My introduction to the works of Margaret Atwood was Oryx and Crake. I used to work at a bookshop which hosts a huge sale every quarter. It is a good place to pick up hardcover first editions. (Sorry, peeps, but if you can't find anything good on sale, it's because the staff nabbed them while they unpacked boxes.) Deckle edges (when the page edges are rough and uneven) are a red flag. This habit is mostly for novelty value than for any misplaced hope that this one book of thousands will become valuable. Anyway, I have this book and I have read it.
Let's retreat even further in time and test your patience. Because it is entertaining to imagine anyone is reading this and that you are on tenterhooks to see where I am going with this.
I read Dorothy Lessing's The Golden Notebook in high school (y'know, as normal learners spend their free time) and adored it. It opened up a new world of politicised literature for me, as a natural and nurtured feminist, although I didn't know where to find more of the same or how to exercise it.
Later I would read AS Byatt and fall in love for the same reason - together with her representation of the post-Modern psyche: by definition ultimately and completely apathetic. The last few pages of Possession sealed the deal.
Around this time, a friend was surprised that I hadn't yet read any Margaret Atwood. 'As a feminist of your own devising, I would think you would have devoured her work.' (Or something as cultured.) I am otherwise like that, as you know (as above), so I didn't read any just because he said I should (a reflection on our friendship, too). Until, while rooting around in my collection of books, I found the book and couldn't resist those deckle edges (they get me every time).
I was ambivalent. I was also confused. I was ambivalent because I was confused. The ideas of Oryx and Crake rooted around in the recesses of my brain and unravelled things I did not want to see in the dark of an alley or in the light of day. (An older me is more comfortable in alleys than sunlight.) So I ravelled those things up again while Oryx, Crake and Snowman-the-Jimmy weren't looking, and packed those three characters along with them.
Burying them didn't help. They kept popping up in my mind, while I was thinking about genetically modified anything (not often), overgrown grass (more often than you'd think), apocalypse (very often), the destructiveness of the human species (very, very often) and things that have little to do with the book, like apples. Each time, I would wander down one of the many paths in that greenhouse and whisk myself out when I realised what half of me was doing while the other half wasn't looking.
Excuse the pun but it grew on me (actually, don't excuse me - that's a pretty good one). One day I realised that other half have shoved my dislike over onto the 'like' side and closer to 'craving'. Muttering under my breath, I read others, like The Blind Assassin and The Handmaid's Tale. To be honest, I can't remember what any of them are about. They weren't Oryx and Crake. They were too packed with ideas and my brain kept overheating (it does that. Even a bibliophile has limits).
Lucky me, Oryx and Crake was about to become... wait for it... a trilogy. Even an author needs to make money. Thank you, JRR Tolkien. Again, I was ambivalent. I don't like being coerced into spending my money (although, let's be honest, that's how capitalism works). But I craved more.
I caved and read The Year of the Flood, fairly recently, although it had been out for several years. Hammer - nail - head. Down to the squirming ambivalence. Except, as I mentioned, the older me is far more comfortable with squirming and finds it more comforting than the safety of ignorance. Oryx, Crake and Snowman-the-Jimmy didn't play as crucial a role, appearing mostly as backstory. While Oryx and Crake was set after the pandemic that wipes out a very destructive human race, The Year of the Flood is set around it.
Now came MaddAddam! I waited and waited for the Kindle version but eventually couldn't handle the suspense and went with the hardcopy. Which poses a problem because I have two of the three in hardcopy and other as .mobi. Hmmm I also object to the waste of paying for something twice. Hmmm
Conundrum aside, I am halfway through. This book knits together the two stories, in a different narrative style: one character takes centre stage. His story is told as a story to his lover who turns it into a (almost Biblical) story for a species of not-but-almost-human beings, who are depicted as childlike in their ignorance but are probably better suited to the world, honestly.
All of these stories tell the story of how pre-pandemic society became further divided than ours (pre-pre-pandemic) into haves and have-nots, both brainwashed (sometimes violently) into maintaining the status quo. Except, as we all know, sometimes wolves make their way into the herd and these wolves were called the MaddAddamites, and named themselves after animals we have made extinct. Whatever, because the pandemic happened and now they're telling stories in the aftermath.
No spoilers there, I promise.
I haven't finished the book so cart - horse, y'know, but based on The Year of the Flood, there is none of the same crypticness and magic of Oryx and Crake. That book punched me in my stomach, because Snowman-the-Jimmy's story was impossible to fully untangle. It also ended with another punch that physically made me blink and try to block the memory out. Although there have been moments of unveiling, where clues have fitted together, there hasn't been the same kind of (almost Biblical) revelation.
That said, I can't get enough of Zeb's story in MaddAddam, where he (so far) plays an incidental role in the pandemic, although we already know he is critical after it. (It's always the people prepared to hit under the belt that survive in a pandemic. Remember this, peeps, when you play guns and crossbows in your minds.) This is exactly the reason I am slowplaying my reading. (No, not to learn how to use a crossbow, because I am comfortable with the under-the-belt people doing it for me.) Because, based on my experience of Oryx and Crake, I will have to manage the craving after I have put it down.
Forget the apocalypse, this is a far more important (and imminent) problem.
All of the books are narratives within narratives: told first by the character (almost self-consciously because they are pretty much telling their stories to themselves, old loud, which is not considered crazy in an apocalypse), and then revised for an audience, even if we aren't always privy to the telling. Although AS Byatt hits - nail - head with Possession about post-Modern society, universally people enjoy stories. In a story, you are the maker of your own destiny.
Stories lead you into the garage of your mind, to topple the piles of things you prefer to ignore. That may be as damaging in the lead-up to a pandemic than how it is executed. With stories, and in the toppling, we imagine the means of our destruction into being.
A blog about a life lived in literature and a career in publishing, with occasional musings and rants.
Showing posts with label Margaret Atwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Margaret Atwood. Show all posts
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
The list of magnanimity
Dear reader, have you been paying attention? Have you? Here's a test: do I prefer chocolate or strawberry ice cream? You could answer: by 'I' do you mean the tapper of keys behind this blog or the one who just took a sip of coffee? When in doubt always answer a question with a question. (Just one of the many nuggets I have pilfered from The Office.)
That's not the test. The answer is obvious: chocolate. We'll tackle this later. Now, the real test is whether you have noticed that I have been speeding through some of the classics and some of the strawberry-flavoured books in my local library. Your reply? Should I have noticed? You learn well, my young padawan.
My number one survival strategy is lists, whether written down and colour-coded or mental and therefore quickly lost. This is core to my zombie apocalypse slash hunger games strategy, so I will tell you only that it involves post-its and a tree.
Anyway, last post I abused Borges' library, a really innocuous building that happens to have swallowed all eternity. Which should be paradise for us bibliophiles. (Dibs on 'F' in the fiction section. Ok, fine, 'M' then.) It isn't. It is terrifying. You've heard about the marketing study where they found that too much choice actually drives consumers away. And every salesperson knows to only give a person three options and to place the option that gives you a higher commission first.
The scale of published fiction in the last 100 years is like counting the human population since we first started practising pressing the buttons of video games with our thumbs. Confining the headcount to literary fiction, I mumble guiltily, still doesn't help. This isn't a choice between different scents of floor cleaner (FYI, no scent, especially not made-up ones like Bright Sunshine), no, this is literature!
This eternal library is a case of survival. Instead of killing zombies and other children, we must read everything. That's an exaggeration, you snort (I can hear you, through the microphone, so be please be polite about my bibliophilic delusion).
In the absence of chocolate and strawberry coloured stickers along the spines to guide my quest, I have made a list. Ok, many lists and some were colour-coded. Some are stuck on my fridge but are so faded and blotched with coffee stains you can't read them, others are pinned to a ribbon knotted onto my bedroom door handle, and some are lost in the right hemisphere of my brain, because that's where lost and found is.
The winners of this game are the titles posted on this blog, to the right >>, and those saved on my phone. The one occasion I deviated from this list ended badly, not in a zombie bite, but in disappointment. Point proven; lists are the key to survival. Also, apparently, technology.
Now that I have distracted you from the impending reappearance of the Dreaded List on this blog, here is a condensed list of my approved reads (and future reviews), gleaned mostly from the internet (the most trustworthy, obviously) and recommendations (a mixed bag, except for the ones on FB, obviously):
That's not the test. The answer is obvious: chocolate. We'll tackle this later. Now, the real test is whether you have noticed that I have been speeding through some of the classics and some of the strawberry-flavoured books in my local library. Your reply? Should I have noticed? You learn well, my young padawan.
My number one survival strategy is lists, whether written down and colour-coded or mental and therefore quickly lost. This is core to my zombie apocalypse slash hunger games strategy, so I will tell you only that it involves post-its and a tree.
Anyway, last post I abused Borges' library, a really innocuous building that happens to have swallowed all eternity. Which should be paradise for us bibliophiles. (Dibs on 'F' in the fiction section. Ok, fine, 'M' then.) It isn't. It is terrifying. You've heard about the marketing study where they found that too much choice actually drives consumers away. And every salesperson knows to only give a person three options and to place the option that gives you a higher commission first.
The scale of published fiction in the last 100 years is like counting the human population since we first started practising pressing the buttons of video games with our thumbs. Confining the headcount to literary fiction, I mumble guiltily, still doesn't help. This isn't a choice between different scents of floor cleaner (FYI, no scent, especially not made-up ones like Bright Sunshine), no, this is literature!
This eternal library is a case of survival. Instead of killing zombies and other children, we must read everything. That's an exaggeration, you snort (I can hear you, through the microphone, so be please be polite about my bibliophilic delusion).
In the absence of chocolate and strawberry coloured stickers along the spines to guide my quest, I have made a list. Ok, many lists and some were colour-coded. Some are stuck on my fridge but are so faded and blotched with coffee stains you can't read them, others are pinned to a ribbon knotted onto my bedroom door handle, and some are lost in the right hemisphere of my brain, because that's where lost and found is.
The winners of this game are the titles posted on this blog, to the right >>, and those saved on my phone. The one occasion I deviated from this list ended badly, not in a zombie bite, but in disappointment. Point proven; lists are the key to survival. Also, apparently, technology.
Now that I have distracted you from the impending reappearance of the Dreaded List on this blog, here is a condensed list of my approved reads (and future reviews), gleaned mostly from the internet (the most trustworthy, obviously) and recommendations (a mixed bag, except for the ones on FB, obviously):
- 1Q84 by Haruki Marukami (unread; alternate history) I think I've bored you enough with my ravings about this and Kafka on the Shore. That's why bloggers use labels (below right)
- Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem (unread; cross-genre) having read a couple of his other novels, I wouldn't rank him above David Mitchell in this category, but then I don't think many short of James Joyce could
- Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (read; dystopian) the character of the girl at the beginning cinched this novel for me, although I wasn't so thrilled with the book-burning
- Flaubert's Parrot by Julian Barnes (unread; literary) I hereby admit that I have never read this classic novel
- A Hologram for the King by Dave Eggers (unread; post-modern look how smart I am) we studied A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and I hated it for exactly the same reason others adore it: the the iconoclastic, self-conscious self-deprecation, but I'm willing to give him another go. I'm magnanimous like that
- The Maddadam books by Margaret Atwood (two of three read; apocalyptic) post in proximity, so work, you
- The Member of the Wedding by Carson Mccullers (unread; literary) I'm magnanimous but not perfect. I hate Mccullers just a teensy bit because she published The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, which is beautiful, at 23. Pure jealousy. I will read this but I will feel sorry for myself the entire time, so prepare yourselves
- The Postman Always Rings Twice by James M Cain (read; noir fiction) only 116 pages but perfectly paced. I don't usually enjoy crime novels but this was a satisfying, meaty use of the conventions
- Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut (unread; satire) I have faith but I need it because I read Cat's Cradle recently. It is a few marbles short of Philip K Dick's drug-fuelled novels. So, yes, I need it
- Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A Heinlein (partly read; science fiction) the beginning reminds me of A Brave New World, although I can't say why. Also reminds me of the soundtrack to Lost Boys: "People are strange when you're a stranger"
My closest library loans out books for two weeks at a time. That gives me 16 weeks to finish all eight of the unread books. But don't worry, I'll sneak in some unexpected reviews just to see if you've been paying attention. You.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
The Year of the Flood
On a shelf in Borges's library is a box. (Ok, there are many shelves and many boxes maybe even many libraries). This shelf and box is the one on your right. The other right. No, no, his left. Three-hundred-and-sixty degrees from her right. Dammit, you lost it. Nevermind; we'll get another box and label it in permanent marker. Underneath I will write: "You, the reader, lost the first box" and I will tie it to you with rope that scratches the inside of your wrist.
So I write (stop crowding me) "Literary Science-Fiction". But the letters are small and there is a space to the right and below as if something should follow. This isn't necessarily significant: writing in permanent marker on an object is as difficult as writing in a straight line with chalk. Into this box we tip Margaret Atwood, followed by the world and her husband because nerds are the cool kids right now. Which is, in its own way, a blip in the multi-verse.
Ms Atwood hates the label on the box, and not just because of the handwriting. I don't know her personally, but in a way I do, because I follow her on Twitter. I know she hates the label because I would too (as confirmed by a Gargoyle search). It's not because the label suggests that science fiction is lowbrow. It's because writers don't like boxes. We imagine that we live around the box, spending our days decorating it with warning signs, like the Borrowers in The Borrowers but more cynical.
I bet the marketing department adore that label. I bet they invented it. I also bet (I'm going to be rich) that they adore that she hates the label. They hand her buttons and glue to make pretty patterns on the wall of the nearest box, and she looks at them and paces the length of said box dropping buttons along the way. And they cheer. Because, you see, we're all in boxes with boxes stacked on our heads and around our arms like bangles. We need boxes because otherwise we would suffocate in the chaos of the universe. Trust me on this.
Why am I taking Ms Atwood in and out of the box and giving her buttons to drop like breadcrumbs? You guessed it! I just finished The Year of the Flood. Now, you know reading about books is only worthwhile if we meander down hillocks and over rivers, because otherwise, you could just spend the time reading the book. You have also guessed the Ms Atwood and I have 'a history', albeit one she knows nothing about even though I follow her on Twitter.
The first book of hers that I read was Oryx and Crake, which is part of a set of three (not a trilogy, no; more like a puzzle but not all the pieces match) including The Year of the Flood. I was a bookseller and I bought it on sale because I had heard the surname Atwood whispered among my learned friends but mostly because it is a deckle-edged, first-edition hardcover.
I disliked the book at the time. Her writing style is precise, almost minimalistic, and so much is left buried under the rubble of disaster, because it is easier than digging it out and discovering that what you have your hand is a child's shoe. Or so I thought. I was quick to believe the worst because I needed some boxes. Or shoes. Anything to hold in my hands. This easy disdain festered until I wasn't sure how I felt about the book. Or the author.
Next I read The Blind Assassin and the The Handmaid's Tale. Neither of which I can remember. Here she buried me with boxes, took them away, put them back the wrong way up and dowsed them in water. I'd had it! By now, you and I know that protest is a sure sign that you have trampled on something you care about. Still, Oryx and Crake festered. By now, I thought the book was ok, maybe even good, perhaps by some fluke. Sometimes authors write things by accident. Although I have not experienced this.
Now we get to the actual topic. Eight paragraphs later. Honestly, you have travelled further in search of My Point before, so no whinging.
The Year of the Flood, as I mentioned is part of a set, with Oryx and Crake and Maddadam. Like Oryx and Crake, the book is narrated from just after the apocalypse, although most of the book is a reflection on events before it. Yes, this is a dystopian, post-apocalyptic novel and I said I would give you a break from this, but this is what's cool. Yo. Now button up your plaid and appreciate.
The first third (and I am being kind here) is no less confusing than Oryx and Crake, because both jump from person to place to time without always being specific. But the narrative of The Year of the Flood does even out. Characters begin to reappear consistently, as do places, and mostly in chronological order. It is almost as though the author is teasing us with the character Ren, withholding so much and then releasing it like the wall of a dam. (Get it? Dam... Flood. Har!)
This worked for me better than the unceasing teasing of Oryx and Crake. I was pulled along by the main characters, sympathising and even empathising with them, even when things got damn right weird and the characters seemed to have switched personalities with people not even in the novel. Even now I have soft spots for Ren and Toby, although the spots for Amanda and the boys are small. They have to balance on the sole of one foot.
But The Year of the Flood is not festering like Oryx and Crake did. It has found its place on my shelf and I would loan it out because it is a good book and you should read it. The narrative and characters are fixed, while those of Oryx and Crake swirl around like milk that never turns into cheese, not even blue cheese. Then again, perhaps I am judging it too soon. Perhaps it will sizzle rather than swirl or fester. Perhaps it will only be complete when I read Maddadam.
So, it's on my shelf - they're on my shelf, because it fits into a bunch of different boxes. I didn't intend this (I swear), even though I started off on a rant about genre, but none of my comments have anything to do with the label. What sold me on The Year of the Flood were the characters and what haunts me about Oryx and Crake is the discontinuity of the narrative. No mention of rubble or shoes or carnivorous pigs. Until now. Surprise!
Now I dare you to pick up all the boxes (use the muscles in your legs - yes, like that) and distribute them around the library. I won't yell at you this time or chain you to anything. I only did that the first time to see if you'd let me, oh passive reader you.
So I write (stop crowding me) "Literary Science-Fiction". But the letters are small and there is a space to the right and below as if something should follow. This isn't necessarily significant: writing in permanent marker on an object is as difficult as writing in a straight line with chalk. Into this box we tip Margaret Atwood, followed by the world and her husband because nerds are the cool kids right now. Which is, in its own way, a blip in the multi-verse.
Ms Atwood hates the label on the box, and not just because of the handwriting. I don't know her personally, but in a way I do, because I follow her on Twitter. I know she hates the label because I would too (as confirmed by a Gargoyle search). It's not because the label suggests that science fiction is lowbrow. It's because writers don't like boxes. We imagine that we live around the box, spending our days decorating it with warning signs, like the Borrowers in The Borrowers but more cynical.
I bet the marketing department adore that label. I bet they invented it. I also bet (I'm going to be rich) that they adore that she hates the label. They hand her buttons and glue to make pretty patterns on the wall of the nearest box, and she looks at them and paces the length of said box dropping buttons along the way. And they cheer. Because, you see, we're all in boxes with boxes stacked on our heads and around our arms like bangles. We need boxes because otherwise we would suffocate in the chaos of the universe. Trust me on this.
Why am I taking Ms Atwood in and out of the box and giving her buttons to drop like breadcrumbs? You guessed it! I just finished The Year of the Flood. Now, you know reading about books is only worthwhile if we meander down hillocks and over rivers, because otherwise, you could just spend the time reading the book. You have also guessed the Ms Atwood and I have 'a history', albeit one she knows nothing about even though I follow her on Twitter.
The first book of hers that I read was Oryx and Crake, which is part of a set of three (not a trilogy, no; more like a puzzle but not all the pieces match) including The Year of the Flood. I was a bookseller and I bought it on sale because I had heard the surname Atwood whispered among my learned friends but mostly because it is a deckle-edged, first-edition hardcover.
I disliked the book at the time. Her writing style is precise, almost minimalistic, and so much is left buried under the rubble of disaster, because it is easier than digging it out and discovering that what you have your hand is a child's shoe. Or so I thought. I was quick to believe the worst because I needed some boxes. Or shoes. Anything to hold in my hands. This easy disdain festered until I wasn't sure how I felt about the book. Or the author.
Next I read The Blind Assassin and the The Handmaid's Tale. Neither of which I can remember. Here she buried me with boxes, took them away, put them back the wrong way up and dowsed them in water. I'd had it! By now, you and I know that protest is a sure sign that you have trampled on something you care about. Still, Oryx and Crake festered. By now, I thought the book was ok, maybe even good, perhaps by some fluke. Sometimes authors write things by accident. Although I have not experienced this.
Now we get to the actual topic. Eight paragraphs later. Honestly, you have travelled further in search of My Point before, so no whinging.
The Year of the Flood, as I mentioned is part of a set, with Oryx and Crake and Maddadam. Like Oryx and Crake, the book is narrated from just after the apocalypse, although most of the book is a reflection on events before it. Yes, this is a dystopian, post-apocalyptic novel and I said I would give you a break from this, but this is what's cool. Yo. Now button up your plaid and appreciate.
The first third (and I am being kind here) is no less confusing than Oryx and Crake, because both jump from person to place to time without always being specific. But the narrative of The Year of the Flood does even out. Characters begin to reappear consistently, as do places, and mostly in chronological order. It is almost as though the author is teasing us with the character Ren, withholding so much and then releasing it like the wall of a dam. (Get it? Dam... Flood. Har!)
This worked for me better than the unceasing teasing of Oryx and Crake. I was pulled along by the main characters, sympathising and even empathising with them, even when things got damn right weird and the characters seemed to have switched personalities with people not even in the novel. Even now I have soft spots for Ren and Toby, although the spots for Amanda and the boys are small. They have to balance on the sole of one foot.
But The Year of the Flood is not festering like Oryx and Crake did. It has found its place on my shelf and I would loan it out because it is a good book and you should read it. The narrative and characters are fixed, while those of Oryx and Crake swirl around like milk that never turns into cheese, not even blue cheese. Then again, perhaps I am judging it too soon. Perhaps it will sizzle rather than swirl or fester. Perhaps it will only be complete when I read Maddadam.
So, it's on my shelf - they're on my shelf, because it fits into a bunch of different boxes. I didn't intend this (I swear), even though I started off on a rant about genre, but none of my comments have anything to do with the label. What sold me on The Year of the Flood were the characters and what haunts me about Oryx and Crake is the discontinuity of the narrative. No mention of rubble or shoes or carnivorous pigs. Until now. Surprise!
Now I dare you to pick up all the boxes (use the muscles in your legs - yes, like that) and distribute them around the library. I won't yell at you this time or chain you to anything. I only did that the first time to see if you'd let me, oh passive reader you.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
I blame it on the bad coffee
'Print is dead!' said Nietzsche. 'YouTube killed the radio star,' said some band no one remembers. 'It's the end of the world as we know it,' said a social worker with a condition that makes him chronically sensitive to light.
Yes, I meant to bend those sayings to my will. To my will and my keyboard. To my will, my keyboard and the weight of the inter-space. We (not the royal we) are making a statement. Not an Occupy-esque statement (I really don't like to smell and I really really don't like smelling other people, and sometimes (tiny white lie), I really really really don't like people (definition: more than three within a hundred metres of me)) (also, since, I've already dropped a few brackets and one more set won't hurt, your time might be better spent helping families who have lost everything than getting smoke-bombed and rubber-bulleted in a park like a game of paintball).
So, not that kind. (I also don't play paintball.) Just a small one, the size of 'Terms and conditions' text, which you need glasses to read even if you have 20:20 vision. Not even a statement really, an observation. Hey, come back! I didn't mean it! (stage whisper I did, but in for a penny, in for a pound. And penny wise, pound foolish. Finder's keepers, too.)
Progress is inevitable, here and now - not necessary, but that's another discussion. Nietzsche has been foretelling the death of print for years (did you know that we use more paper now that we have computers? Think about it) and now we're told that print will survive in niche markets, but isn't creating communities one of the characteristics of the Internet, and why oh why are people sending this junk to me in daily newsletters?
Go do something, people. Go start a print business or an internet business or feed starving children. (Not you, them; although the latter would of course be very constructive.) I mean, really, things die every day. And sometimes they just change.
Why have you (and I) had to sit through this rampage (say the word with the French accent, just 'cos)? Because I feel guilty. I own a Kindle. My excuses are (because people question me often): a) I only download books I wouldn't buy in hardcopy, to stand on my shelves until I 'pass' and my grandchildren throw them at a second-hand book dealer, b) it is ideal to travel with (and I do travel), c) see above regarding progress and the annoying columnists my inbox harbours.
But really (and even though I still read and buy hardcopy books - I swear my books are staring at me), I like my Kindle. It's a bookshop I can carry around with me. Granted, sometimes the formatting is off and so is the editing, the bookmark function is not what you'd think, and I miss page numbers. But this bookshop is huge and it contains editions you can't find elsewhere and it's more affordable than hardcopy books. (Collusion of the ethical people who cut down trees at the pace of 50 football fields a day.)
There's just one leetle thing. I was sitting at an airport in a town (that I still have never found, meaning where are the buildings?!), on a work trip (remember I'm in publishing, so I read a lot of stuff), three hours early for my flight because Customs closes at 15.00. (I expected sniffer dogs and all they did was try to trick me so they could tell that my passport is real. So what do they do until 17.00? Do they have to refill the stamps? Recite the passport details from memory? Feed the dogs? Study how to be as miserable as possible?!)
Oh, and my laptop battery was dead. The last thing I wanted to do was read anything serious. As you can imagine, my Kindle library is very serious. Snort. No. The serious stuff is mostly the stuff I should read and mean to read but cringe from because I do not possess that kind of vocabulary and I'm embarrassed to tell Kindle that I need to look up a word. I have some very frivolous material in my library, but I wanted something short and about 3 steps on the trashy scale (the Kardashians being a 10).
Kindle Singles are the other wonderful thing about a Kindle. They are novellas, longer than a short story but short enough to read in one sitting. Perfect for my one sitting. My favourites are the serials: Positron and Wool. Not trashy enough. Some stuff on Obama, obesity, blah. Then 3rd-rung trashy, possibly 5th. I'm too embarrassed to tell you.
But to not tell you would really annoy you and then you'd leave and then I couldn't stage an Occupy with you smelly people, if I wanted to.
Ok... It's a single about a guy's experiences with dating, specifically online dating. I want to salvage my pride by saying I have never tried online dating, but honestly I think it takes guts. And perhaps some trusty friends on automatic dial who are very good at faking situations like a python in the lounge wrestling a cushion or a plague of chicken pox or burst water pipes or geysers or sewers.
He talks about some of the dates he's been on, which is amusing and which was all I was really there for. Trashy is code for wanting to laugh at or disdain or just judge other people. I just wanted to hear about his worst dates. He describes about five. He also talks you through creating an online profile. Aaaaaand I think that was it.
Remember when I said there was 'a leetle thing' (you should remember because I spelt it funny)? Normally I would not have read, nevermind paid for, a book or magazine or pamphlet like this. I was looking for something to soothe my tired eyes and brain. This single was amusing for roughly half an hour. But it wasn't soothing and then it was just annoying and I drank some coffee and worked using pen and paper and boarded the plane and slept and looked out of the window and wished I were home already.
(FYI people around this continent drink very bad coffee, including this town that I can't find, though I found the airport... 3 hours early. Very bad.)
Anyway, take me as a case in point. Here I sit, happily typing away, anything just anything that comes to mind, and then I post it and tweet the URL and people read it. Hopefully. (Can spambots read? Like AI-style?) No gatekeepers except the volatility of my laptop and internet connection. As an editor, I appreciate the need for mediators. As writer, I do not see why mediation is necessary. As a reader, I think I want buying trash to be a little bit more difficult, so that I come to my senses (however ragged) before I press 'Buy'.
PS. Here's the link. I judge myself more than you ever can.
Yes, I meant to bend those sayings to my will. To my will and my keyboard. To my will, my keyboard and the weight of the inter-space. We (not the royal we) are making a statement. Not an Occupy-esque statement (I really don't like to smell and I really really don't like smelling other people, and sometimes (tiny white lie), I really really really don't like people (definition: more than three within a hundred metres of me)) (also, since, I've already dropped a few brackets and one more set won't hurt, your time might be better spent helping families who have lost everything than getting smoke-bombed and rubber-bulleted in a park like a game of paintball).
So, not that kind. (I also don't play paintball.) Just a small one, the size of 'Terms and conditions' text, which you need glasses to read even if you have 20:20 vision. Not even a statement really, an observation. Hey, come back! I didn't mean it! (stage whisper I did, but in for a penny, in for a pound. And penny wise, pound foolish. Finder's keepers, too.)
Progress is inevitable, here and now - not necessary, but that's another discussion. Nietzsche has been foretelling the death of print for years (did you know that we use more paper now that we have computers? Think about it) and now we're told that print will survive in niche markets, but isn't creating communities one of the characteristics of the Internet, and why oh why are people sending this junk to me in daily newsletters?
Go do something, people. Go start a print business or an internet business or feed starving children. (Not you, them; although the latter would of course be very constructive.) I mean, really, things die every day. And sometimes they just change.
Why have you (and I) had to sit through this rampage (say the word with the French accent, just 'cos)? Because I feel guilty. I own a Kindle. My excuses are (because people question me often): a) I only download books I wouldn't buy in hardcopy, to stand on my shelves until I 'pass' and my grandchildren throw them at a second-hand book dealer, b) it is ideal to travel with (and I do travel), c) see above regarding progress and the annoying columnists my inbox harbours.
But really (and even though I still read and buy hardcopy books - I swear my books are staring at me), I like my Kindle. It's a bookshop I can carry around with me. Granted, sometimes the formatting is off and so is the editing, the bookmark function is not what you'd think, and I miss page numbers. But this bookshop is huge and it contains editions you can't find elsewhere and it's more affordable than hardcopy books. (Collusion of the ethical people who cut down trees at the pace of 50 football fields a day.)
There's just one leetle thing. I was sitting at an airport in a town (that I still have never found, meaning where are the buildings?!), on a work trip (remember I'm in publishing, so I read a lot of stuff), three hours early for my flight because Customs closes at 15.00. (I expected sniffer dogs and all they did was try to trick me so they could tell that my passport is real. So what do they do until 17.00? Do they have to refill the stamps? Recite the passport details from memory? Feed the dogs? Study how to be as miserable as possible?!)
Oh, and my laptop battery was dead. The last thing I wanted to do was read anything serious. As you can imagine, my Kindle library is very serious. Snort. No. The serious stuff is mostly the stuff I should read and mean to read but cringe from because I do not possess that kind of vocabulary and I'm embarrassed to tell Kindle that I need to look up a word. I have some very frivolous material in my library, but I wanted something short and about 3 steps on the trashy scale (the Kardashians being a 10).
Kindle Singles are the other wonderful thing about a Kindle. They are novellas, longer than a short story but short enough to read in one sitting. Perfect for my one sitting. My favourites are the serials: Positron and Wool. Not trashy enough. Some stuff on Obama, obesity, blah. Then 3rd-rung trashy, possibly 5th. I'm too embarrassed to tell you.
But to not tell you would really annoy you and then you'd leave and then I couldn't stage an Occupy with you smelly people, if I wanted to.
Ok... It's a single about a guy's experiences with dating, specifically online dating. I want to salvage my pride by saying I have never tried online dating, but honestly I think it takes guts. And perhaps some trusty friends on automatic dial who are very good at faking situations like a python in the lounge wrestling a cushion or a plague of chicken pox or burst water pipes or geysers or sewers.
He talks about some of the dates he's been on, which is amusing and which was all I was really there for. Trashy is code for wanting to laugh at or disdain or just judge other people. I just wanted to hear about his worst dates. He describes about five. He also talks you through creating an online profile. Aaaaaand I think that was it.
Remember when I said there was 'a leetle thing' (you should remember because I spelt it funny)? Normally I would not have read, nevermind paid for, a book or magazine or pamphlet like this. I was looking for something to soothe my tired eyes and brain. This single was amusing for roughly half an hour. But it wasn't soothing and then it was just annoying and I drank some coffee and worked using pen and paper and boarded the plane and slept and looked out of the window and wished I were home already.
(FYI people around this continent drink very bad coffee, including this town that I can't find, though I found the airport... 3 hours early. Very bad.)
Anyway, take me as a case in point. Here I sit, happily typing away, anything just anything that comes to mind, and then I post it and tweet the URL and people read it. Hopefully. (Can spambots read? Like AI-style?) No gatekeepers except the volatility of my laptop and internet connection. As an editor, I appreciate the need for mediators. As writer, I do not see why mediation is necessary. As a reader, I think I want buying trash to be a little bit more difficult, so that I come to my senses (however ragged) before I press 'Buy'.
PS. Here's the link. I judge myself more than you ever can.
Labels:
don't read this book,
Kindle,
Margaret Atwood,
Singles,
Wool
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)