All in all, not great mystery, not a very interesting crime. Makes for a Gregory MacDonald-type tour
of interior design, without the wonderful dialogue. But the interplay between cat and owner is nice. Did
I mention I like cats?
The Plague Albert Camus
The coastal town of Oran in Algeria is beset by an outbreak of bubonic plague, and before long the
government has the place under general quarantine indefinitely. The residents can't leave, and are faced
daily with the possibility that they may get the plague and die. So it's the old existential chestnut:
you can die at any time, so what difference does it make what you do? Never have I seen it rendered so
dull and uninteresting. The characters are forgettable, the prose is detached and flat, and the story is
just about non-existent. And as epidemiology goes, this is mediocre at best. Defoe did better in
JOURNAL OF THE PLAGUE YEAR. I'll try THE STRANGER, maybe, but I have no enthusiasm.
The Leaf Storm Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Anyway, the book CUCKOO'S NEST is an interesting read, since it's told from the
perspective of Chief Bromden, a paranoid delusional: he describes the machinery that he thinks
runs the mental ward, with the staff as robots. And that sometimes they use a fog machine to
cloud up the place, so that all the patients stay lost in a haze. But while that makes for some
wonderfully detailed observations, it makes for too much distance from the two main characters,
Randle Patrick McMurphy and Big Nurse Ratched, so that they only function as elements of the plot,
free spirit vs rigorous authority. No insights into why rebels are rebellious, or why authority
has to be so rigorous. I guess that's not this story; as it is, it's rightfully a classic
depiction of taking on The System, with a set of memorable characters.
He makes some allusion to the fact that the nation at large condones slavery, which he
obviously finds reprehensible. But it seems to me that since the tax he is evading is a
local one, his protest as a political statement thereupon is indirect at best. Seems to me he's
just indignant about having to pay a tax. And I can kind of see his point, since he's writing from an America that has one hell of
a lot less in the way of infrastructure, the primary justification for why our current tax
system is necessary. But all this talk of the outdoorsy individual having no need of
an overbearing government rings a little hollow, seeing as Thoreau didn't get much further
into the wilderness than a few miles from Boston. He was a few decades younger than Daniel
Boone: now there's someone who meant it.
Not bad, for the teen crowd of its day (published 1952), and has an amusing bit that predates
Huple's cat's infamous sleeping habit in Catch-22, but overall this one won't fire
your imagination. Well, here's a great example. I found this book by accident, at a used bookstore, a tattered
reprint of the 1932 original. If the name Karel Capek rings a bell, it's because he's the
Czechoslovakian who coined the term robot back in 1920, in his play ROSSUM'S UNIVERSAL
ROBOTS. And while he may be remembered as a social commentator in the style of George Orwell or
H.G. Wells, it should be noted that he has a good respect for science as it fits into his story:
a Dutch sea captain in the East Indies of the 1930's happens upon a species of large salamanders,
or newts, living off the shore of a particular island. They can walk upright, out of the water,
for limited periods of time, have prehensile forelimbs, and can vocalize, with an impressive
mimicry of human speech. But they're fairly unsophisticated (other than their penchant for
building dams and artificial reefs), so once captured they make for easy, cheap labor. Capek sets
up a commerce in newts as a Swiftian parable on human slave trade; and for the most part, it
works very well. By the time the newts come to be integral to the world's industrial and maritime
economies, there arise debates about newt rights and the role of newts in human society...just as
newts begin to coalesce into what could pass for a civilization of their own. And a slave revolt
can't be far behind.... I really like H.G. Wells, not so much for his social commentary (which was fairly progressive
for his day) as his attention to scientific detail. Allow me to call him, and of course Jules
Verne, the first writers of what can be called hard science fiction (as opposed to most of the
sci-fi of the 1930's and 40's, which don't seem to be much interested in the factual or realistic
basis for a given scenario--culminating in Ray Bradbury, who is just short of scientifically
illiterate). I just read a book of Wells' short stories earlier this year, and I was impressed
by how intriguing and inventive his ideas were. Underlying it was a subtle sense of humor, as
evidenced in stories like "In the Abyss" or "Aepyornis Island"--and Capek has a similar tone. I'm
very curious to read Capek's other stuff, including R.U.R., of course.
And, come to think of it, the only other modern science fiction writer I've read that's had to be
translated into English was Stanislaw Lem. Oh, and Jorge Luis Borges (who's sci-fi, I'll argue
that any day--). So maybe we in English could try to understand the musings of other cultures,
once in a while. I don't get it at all. Sure, Fred Exley may be perpetually drunk and quite
often irresponsible, but I don't think he's necessarily a bad person.
Particularly when compared to another novel I read from the same era, John
Updike's RABBIT, RUN: Harry Angstrom, now that guy's nothing but a prick. Where
Updike was trying to invoke some of the restive complacency of the 1950's and
60's, Exley was out railing against it. This cost him more than a few jobs
(public relations, school teacher, and a brief stint as aluminum siding
salesman), led him back home to his parents' house in upstate New York for an
extended stay, and landed him in a mental hospital (twice). But he's no Holden
Caulfield: sure, I loved CATCHER IN THE RYE, but there's something about J.D.
Salinger that's fairly superficial and, dare I say it, immature. I just read
FRANNY AND ZOOEY last year, and just about hated it. I think, like Updike,
Salinger tries to get at suburban angst via exhaustion, sending his characters
through the paces of vapid dialogue and empty situations, to give them something
to do while you as the reader get frustrated with the meaningless of it all.
You can call it a character study, but at least as I read it, you're not going
to like the character much if they don't get frustrated themselves. Which is why I like Ex. He's an observer of humanity, like Ishmael or Huck
Finn, in the classic tradition, always commenting on the situation he's in, but
he's no hero, even in his own life. When, frequently, he finds himself doing or
saying something reprehensible, he shares his thinking and motivation, tinged
with a realization of how terrible he can be, but without any sort of remorse or
apology. Confession, without guilt: like someone getting up at an AA meeting
and telling all, but without the mea culpa. This makes him all the more human.
Perhaps the best example of this, which I can easily envision as a scene in a
movie, is when he gets out of the mental hospital in New York, and contacts the
family of a fellow patient, about to be released, who doesn't have anywhere to
go. From a payphone in Grand Central Station, he calls the man's sister and her
domineering husband, and quickly realizes that they won't take him in. Whatever
their history or family situation, Ex is struck by their callous disregard for
a family member who needs help. He has something of a meltdown on the phone, and
whether he's correctly admonishing them for their indifference or exorcising his
own demons isn't clear--just like in most cases where you overhear someone going
off like this. The kind of poignancy this lends to such a confrontation makes
the book a real winner. But challenging, and far from perfect. That's
Frederick Exley for you. What dreck. This is what inspired a generation?
It’s not good poetry, not an interesting use
of language, not a good evocation of its subject, the unfocused anguish of the
best minds of its generation. Some OK
metaphors and some jarring imagery, but overall, I’d have to agree with an
admonition I’d been given: just take
the acid yourself, it’s more fun that way.
At least when Burroughs does it, it’s as flat prose with no pretensions
to call itself poetry. (Did Burroughs
ever say NAKED LUNCH was a novel?) I
didn’t mind another poem in the volume (which I read just as a control),
“In Back of the Real”: that at least has the
benefit of Wallace Stevens-like brevity.One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Ken Kesey
Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau
The Rolling Stones Robert Heinlein
War With the Newts Karel Capek
A Fan's Notes Frederick Exley
The Postman Always Rings Twice James M Cain
Autobiography Of a Fat Bride: True Tales Of a Pretend Adulthood
Laurie Notaro
Zodiac Neal Stephenson
Billy Budd Herman Melville
Hombre  Elmore Leonard
Future Crime Ben Bova
Count Zero William Gibson
Howl! Allen Ginsberg
On the whole, not a terrible read, but very disappointing. Not a whole lot of medical detail, which I'd expected, since Robin Cook is himself a doctor (as opposed to Clancy, who packed a lot of medical information into EXECUTIVE ORDERS, though he's a goddamn investment broker from Merrill Lynch). The characters are facile, and the story is just this side of oh-you-gotta-be-kidding-me hokey. Michael Crichton (who directed the film version of Cook's novel COMA back in the 70's--a tight little thriller, actually) is maybe higher up on the implausible scale, but his books read faster and are a lot more informative; whereas his novels read like Hollywood script drafts, Cook reads like a USA Network movie of the week. I didn't think much of Patricia Cornwell, a few years ago when I read her first Kay Scarpetta novel, POST MORTEM, but she's better than this.