John Irving on John Updike

I always love reading what authors have to say about other authors.  Sometimes the pieces are critical and deeming, while at other times they can be full of praise and grace.  My favorite thing about reading what authors have to say about each other is the insightfulness that exists in the understanding of how one writes.  While without doubt we all write in our own personal style and voice, I believe there is a similarity in all writing.  It has something to do with the thread of language, and the purpose of writing in and of itself, which is to communicate ideas to others.  Very often (though not all the time) people who have made a profession out of writing have a profound understanding of the art and what goes into the process of good writing.  As such they can often relate to other writers and the process they got through.

All that being said, I direct you to a piece written by John Irving on the late John Updike, appearing on Slate.com.  It is wonderful, insightful, and moving and strikes of that understanding that I think exists between people of letters.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I have never read a full John Updike novel.  The same is not true of John Irving, who ranks as one of my favorite authors (The World According to Garpbeing high in my favorite books list).  I think Mr. Irving is a great writer.  And while his stories may definitely not be for everybody, I think he deserves credit for his skill with language.  Read what he wrote about John Updike.  It is really beautiful in my opinion.  And interesting, very very interesting.

RIP John Updike

Perhaps one of the greatest American authors of the past century, John Updike, passed away from lung cancer yesterday.  Mr. Updike was 76 years old.

I am a bit ashamed to admit, that while familiar with many of his major works, I have never read a full John Updike novel.  I have however read a number of articles and other pieces by him, the most recent being an article about Mars that appeared in the December 2008 edition of National Geographic, it was a lovely and enlightening piece.  I feel that it is worth reading the New York Times obituary for Mr. Updike, as it does a better job than I could at summing up the man’s great life. You may also want to check out this article and this slideshow.

I can say, with honest belief, that Mr. Updike wil be greatly missed, but that in all likelyhood his works will continue to persevere and promote discussion and contemplation.  He was truly a gift to American Letters, a rare breed that finds their place, and excels at it in all ways.

To Read Stephenson’s “Anathem”

So I have been debating whether or not I would like to read Neal Stephenson’s latest novel Anathem.  The debate has a number of factors in favor of pursuing the reading of the book and a number against.  Standing strongly in favor is the fact that Anathem has received a lot of positive praise, and was probably the most successful science fiction novel of 2008.  The other thing, and this may sound blasphemous to some, is the fact that I have never read a whole Neal Stephenson novel (I read maybe the first thirty, or so, pages of Snow Crash a few years back, but because of other responsibilities I didn’t get through it).  Also the plot of Anathem sounds genuinely interesting to me.

The detractors that have been holding me back so far (I’ve had plenty of opportunity to pick Anathem up by this point) are present to.  First off the book is huge; the hardcover having a length of 960 pages.  There isn’t anything wrong with big books, by any means, it is just I haven’t been in a major commitment to reading really long novel recently.  Then there is that fact, again, that I have never read any of Stephenson’s works.  As such I could go either way with enjoying his writing or absolutely hating it.  Also, the few less than complimentary reviews I have read stick in my mind, even considering there are far fewer of them than the positive reviews (and really I should ignore the reviews all together, I have a very anti-review belief when it comes to books and movies, save them for after you have read or watched).

So can’t decide.  If anybody has read Anathem I would love to hear what you thought about it and if you think it is worth my time to pick it up.

The Curious Creatures and The Blood they Drink; Bill Schutt’s “Dark Banquet”

At the same time that I have been reading Charlie Huston’s vampire detective novels (just finished the second one No Dominion the other day) I have also been reading another book about vamprism, albeit a completely different kind.  The book is titled Dark Banquet: Blood and the Curious Lives of Blood-Feeding Creatures and written by Bill Schutt.  Truth be told I actually picked up Dark Banquet before I had even heard of Charlie Huston, so it is pretty much mere coincidence that I have been reading two things about blood suckers recently.

People who know me pretty well are probably familiar with the fact that I have a pretty big interest in all the sciences (see my blog “I Wish I Was a Scientist“) and as such, when I saw Dark Banquet on the new book shelf at work a few weeks ago I thought it sounded pretty fascinating.  I will tell you that it is.  Currently I am only a little over a hundred pages into it, having just finished a lengthy section on vampire bats (Schutt’s personal specialty).  While I love reading things of science (high up on my list of favorite books is Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time) I usually take a bit more time in reading them, just reading a few pages here or there, as such the reading of Dark Banquet is going a little slower than other books I generally pick up.

Still, I really enjoy what I have read so far.  Schutt writes in a very accessibly manner that demonstrates his understanding of the topics but also a quick wit and sense of fun in regards to a subject matter that might not be something everyone can stomach.  And if anything, what Schutt seems to be doing in Dark Banquet, is show the utter amazingness in the the existence of these blood feeding creatures.  Take for example the vampire bats (of which there are three living species) which are the only known mammals to have evolved a specialized diet that consists solely of blood.  What is even more surprising about them is the fact that there is something like 1200 species of bats in the world (bats make up approximately 20% of all living mammal species on Earth, the only group tha makes up a bigger chunk are the rodents) and yet still only three feed on blood.  Schutt has done a lot of research on vampire bats and so has a really acute understanding of the animals.  The thing that I thought was most interesting is how one species, which feeds primarily on the blood of birds, had developed a habit of mimicking chicken chicks so as to feed on hens unmolested.  Just absolutely amazing.

So a really good book.  The chapter I am currently on is giving a brief history of human understanding of blood throughout history, which, until more modern times, was very minimal (hence the centuries of blood lettings).  If you are interested in science, especially biology, and are not too squeamish, then I would say Dark Banquet is a pretty good read to check out.

Fiction Reading on the Rise

Well here is some good sounding news, according to the National Endowment of the Arts it appears that the reading of fiction among adults appears to be rising, after years in which it had experienced steady decline.  Read about it in this New York Times article.  The sad thing is that both poetry and drama reading are still not really all that popular, which isn’t really a surprise, but I still kind of find it sad as their is great literature in both styles.  Still an increased reading of fiction is great.  I am curious if part of it has something to do with the current woes of the world?  It would be interesting to compare the reading habits during times or relative peace and stable economy versus times when their are greater reasons for concern.  Still any increase in any type of reading is a good sign.  I hope people keep it up.

Charlie Huston’s “Already Dead”

I will begin this post by saying that prior to picking up Charlie Huston’s mystery novel Already Dead I knew next to nothing about the author or the books he has written.  The way in which my attention was brought to Charlie Huston was through reading a post on Early Word: The Publisher| Librarian Connection which pointed me to Huston’s new novel The Mystic Art of Erasing All Signs of Death.  Stephen King provides a captivating review of the The Mystic Art on Amazon.com (see book link previously) which made me think that it would be worth a look (a feeling which I feel stronger about having now read Already Dead).  One of the great benefits of working in a library is that I literally have thousands of books within immediate reach of me every work day.  So, after reading the reviews for The Mystic Art I decided to see if we had a copy available at work.  We didn’t but we had a number of Huston’s other books.  At work I took a quick break and went to browse the shelves to see if anything by Huston would possibly interest me.  That is how I found Already Dead.

On finishing Already DeadI will state that I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it.  The reason for my surprise stems from two major facts.  1).  I don’t really care for mystery novels.  I don’t have anything against the genre in general (and arguably some books that I have read could be considered slightly within the mystery genre, like say many of Stephen Kings works) but it just doesn’t really interest me.  Probably part of it is because I associate mystery novels with my mother’s personal reading preference, while I have always been swayed more towards fantasy, horror, and scifi.  2).  I don’t really read books about vampires.  Yes, that is right, Already Dead is about vampires, I realize I neglected to mention that previously, but now you know.  The fact that I don’t read vampire novels (in fact the only one I think I have ever read is King’s Salem’s Lot and I read that more because it was a Stephen King book than because it was about vampires) might surprise some people who know me because I happen to be a pretty big fan of vampire movies and I find the mythology that has developed around vampires to be rather interesting.  Probably a big thing that has driven me away from vampire novels is the general pop goth stereotype I associate with the works.  I do not have anything against either pop or goth but neither are areas that generally interest me and I think a lot of vampire stories are written with these groups in mind.  Sure, I’ve been curious about works by Anne Rice (my college roommate was rather fond of her works) and have considered picking up one of the Sookie Stackhouse novelsby Charlaine Harris because I was really enjoyed HBO’s first season of True Blood (which was based on Ms. Harris’ works).  So all around not a reader of either mystery or vampires.

But I did like Already Dead.

I think a big part of my enjoyment stems from the fact that Huston’s novel provided me with a very quick and relatively easy read that was entertaining but also thoughtful.  Huston’s style of writing, in my opinion, can best be described as pulp.  Already Deadread like a gritty detective novel that seems like it would be more in place in the late forties or early fifties, except for the whole vampire thing (I don’t think they were quite the same level of popularity then) and the computers and ATMs and cellphones and everything else in the novel that presents modern day Manhattan (where the story is set).  In a way the noir pulp feel of Already Dead set in modern NYC seems almost anachronistic, but it works for the characters and the plot in a way that dives the reader from front to back.  For this fact alone I give Huston high praise.

As I said above I found Already Dead to be a pretty easy read.  It only took me about two days to read it (though admittedly I was sick yesterday and spent most of the day in bed reading).  Just because it was a quick and easy read does not mean I think it was written simply.  All around I found the story to be very creatively developed and the language to be written with admirable intelligence.  Huston has a knack for words, especially when he puts them in the mouth of his characters, like the narrator Joe Pitt.  He captures the gritty underside of the world in startling detail all the while keeping the read accessible and progressing.  And while the book was easy enough to pick up and get through, I actually feel that there is a lot more going on than first impressions give.  Sure you can read Already Deadas a detective novel featuring vampires in modern day New York and walk away having encountered a fairly entertaining book.  But I would suggest you could dig deeper into the story and pull a lot of relevance from the themes that arise.

Already Deadis dark, and honestly that is a bit of an understatement.  I would list this book as rated Mature with the capital M because a lot of the subject matter is pretty rough (the least of which is a vampire sucking somebodies blood or a zombie munching on some brains – both of which happen repeatedly in the story).  Probably not the best book for teeny-bopper fans of Stephanie Meyer’s the Twilight Saga to jump to next (though I don’t know for certain just how detailed and mature the subject matter in those books gets).  Besides the general violence that one would associate with vampires and zombies there is also a fair share of other dark aspects of society presented; murder, rape, child and domestic abuse, drugs, alcohol, sex, and enough “colorful” language to fit right in with a Quentin Tarantino movie.  This isn’t to say that Huston glamorizes any of these subject matters.  In fact, if anything, he writes about them exactly as they are, the hardships and dark sides of life that some people have the misfortune of experiencing.  It isn’t gratuitous, it is just the world in which the characters of Already Dead live in.

Another theme that I pulled from the book, though I think that it is a little bit burried under the other more visual elements form the story, is the concepts of illness or sickness.  Quite obviously the vampires and the zombies are infected with disease and this is a fact that is brought up time and time again; the zombies have a flesh and brain eating bacteria and the vampires have a blood consuming virus (simply referred to as Vyrus).  But beyond that there are other ways in which illness is present in the story.  Joe Pitt’s girlfriend, Evie, has HIV which is the main reason she won’t have sex with Joe (even though as a vampire Joe is immune to the disease – Evie is unaware of Joe’s vamprism though).  Then there are the diseases that might not be caused by any germs but seem to be the ills of society.  There are several characters who are homeless or drugs/alcohol abusers.  Several of the people have been victimized by abuse or are themselves abusers.  Even the perception of Manhattan and it’s society seem to represent a sickness in the world.  part of this is inevitably due to Joe Pitt being the narrator and his cynical perception of the world and people around him, but I also think that Huston was consciously using the idea of illness to further frame the story.  Nobody is clean in Joe Pitt’s world and near the end of the novel there is a pretty grim couple of paragraphs in which Pitt contemplates the fact that inevitably everyone is either dying or on the road to being killed.

Joe Pitt himspef presents an interesting study.  As the protagonist and narrator he is what I would call a pretty good example of an anti-hero.  Being an anti-hero does not mean that a character is necessarily a bad guy or a villain but more so that they do not follow the normal perception of traditional heroism.  Joe fits this description in that he tends to be far more concerned with his own well being and survival than with other people around him.  Joe doesn’t end up in most of the situations in the book because he is pursuing the goal of being a hero and savior, instead much of his actions are driven by his desire to earn his next meal or to save his own hide.  Joe shows little problem with roughing people up or, if the situation calls for it, killing them.  He seems to view most others as either inferior to him or too dangerous to really try and get involved with.  But Joe also does have some deep set moral drives.  It is revealed in the story that before he became a vampire he had lived in an abusive household and so he tends to have a strong drive to protect innocent people, especially children and teenagers.  Further Joe comes across as having a somewhat guilty conscience of his need for blood.  This doesn’t always stop him from taking it but it is a matter that seems to always be in debate in his mind.  There is also his relationship with Evie and his knowledge that if he made her a vampire it would cure her of her disease but ultimately curse her to another and potentially worse one.  If Joe has any real weakness it may be that he is too smart, which is also, interestingly, one of his biggest strengths.  Joe Pitt can’t seem to escape from his own mind and thoughts, and at times from his own mouth (he often fails to know when to shut up).  In some ways life might be easier for Joe  if he was more brawn and less brains, like the giant vampire Hurley.  But Joe is a thinking and his thinking often gets him into more trouble than out of it.  But it is his ability to reason which also allows him to be more than a blunt instrument and thus overcome being a truly monstrous character.  While Joe knows how to use violence when it is needed he can also refrain from it.  It is his intelligence that in many ways makes him a kind of heroic.  What drives Joe into action is usually his own self interest but inevitably his intelligence leads him down other paths, even ones that may be of danger in the long run.

So Already Deadis a pretty good book in my opinion.  A quick read but an interesting one.  Charlie Huston has written three other novels in the same setting and with Joe Pitt as the main character.  I think I would like to check them out just to see how Huston further develops his characters and the world of Manhattan populated in part by vampires.  There were also a few questions left open at the end of the book which I imagine will be further examined in the following books.  I also would still really like to pick up The Mystic Art of Erasing All Signs of Death.

Read Before You Give? Or Not?

A post from Brian Herzog on his blog Swiss Army Librarian raises the question of whether or not it is socially acceptable to read a book before you present it as a gift.  This is actually a matter I have considered before and coming out of the Holiday season I think this is an appropriate area of contemplation.

Personally I see no real problem with this, especially considering the gift of a book is often based on a personal opinion (of the gift giver) that the book would be something that the receiver would enjoy.  A lot of books that I have given as gifts are books that I have read before, though generally I will buy a new copy as a gift (this is in part because I like to horde my books and also because I like to write a note to the person I am giving the book to inside the cover).  I guess you could take the question further and say, “is it okay to buy a book, read it, and then give it to somebody as a gift?”  My response . . . sure, why not?  I mean as long has you haven’t done significant damage to a copy of a book (essentially as long as it is still readable) then why shouldn’t it be gift worthy?

One might be tempted to say, “because it is a used item.”

Really?  Well ask yourself this.  1). Can you really tell?  Assuming that the book has not been beat up by the giver’s reading process it is probably kind of difficult to determine whether or not the book was previously read.  2). Isn’t the idea of giving a book as a gift a lot more about the content within?  Sure there are some books with nice looking covers and it could be annoying having to deal with previous fold-marked pages (something else I’d like to write about at some point) but really the important thing in a book is that it is readable or that the pictures are still in good condition.

As a rule the books that I give to people are generally things that I have read previously (though not necessarily the exact copy) because then I am in a better position to talk about it and give reasons for why I chose it as a gift.  For example, I gave my cousin a copy of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov for Christmas this year.  Part of the reason was because she mentioned that she was going to be taking a Russian Literature class at school, but further so because The Brothers Karamazov is one of my all time favorite books (which I happen to believe should be an essential on any list of Russian Literature — actually several of Dostoevsky’s works are worth making the list; The Idiot, Crime & Punishment, and Notes From the Underground to name some of the best).  I bought her a new copy of the book, though it was the same translation/publication that I had read previously.  On the other hand I give both my brother and father books for Christmas that I had not previously read at all, though I did take a bit of time to glance through them.

I have on occasion given books that I have owned as gifts, though on much more casual terms then say as a wrapped Birthday or Christmas present.  There have been times, when through interaction, I have deemed that some people need to be exposed to a certain book that I own, and thus give it to them.  An example is when a friend and I, my junior year of college, each exchanged one of our favorite books.  I gave her Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land and I was given in turn Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye (which at the time I had not yet read — which many people still find fascinating).

I could go on and on about giving books as gifts and could expand further on gift giving in general (in fact just the other day I reread a paper I wrote a few years ago on the topic of gift giving and sacrifice).  I think that the really interesting and important thing to remember is that a gift is a comment or critique of a type between the giver and the receiver.  I don’t have qualms with reading a book before you give it as a gift, but consider the book as a whole and why you want it to be a gift, it is the message of the giving that is probably the thing of real importance.