Monday, August 20, 2007

Steve Almond: My Life in Heavy Metal: Stories

My Life in Heavy Metal is a dozen stories about sex and love, being together and standing apart. Almond has a wonderfully strong and pungent voice. Some of the stories are excellent, some are duds; several have stuck with me. Well worth the read.

In the best of the collection, Almond truly inhabits his characters. Not only the protagonist, and not only the male characters; he also writes secondary characters who matter. The lively characters are the key to these stories in which, as Almond says, "What they do, and quite vigorously, is have sex and suffer heartbreak."

I really like that Almond uses sex to develop characters. In his stories, a sex scene or an emotional discussion doesn't halt the action; it's a means to explore conflict, to move the story forward. However, the earthiness of the stories gets strong reactions. Almond says his early reviews included headlines like "A Pervert Among Us" (NY Times Book Review, Apr '02), and "How Low Will He Go?" (Us, Jan '03).

The stories

Heavy Metal, Run Away My Pale Love, and Body in Extremis share a protagonist, a callow twentysomething who initially has his cake and eats it too. Some ten years later, he gets his just desserts. (Thank you, Steve Almond, for making your characters face their various assitudes. That twist provides an extra layer of development that's sometimes missing in short stories.)
Among the Ik
A widower feels his loneliness at a family gathering. A surprisingly touching story of loss.

Geek Player, Love Slayer
Almond creates a 30-something female journalist with a rapid cadence and a flip, hip way with words. Despite the irreverent, one-of-the-guys persona, she's vulnerable. She poses a good question, too, adding a dimension of social commentary:
How did Computer Guy become the Lifeguard of the decade? How did the mild-mannered Systems Manager morph into an omnipotent Geek Player, Love Slayer?
GP,LS is a favorite in the collection. Not because the protagonist is a woman (though Almond writes a great woman), or because I've experienced the pseudo-intimacy of the Geek Player crouching between my knees under my desk. From the first sentence the language makes me smile. Almond's sometimes rude, always lively narrative voice is especially strong here, even over the top in places. And despite its familiar plot, the story is meticulously structured to make for a satisfying resolution.

The Last Single Days of Don Viktor Potapenko
A 19-year-old would-be rebel meets a number of characters who genuinely live outside the conventions he grew up with. Among the least emotionally hooky stories in the collection.

The Law of Sugar
A strange little interlude between a librarian in a bar, a crank and his sister, and a... pack of feral dogs? Is this a shaggy dog story? It has all the makings, including the inconclusive ending. Enjoyably weird.

The Pass
A collection of ships passing in the night. Some good passages, some mawkish. Two strangers stranded at an airport.* A blind date. A bar pickup. Two gay soldiers far from home.
A man in a bar makes a pass at a woman. It's not a good era for passes, but he's giving it his all.
I enjoyed some of it very much, but the self-conscious pronouncements really got up my nose.
*This setup gave me déjà vu until I remembered Anne McCaffrey's Stitch in Snow. It even involves the Denver airport.

Moscow
Three pages of memories, of a phone call to Moscow and a factory tour in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Too oblique for me.

Valentino
A teenage boy spends the summer before college thinking about his status low in the social order. His train of thought is altered by a tale of Rudolph Valentino's emergence from overlooked to beautiful, from obscure to legendary.

How to Love a Republican
Two lobbyists--one for the left, one for the right--try for love without politics. He's deeply depressed over the lingering end of the 2004 presidential race; she's elated, energized, aware her party is taking her places. He wants to discuss their differing ideologies; she's deeply suspicious of the word, and perhaps of the whole conversation. Can they, and should they, go on?

Even the couple's sex life is mediated by their politics:
The female sex was, in political terms, the equivalent of the inner city: a dark and mysterious zone, vilified by the powerful, derided as incapable of self-improvement, entrenched and smelly. Going down on a woman was a dirty business, humiliating, potentially infectious, best delegated to the sensitivos of the Left.

I relished the act, which I considered to be what Joe Lieberman would have termed, in his phlegmy rabbinical tone, a mitvah. It required certain sacrifices. The deprivation of oxygen, to begin with. A certain ridiculousness of posture; cramping in the lower extremities. One had to engage with the process. There were no quick fixes.

Pornography
A vignette on women, violence, and men who are mesmerized by the two.

Interesting reading

Steve Almond on Moby Lives:
I view plot, most centrally, as a mechanism by which our heroine is forced to face her deepest fears and desires.
Bookslut has a great interview of Almond:
Why do you think so many authors have trouble writing sex scenes?

I don't know. I love it. I think it's, well, I don't know. It's hard to do, I guess. I think of it as… not easy, but you've got a lot to work with. You can talk about all of the senses, and it's a very emotional experience. I think it's in my work a lot because emotionally it's very extreme. It's a very vulnerable state, and I'm kind of an emotion junkie.

I know the culture at large is still stuck at the age 11 or 13 when it comes to sexuality. Everyone is so freaked out about it, even if they're "liberated." People are so fearful of their own desires that it becomes prurient, that sex doesn't feel very emotional to me. Sex in Hollywood movies seems so not hot. Porn is so stupid and terrible. You know what there isn't enough of is good, emotional, sensual writing, filmmaking, music. There just isn't enough of it, period. It's not just writers who struggle with that.
For Nerve, Almond's also written a 12-step program for writing sex scenes (including "sometimes sex is funny" and "Do not allow real people to talk in porn clichés"), and adjudicated a Bad Erotica contest. I'm sure that porn connotation will stick with him for a while, despite his other gig as pro blogger Baby Daddy.

Almond's received some attention for his nonfiction book Candyfreak: A Journey through the Chocolate Underbelly of America. I'm currently reading his collaborative epistolary novel with Julianna Baggott, Which Brings Me To You: A Novel in Confessions.

Overall grade for the collection: variable.... A few stories showed such an unique voice that I'll call it an A-.

Read more...

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Curtis Sittenfeld: Prep

Prep is a mostly well-written, acutely observant novel about a teenage misfit at an East Coast boarding school. I was pleasantly surprised to find fresh storytelling in such a well-worn plot.

Sittenfeld has an exceptionally strong voice, and Prep has a lot of perceptive passages depicting adolescence--along with a tangle of outsider issues: gender, class, race, and self-esteem. The book is light on plot, and it drags in places, but the running commentary on class, sex, and self kept me turning the pages with interest.

Fitting in

Prep shows the start of Lee Fiora's awkward years, a period of feeling out of step and desperate to fit in. Is that due to the school, or is it Lee? Would she have struggled equally at her local high school? It's hard to say.

Lee's plain-spoken Midwestern family are baffled by her desire to attend boarding school. Far from her family, Lee becomes someone they wouldn't recognize: not a snooty prep school girl but an unhappy, sneaky introvert, trying not to draw notice yet desperate for notice. (Lee could have been drawn from a brochure on low self-esteem in women.) Prep is full of canny little observations like this one:
On the circle, a bunch of boys were playing football, slipping and rolling in the grass. Listening to their cries, I felt a familiar jealousy of boys. I didn't want what they had, but I wished that I wanted what they wanted; it seemed like happiness was easier for them.
Indeed, some of the book's best moments use that gender divide to highlight the outsider's wish to be someone. Lee feels alienated from the other girls because of their social confidence, their calm, or their polish; she envies the boys' seeming freedom from her anxieties:
I wanted to take up people's time making jokes, to tease the dean in front of the entire school, to call him by a nickname. What I wanted was to be a cocky high-school boy, so fucking sure of my place in the world.
Critics compare Prep to The Catcher in the Rye, and I understand why. Prep puts the reader in the mind of an angry teen, unhappy with her lowly place in the scheme of things. Ed Park of Salon finds this typical:
The boarding-school bildungsroman is... [not] really about the privilege that permeates the setting. Indeed, an anti-materialist tone generally creeps in, and... the protagonist will be having a miserable time.
However, Lee couldn't be more different from Salinger's Holden Caulfield in her desperate desire to be part of the social hierarchy of the school. Lee behaves in ways her family would never understand, the start of a pattern in her life:
This was just the beginning! For years, there would be so many things I'd do for a guy that I wouldn't do in my usual life--jokes I wouldn't normally tell, places I wouldn't normally go, clothes I wouldn't normally wear, drinks I wouldn't normally drink, food I wouldn't normally eat or food I would normally eat but wouldn't eat in front of him.

Hemidemisemi-unreliable narrator

Sittenfeld manages to make the reader understand Lee and her surroundings more clearly than does Lee--but without undermining Lee as a narrator. It works because the teenage Lee isn't such an unreliable narrator that you can dismiss her perceptions; she excels at observing, and to some extent interpreting, life around her. Some of her self-analysis comes through hindsight as in the quote above, but most is relayed to us by her teenage self. She's more perceptive than many adults, but she flounders in applying it to herself and acting on it.

Lee also fails in her understanding of others: she sees the people around her primarily as symbols of what she lacks. Lee's limited vision is both a strength and a weakness in Prep. The other characters aren't very fully realized, which is a drag for the reader. On the other hand, this self-centered narration is fitting for the teenager Lee is, and late in the book Lee is forced to recognize that her vision has been one-dimensional; that she's grossly misperceived several people.

Coming of age

I'd wondered if Prep would be chick lit. I'd say no. It's a conventional coming-of-age story enlivened by tensions of class, gender, and race. Compared to the classic coming-of-age novels it's lightweight; most of Lee's difficulties could be easily solved if any adult chose to take an interest. But most comings-of-age aren't as full of sturm und drang as, say, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. As a candid eye into the head of an unhappy teenager, Prep is exceptional.

I said the book drags. Could Sittenfeld have layered in such a number of class, gender, race, and coming-of-age issues in a shorter book? Possibly not. The boarding-school setting (a thinly disguised version of Groton School) creates a microcosm in which Lee confronts a variety of issues in a short time and a small community. Nevertheless, at times I felt the book tried to do too much. Much as I enjoyed all the keen observations and bon mots, and the layer upon layer of issues, it could have been tightened up in the interests of keeping the story moving.

Prep was a sleeper hit in 2005. Sittenfeld's second novel, The Man of My Dreams, didn't sell quite as well: a mere 42,000 to date. Not bad. She's now working on a third novel.

Grade: B- for predictability; A- for perceptive, idiosyncratic writing. Overall... B+.

Read more...

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Austenland: A Disneyland for Darcyphiles

Austenophiles, this is a strange moment. Check out what just went on my To Be Read pile. A novel set in a Jane Austen theme park.

I'm a bit skeptical, for obvious reasons. I've read the Pride & Prejudice "sequels" and I'm not a Bridget Jones fan. This has potential to be a full degree worse, as the author sounds like more a Colin Firth as Darcy fan than an Austen fan. But I'm going to try it, because I'm fascinated by:
  1. the idea of a Jane Austen theme park
  2. the Jane Austen fangirl phenomenon
And you never know--it could be good; or at least provoke some interesting thoughts on Austen mania.

Darcy centrism

I like the sibilance of that phrase. Say it fast.

National Public Radio has an author interview, an excerpt, and audio on the historical context of P&P. In the interview, the author says she dedicated her book to Colin Firth because
Jane Austen's book are fabulous... but, by taking away the narrator and just having this story, Colin Firth really became Mr Darcy.

Hmm. I love Austen's narrative voice in P&P, and I find Firth only OK in the role. I love the Darcy character in the book, and I think the film with David Rintoul playing Darcy is closer to the book in many regards--particularly Darcy. (I also love Elizabeth's character, and the whole society Austen creates; I'm not primarily a Darcy fan.)

The interview talks a little about women who watch P&P primarily for the romance (as does the book's prologue, below). For example, the main character in Austenland watches and rewatches certain parts of the movie, e.g. Colin Firth emerging from the lake in a wet shirt. Do women read the book this way too--rereading just the "romantic" scenes? I don't, though of course I love those passages.

Regardless, the premise of Austenland gives me a reason to re-read and re-think some of my favorite discussions on Teach Me Tonight, on readers falling for the hero (especially Darcy), on the role of the setting (particularly Pemberley) in creating the attraction, and on what the reader brings to the text (especially Darcy); and on Smart Bitches about favorite kinds of heroes.

The author's site has more excerpts. Here's the prologue.

Prologue

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a thirty-something woman in possession of a satisfying career and fabulous hairdo must be in want of very little, and Jane Hayes, pretty enough and clever enough, was certainly thought to have little to distress her. There was no husband, but those weren’t necessary anymore. There were boyfriends, and if they came and went in a regular stream of mutual dissatisfaction—well, that was the way of things, wasn’t it?

But Jane had a secret. By day, she bustled and luncheoned and emailed and over timed and just-in-timed, but sometimes, when she had the time to slip off her consignment store pumps and lounge on her hand-me-down sofa, she dimmed the lights, turned on her nine inch television, and acknowledged what was missing.

Sometimes, she watched Pride and Prejudice.

You know, the BBC double DVD version, starring Colin Firth as the delicious Mr. Darcy and that comely, busty English actress as the Elizabeth Bennet we had imagined all along. Jane watched and re-watched the part where Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy look at each other over the piano, and there’s that zing, and her face softens, and he smiles, his chest heaving as though he’d breathe in the sight of her, and his eyes are glistening so that you’d almost think he’d cry...Ah!

Each time, Jane’s heart banged, her skin chilled, and she clamped down on the distracting ache in her gut with a bowl of something naughty, like Cocoa Pebbles. That night she would dream of gentlemen in Abraham Lincoln hats, and then in the morning laugh at herself and toy with the idea of hauling those DVDs and all her Austen books to the second hand store.

Of course, she never did.

That pesky movie version was the culprit. Sure, Jane had first read Pride and Prejudice when she was sixteen, read it a dozen times since, and read the other Austen novels at least twice, except Northanger Abbey (of course). But it wasn’t until the BBC put a face on the story that those gentlemen in tight breeches had stepped out of her reader’s imagination and into her non-fiction hopes. Stripped of Austen’s funny, insightful, biting narrator, the movie became a pure romance. And Pride and Prejudice was the most stunning, bite-your-hand romance ever, the kind that stared straight into Jane’s soul and made her shudder.

It was embarrassing. She didn’t really want to talk about it. So let’s move on.


Read more...

Monday, July 9, 2007

Melissa Bank: The Wonder Spot

I read The Wonder Spot out of morbid curiosity. It wasn't really worth it.

Last month I mentioned the war between authors Jennifer Weiner and Curtis Sittenfeld. I was fascinated: they spent more time reviewing each other's personalities and genre definitions than each other's books. And it was so damn circular:
  1. Melissa Bank wrote The Wonder Spot.

  2. Curtis Sittenfeld reviewed The Wonder Spot and said it tried to be Literature but it was just chick lit.

  3. Jennifer Weiner reviewed Sittenfeld's review and said Sittenfeld's own book, Prep, tried to be Literature but it was just chick lit.
    (Jennifer Weiner, btw, writes chick lit.)
And that's the version without the drama.

I won't review Weiner's review of Sittenfeld's review of Bank's book. That would be meta-meta-(meta?)-review, and Egging On Authors Behaving Badly besides. Instead I decided to read all three books.

First up: Wonder Spot

The Wonder Spot is a series of chapters in the life of Sophie. We first meet her at age 12, an ordinary girl growing up outside Philadelphia; the book ends with her near 40 in Manhattan. And that's about it. Banks drags us through Sophie's life, detail by detail, occasionally fast-forwarding a few years. Bank writes well, and I smiled at the occasional turn of phrase, but Sophie is most interesting early on, as a child; the college and adult chapters blur together. You can pick up the book at any point without losing the thread (or worrying that you've missed something).

Introducing... Generic Girl

It's hard to get a sense of Sophie as a distinct personality. Her voice, bland as it is, becomes familiar; as do her vital stats and family network. But there's no distinctive pattern of thought, nothing unique in her style of story telling. Only the external details (e.g. people's names) tell the reader that it's still Sophie speaking. There's no distinguishing characteristic giving a sense of recognition in each new section: "Yes! That's Sophie!" Nor a sense of "Oh, that's changed! This is Sophie grown up!"

A random walk

There's not really a plot, more a random walk through Sophie's life. That's a perfectly OK form, but to pull it off, there needs to be something keeping the reader engaged. Something like:
  • An interesting personality
  • Character growth
  • Atmosphere
  • Unusual setting/circumstances
  • A series of vignettes that capture truly fascinating moments
  • A series of vignettes that build on each other's events and symbols to create a larger narrative.
The Wonder Spot has none of these. By the end of the second chapter it's monotonous, and remains so through the end.

Sophie's lack of growth left me disappointed with the ending. By growth, I don't necessarily mean "improvement"; just that she sounds exactly the same (same voice, emotions, style of relationships) at 40 as she did as 12. In the final chapter, she's supposed to have found her wonder spot. But the section's only 7 pages long--and Sophie sounds 12. No more or less sure of herself, no more mature, no more distinct a personality. It's hard to believe in the passage of years since the previous chapter, let alone believe in any momentous personal change in Sophie.

Sittenfeld says she's disappointed by the predictability of Sophie's finding "11th-hour love". My disappointment is that the 11th-hour love affair substitutes for character development. It's as if Banks thinks "Is she alone at the end?" is all the reader needs to know. The flat ending leaves me with no urge to speculate (who is Sophie at 40? will this one last? has she really found her wonder spot?). Instead, it feels like just another episode in Sophie's span.

Chick lit?

I read Sittenfeld's review after writing my own, and was surprised at how often I agreed with her. Not on all points though, and I'm not sure about Sittenfeld's definition of chick lit.

Sittenfeld argues that chick lit's "appeal relies... on how closely readers relate to its protagonist." That jives with some of my feelings on chick lit. But in Wonder Spot, we see Sophie in a range of situations. Unlike a chick lit novel taking place within a single social circle and neighborhood, I imagine some readers could identify with some of Wonder Spot due to sheer variety of situations. So I'd say Wonder Spot's problem is more a failure of characterization; a focus on the surface; and especially a lack of character growth--all of which can happen in any genre, not just chick lit.

And again unlike most chick lit, Wonder Spot takes place over 25 years. It's a shame that that span of time isn't reflected in Sophie's narration. Sittenfeld seems to somewhat agree, so perhaps my quibble with her definition is all semantics: "Good novels allow us to feel what the characters feel, no matter how dissimilar their circumstances and ours."

I'm told Bank's debut, The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing was a lot more creative and readable. The Guide is a collection of short stories, and I can believe Bank might fare better in shorter form. But give The Wonder Spot a miss.

What would Yoda do?

So much for reading a book because of a flame war. Maybe this is a mini-lesson in motivation: "Read for the right reasons, you must." So should I still read Sittenfeld and Weiner? On the plus side, I agreed with a lot of Sittenfeld's review--though that doesn't mean I'd enjoy her fiction. On the minus side, the premise of Weiner's book sounds banal--I know that's just the cover copy, but it's not enticing.

Grade: C-


Read more...