on my own. Our discussions are so enlightening and every time I'm sure I have things figured out, someone else thought of it in a different way and my eyes are opened. Jane Austen's advice to living a full and satisfying life is to surround yourself with people who you admire, people you look up to and from whom you can learn things. I believe in my book group I have found just that - a group of people I admire and from whom I learn things at every meeting. Thanks, everyone!

The Bell Jar

Today is an awesome day because I got the new Bookmarks Magazine! It's also a sad day, because it's the last one of the year. It is convenient, though, because it comes early enough to pick goodies out of it for my Christmas list! I'm also excited to read the lists of books about Careers. All I can think about is waiting on bar results, so I'm interested to see what books they have listed under "Attorney." And in case I fail, I'll have to check other career option too. :)

On a more somber note, I'd like to talk a little bit about my most recent read, "The Bell Jar." I've read just enough about the life of Sylvia Plath to know that this is a very autobiographical novel. Which is what makes it so amazing and so heartbreaking.

The novel, of course, is the story of Esther Greenwood, a bright, beautiful and blooming talent, and her descent into mental illness and her attempt to live a productive life in spite of her obstacles. It opens with her in New York, working for a magazine - a position that she won by way of a brilliantly written application. In fact, Esther tells us, writing and winning scholarships is the one thing she's good at. But Esther feels lost and uncertain and alone. Once home, she continues slipping into a depression so consuming that she eventually attempts suicide. She is, however, miraculously discovered at the moment before death. Because she is a famous local author and poet, her suicide attempt and hospitalization is widely publicized. Through this embarrassing invasion, Esther gains the patronage and support of an understanding and compassionate rich woman who promises to fund Esther's recovery in return for Esther's promise to try to heal, and with the hope that Esther will return to school once she is recovered.

The language of this novel is beautiful and poetic, but not over the top. Plath knows how to create imagery and evoke emotion using minimal, but impactful language. What is most amazing about the language is that it retells the novel's events in a way that the reader takes the trip right along with Esther. This is not a story of what happened to some woman - it's not as distant as that. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I felt everything Esther felt, but I did empathize and I did understand what she felt like - at every step of the way.

Plath's brilliance isn't in writing a moving novel of an extraordinary woman's trip to the depths of despair and back up again, although that's what she did. Her brilliance is in making Esther not seem crazy. Esther did some crazy things - throwing all her clothes out of the window of her New York apartment, for example. But even those moments which, from a distance, seem irrational, seem and feel like the only rational choice - both to Esther and to the reader.

Everything Esther does seems and feels logical and smart. I was surprised when her mother wondered why Esther couldn't get out of bed or why Esther didn't want to take a stenography course. It seemed obvious to me. I totally sympathized with Esther when she wanted to explain how she felt to someone, but it just seemed like too much work - it was easier to let them come to their own conclusions, because even if she tried to explain, she probably couldn't articulate it anyway. I do this fairly often in my own life. Esther's fears about sex and the pressure she felt because of her immense talent were a terrible burden - why couldn't everyone else understand? I understood even though I do not have a great talent. I understood because Sylvia Plath made me understand.

As if all of this weren't amazing enough, if we think about Sylvia as Esther, the accomplishment of this novel stands out even more. This is not a novel written by a psychologist or a therapist; it isn't written by someone who is trying to explain something using clinical terms or common symptomology. This is a novel written by someone who struggled with depression her whole life, and it is written about a particularly difficult time in that bleak life. While in theory it is not surprising that a poet could write well about something with which she is well acquainted, the amazing part is how she was able to write so clearly and with such objectivity. She doesn't get mired down in self-pity or whining. Her ability to separate from herself, and to observe and explain that time of her life with such a strong voice is nothing short of miraculous.

I was afraid this novel would be really dark and gloomy, but it's not. It's perfectly readable, with language that is poetic, but not oppressive. Sometimes, because Esther's mind is so fuzzy - being so uncertain about everything - the novel gets a little fuzzy and dreamlike, but this is only evidence of the brilliance of a writer that uses language to mimic her protagonist's mindset. At other times, the scenes are so vivid and sharply written that they actually hurt to read.

Again, I only know enough about Sylvia Plath to know that "The Bell Jar" is basically a true story. Which makes me want to know more about her. I have begun reading "Her Husband" which is a biography of Ted Hughes that is centered around his marriage to and relationship with Plath. I've also added a couple of Sylvia Plath biographies to my TBR list.

I am not a fan of poetry (either because I'm not smart enough OR because I'm too lazy), so I doubt I'll spend much time reading Plath's poetry - her main claim to fame other than her eventual suicide. But I would like to read some books that talk about her poetry and what it meant to her and to Hughes. What a shame that so brilliant a mind is no longer producing great literature.

In Stitches

In Stitches

By Anthony Youn, M.D.

This memoir of a young Korean man's journey through medical school is clever, witty and fun. In it, Dr. Youn tells the story of how he knew his whole life that he was going to be a doctor - because his dad told him so. But Dr. Youn describes how he made the experience his own, how he really wanted it for himself too. And he describes exactly how and why he chose to specialize in plastic surgery. It begins with his first day of med school, with some childhood flashbacks, and ends when he finishes all of his residency and other training requirements - the moment he realizes "I'm a doctor."

This is a fast read, with fun characters and interesting tidbits about his school, and the med school process. I confess that it would have been less interesting to me had I not read this the week after I took the bar exam. I spent a lot of time comparing the law school process to the med school process. They are both stressful schools, with a lot of pressure, and not very much sleep.

However after reading this book, I have come to one conclusion: I am so glad I chose law school. Not only would the science, blood, and buckets of hands and other body parts scare me away, but becoming a doctor is a hell of a lot harder than becoming a lawyer. There are two years of intense and terrifying classes. A year of interning with different areas of medicine and then after that there are residency requirements and if you want to be a specialist there are even more years of training and practice.

I particularly enjoyed the part of the book where Dr. Youn was describing the different medical practices. I love the idea of this. I think law school should have something like this - maybe not a whole year, but it sure would be nice to actually do some work in an area of law before going out to practice, rather than just get an introduction in a class. For example, I did really well in my Wills and Trusts class and I thought the material was interesting. I imagined meeting all kinds of interesting rich old people who want me to write a will leaving everything to their dog. But would I really like to sit in an office all day going over will provisions and making sure that trustees fulfill their fiduciary obligations? I'm not so sure. It would be nice to take that for a spin.

Anyway, the point is that I really enjoyed this memoir. It's fast, fun, good writing and gives an inside perspective on a world most people don't know anything about.

Shades of Grey

Hello! I've been having so much fun reading! I have a stack of books to review here, a couple of which I read a long time ago, but I've also been reading a lot in the past couple of weeks. That's the good side of unemployment. Unfortunately for my TBR list, I've been acquiring a lot of books that weren't on the list, so the list gets longer, while I keep discovering new books. It's a never-ending cycle, but I'm happy with that.

Also, I've been distracted by internet and magazine reading too, so while I've been reading books, I've also been catching up on everything else I neglected this summer while studying - blogs, my Bookmarks Magazines, news, TV, etc.

Finally, I've also been watching a lot of movies the past couple of weeks. I used the excuse that I was making a baby blanket for my new niece, but I think also the blanket was an excuse to watch a lot of movies. My Netflix queue is getting shorter, and my stack of magazines is shrinking too. So I suppose it's time to talk about the books!


Shades of Grey by Jasper Fforde

Well, Jasper Fforde has done it again. He's written an interesting, crazy new world in which social standing is based solely on how much color each person sees. The main character, Eddie Russet, is a Red and he has been reassigned to the Outer Fringes due to nonconforming behavior. Still, he hopes to marry up into the Oxblood family and score high on his perception test which would allow him to become a head prefect. Then he meets Jane. She's a Grey, and therefore the lowest social level. She has the perfect nose, but she is angry and mean, and seems to be trying to kill Eddie for no reason.

There are all sorts of colorful characters in this book (pun intended). Jasper Fforde's strong suit is his cleverness - not just in coming up with a strange, interesting, futuristic society, but in coming up with town names, character names, and dialogue that is absurd but appropriate. More than once while I was reading in bed, I would chuckle. Mike would ask me what was so funny, but I could never tell him because it took too long to explain why it was so funny.

That's the great and terrible thing about Jasper Fforde books - they are so great that you want to share them and talk about them with everyone. But you can't just tell someone about it. You have to get the other person to read it, and then talk about how fun, clever and witty he is. Reading one of his novels is a great experience - wholly satisfying in its complexity and depth, yet with a tone of frivolity and silliness.

The only complaint I have about this novel is that it is the first in a planned series. There are at least two more books coming. Normally that wouldn't bother me - most of his books are part of a series, so it's expected, and the idea of more books coming in this series is exciting. But the problem is that the majority of this book was a set up for adventures to come in future books. There was a lot of character development and not a lot of plot. The last third of the book went by quickly, because things started happening. Until then it was difficult to keep all the characters straight and to determine which characters were going to be important.

I think some of the slowness of the novel was my fault, though. I started reading it this summer in the midst of crazy bar-prep study and stress. It was too difficult to lose myself in this book because the society and all its constructs were too complex to understand without a lot of rereading of certain parts. So I put it aside and picked it up after taking the bar. But I picked it back up too soon, I think. I was still decompressing and I didn't start over at the beginning, so I had to keep flipping back to remember things. My heart wasn't in it, so I put it down again. I picked it up again finally after a two week trip that was nonstop laughter with my family, and that's when it was really good.

I totally recommend Jasper Fforde to everyone. But if you're new to him, you should start with The Eyre Affair (the first in the Thursday Next series in which Thursday is a detective in the Jurisfiction unit and in which she fights people who would do harm to books) or the Nursery Crime series, which starts with The Big Over Easy in which Jack Sprat tries to figure out whether Humpty Dumpty was murdered or whether he committed suicide.

For more information, go to his website at http://www.jasperfforde.com/

Happy Reading!