Category Archives: 100 Books of 2011

March 7, 2011 · 7:25 pm

Portuguese Irregular Verbs: Funny.

                      Portuguese Irregular Verbs is weird. It’s short (and so on the ‘short’ list), and is also a collection of short stories (sort of). A collection of short stories featuring the same character – a professor von Inglesomething. I liked the collection because it followed one character, and I found the character charming.

Professor von Ingelwhatever studies Portuguese irregular verbs. Not surpising the book offers something of a critique of the overly specialized work of academics and the way that academic life sustains itself with irrelevant, introspective conferences and books wherein everyone reads on another (or probably don’t) in order to be seen reading one another and asking questions about one another when really everyone is only concerned (at all) with their own prestige and self-importance. Inhale. So funny, yes, but perhaps a little close to home, too.

Total fluff, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Book I'll Forget I Read, Fiction, Funny

Tagged as , , ,

February 27, 2011 · 1:36 am

In the Skin of a Lion: Here be Short

    I read In the Skin of a Lion again for my class, and can’t seem to fit it in anywhere in the 10-10-12 list, so I’m putting it in “Short” both because that’s the category I’m meant to be reading right now, and because – perhaps more importantly – the book might be thought about in short thematic, chronological and character sequences. It’s a beautiful novel. There are descriptions that catch your breath, beautiful scenes between people who connect by allowing one another the space to be different, cartwheeling images that subtly shift over the course of the narrative.

I wrote an essay on the book in undergrad; I can’t remember what the essay was about. I feel like I had things to say about the novel’s representation of history. A representation that doesn’t strike me as very interesting anymore (the history of labourers and immigrants finds a space to be heard – okay), but is there for those of you interested in labour history. I was far more taken with the imagery this go around and tried to pay attention to how each operated, but found myself – perhaps appropriately – overwhelmed by the number of images and the way they worked together. So great to read a novel by a poet. I think, anyway.

Other news: 1/5 done 10-10-12. (Is this good news? Or worrisome that I’ve spent Jan/Feb reading 20 books and not finishing T?)

1 Comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Canadian Literature, Erin's Favourite Books, Fiction, Prize Winner

Tagged as , , , ,

February 24, 2011 · 4:14 am

Jimmy Corrigan: Wow.

     So in my life to date I think I’ve read in the neighbourhood of a eight hundred books. A figure arrived at with the base calculation of 50 books a year for the last ten years + 30 books a year for the ten years between 6-16.  A number of no consequence whatsoever except when contrasted with the six (total) graphic novels I’ve read: Spiegleman’s Maus I and II, Persepolis, Riel, and the Unwritten, and now, Chris Ware’s Jimmy Corrigan.

I mention all this because I have a lot of practice deciding what I like and don’t like about fiction (in the non-picture sense) and justifying those feelings with evidence from the text. I have, however, very little experience explaining why I do or do not like graphic novels (see my entry on The Unwritten for evidence) and so I am in the unfortunate position of writing that I LOVE Jimmy Corrigan and I have some sense of why, but it is, a very grasping sense. Graphic novels are not something I have enough experience with or training with to explain clearly, so take this proviso for what is and let me explain why (I think) I love Jimmy Corrigan.

1) There are beautiful sentences. True, graphic novels still have sentences, and I still recognize one them when I read it. Beautiful little gems peppered in dialogue and description that catch you and say ‘wham.’ (For a great article in defense of the beautiful sentence see 19 February 2011 Globe & Mail Books section back-page).

2) Pictures! Pictures that are not simply pretty, but add whole layers of meaning (to this admitted novice in picture-meaning-reading). Illustrations that captivate and confuse – where I spent time puzzling out not simply the direction of meaning (where do I read/look next?) but how the illustrations competed with the text, added to it, complicated it, and made it all the more weighty.

3) The plot. It jumps in time, space (dreams of robots), place and plausibility in ways that left this reader simultaneously confused and captivated. I worked reading this book to understand and appreciate not just the plot flow, but the significance of particular narrative asides and reoccurring symbols (a little red bird for instance, I finally worked out signaled a change in time).

I’m done with my list now. I also like Jimmy, but not so much as to put him in the list. He was a bit sniveling for my taste. Oh! That too! The perfect capture of sound in the text! I heard things as well as saw them.

So I’m more excited now for the other books in my Books with Illustrations category than I was before. Much more. Not so much as to read another one right away. My brain aches a bit. And I think I’ll review Scott McCloud’s stuff on graphic novels (thanks K. for the suggestion) before writing another analysis. Just in case those of you out there who care, care.

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Book I'll Forget I Read

Tagged as , , ,

February 23, 2011 · 2:33 pm

Last Night I Dreamed of Peace: A Terrible Translation

It’s possible the diary of Thuy Tran, a Vietnamese doctor serving in the National Liberation Front army, is a good read in Vietnamese. In English it is… terrible. I tried hard to remind myself of the real life behind the narrative voice, of the fear and sacrifice, of her youth… but despite the evocative form (reading a diary feels like – maybe because it is? – an invasion) the writing is so terrible it’s distracting. I appreciate, too, that Thuy wasn’t a writer by trade and so my expectations for knock-em out sentences shouldn’t be high, but at a certain point – and I’d suggest this book reaches that point and then well passes it – bad writing (and by that I mean repetitive sentences, poor diction, exaggerated/universalizing statements) gets in the way of any appreciation of content.

I’m inclined to give Thuy more credit and blame the translator. I’d say, from my limited experience evaluating translations, that this is terrible translation. Randomly selected sentence: “These simple letters cannot diminish my longing. My heart lacks the warming fire of the Party” — lots of talk of anguish, transportation of feeling, longing – her heart/head are frequently “filled with many thoughts”.

Okay. So I didn’t like the writing.  Content? I was interested in her story of rising the ranks of the Party, of administering medical care in the jungle, of hating the “American imperialists.” All neat. I was far less interested in her jealousy and various crushes. I know its unreasonable to expect a diary to put limits on these kinds of entries, but all the same, by the end I was pretty fed up with her.

So. There you go.

On another note, I received a comment from a reader on my “The White Bone” entry to the effect that I didn’t do enough research into elephants, and that I considered humans to be far too unique, especially in my characterization of what elephants can and cannot do. I do appreciate the comment. I did try to be as careful as possible to limit my criticism to those things elephants cannot – to the best of my knowledge do – for instance, creating art. I rescind my comments about elephant burial practices to the extent that elephants do bury their dead, but do not, as far as I can tell, speculate on the afterlife of those elephants living with She-woman in the sky (as the novel suggests). I could have added elephants do not understand their world through the Biblical story of Adam and Eve (as the novel suggests), or practice monogamy (again, as the novel suggests). My criticism of the book was not intended as a criticism of elephants. Quite the contrary, I didn’t like the book because it reduced the complexity of elephant mindscape to that of humans.

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Book I'll Forget I Read

Tagged as , , , , ,