American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld

      Sometimes the ladies in my library book club pass around books they’ve finished and don’t plan on reading again. Before I began my Great Book Purge (in anticipation of moving, of course), I was very willing to pick up any book at the great price of “free” and give it a shot. I would not have picked up American Wife if I’d had to pay for it. I read another Curtis Sittenfeld title before and I did not care for it. This one was not added to my list of favorites either.

     American Wife is based loosely on the real life Laura Bush. This is unfortunate, in my opinion because Laura Bush is still alive. Not that I believe in slandering people after they are dead either, but it does seem awkward to make a novel based on someone (and add your own juicy details) who can possibly contact you and tell you, you are out of line. Now, some things in the book do actually match the facts of the life of the real Laura Bush, but I’m sort of surprised Ms. Sittenfeld has been allowed to get away with some of this stuff.

     The story is of the life of Alice Blackwell nee Lindgren raised a democrat (true) in the state of Wisconsin (false). She was involved as a teenager in a hit and run accident with a classmate (true), who she was interested in since childhood (possibly?) and for the rest of her adult life she is plagued with wondering “what if” knowing forever that her “secret heart” will always belong to this young man (gross speculation). She lived with her parents and grandmother who was a closeted lesbian (uhhh…) and was a librarian with a deep love of books (true). Sometime during her younger more vulnerable years she gets pregnant by the brother of the young man who was killed in the tragic accident (unable to verify and totally out of line) and gets pregnant and has an abortion (at this point I’d be a little angry if I was Ms. Bush). She met George Bu—er, Charlie Blackwell at a barbecue (true) and married him later on (true) agreeing to support him as a wife while disagreeing with his political views (true).

     So, if I try to read this without picturing Laura Bush (this is virtually impossible), it’s an interesting story, but far far FAR too inappropriate for me to read. This is the exact problem I had with the last Sittenfeld novel I read, so I think this will be the last time I try. Ms. Sittenfeld is a good author who has good ideas. She spins a great yarn, you could say but I guess she’s of the school of writers who think you have to “spice up” your books to attract the reading public. *sigh*

     If I read the book thinking of Laura Bush, an unexpected (and ironic) aspect comes up. I’vewritten before about gossip in politics and how one should be careful to mock someone like Sarah Palin for her gaffs and make sure they know the whole story. There is an element of forgiveness for Charlie Blackwell as a person. After almost losing his wife, and getting a DUI, Charlie gets in touch with a pastor and is “born again.” Now, honestly, I don’t know if even Ms. Sittenfeld is aware of what that means other than “Charlie stopped drinking.” But George Bush did claim to be a Christian and only God and George Bush know whether he is or not. So, to dwell too much on his past sin of over indulgence in alcohol is out of line, unless there is a repeat DUI and he is running for President. Everyone makes mistakes and some can be forgiven. It has always confused me that the same people who worry about George Bush’s DUI are completely unconcerned about our current president’s former marijuana use. I think both are mistakes committed and should be treated the same.

     Also, a lot of the book talks about the war. This isn’t really a surprise, since George Bush will probably be remembered for his response to 9/11. In the persistent Great Man historiographical tradition, wars and presidents will forever be the milestones in most historical survey classes. So it would be impossible not to discuss George Bush without talking about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I respect the way Ms. Sittenfeld wrote about this. It would be easy to take cheap shots and in many ways some of them could be deserved (from what little I know), but she doesn’t. Like a good novelist she shows the full character of a human being who makes mistakes, sometimes with tragic consequences, but who isn’t the demon/antichrist/nazi character that the media often sets up. She uses her main character, Alice, to talk about how fickle the American people were in supporting the war originally and then denigrating Charlie for continuing it. Charlie Blackwell isn’t the hero of the story, but he isn’t the villain either. He is a conflicted and flawed man.

     Something else Ms. Sittenfeld brings up through Alice’s thoughts (and here is the irony) is the effects of fame. How people will act around you. How even the people you grew up with will modify their behavior. How you will be villainized. How you will be praised for the wrong things. How people will address you in blogs or on the news. And how people will smugly mock or criticize you, seemingly unaware that you have feelings as a person. Now, I find this somewhat funny considering the fact that Ms. Sittenfeld created an alternate Laura Bush who doesn’t fully love her husband, had an abortion, and has a lesbian grandmother. Along the way Ms. Sittenfeld casts aspersions on the brother of Laura Bush’s former classmate, who in the story rapes, or at least very very VERY strongly pressures, an underage Alice Blackwell into a sexual relationship with him. So, I do find it hypocritical that the theme of gossip, lies, and misrepresentations of the famous (particularly politicians) is brought up in a book full of all three.

     I can’t say I enjoyed the book, but I do try to get something out of what I read (even if it’s a free book that I didn’t like) and what I decided to walk away with was to be careful what I say especially on my blog regarding famous figures. They are just people and not immune from being hurt and slandered. 

     On a somewhat related note: Yes, the author is a woman named Curtis. I didn't get it either. I actually don't really care enough to look her up much. She's certainly a good storyteller, but I could only become interested if she ratcheted back the sex scenes. 

     On another somewhat related note, a "1Star Review" on Goodreads said: "I think I began to feel jipped when I realized there wasn't going to be an elaborate wedding scene in the novel, that Alice was never going to wear the wedding gown (or anything nearly like it) pictured on the book jacket." Do you hear that book cover people? Do not use false advertisement, you will disappoint the wedding dress aficionados.

The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver

     I read The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver along with the rest of my Library Book Club for the month of April. I actually was hosting a friend from my old college at the time, so I didn’t attend the meeting. I do like to keep up with what the club is reading so I was able to finish this title not too long ago.

     Barbara Kingsolver, if the name rings a bell, is the author of the 1998 bestselling novel, The Poisonwood Bible. I took a contemporary literature class in college (I wasn’t a fan, but it was helpful in knowing more about today’s literature, she admits grudgingly) and we were given a list of novels to write a paper on. We all go to choose our own and I actually chose Shirley Hazzard’s The Great Fire. Ask me what my paper was about? I have no idea. Ask me what the novel was about? I think, a war? As you can see Ms. Hazzard left a huge impression. I did take note of Ms. Kingsolver’s book and told myself I’d like to read it. Now, don’t get too excited about the word “bible.” She’s not a Christian. In fact, I have every reason to believe it’s one of those, “Oh-behold-another-hypocritical-pastor” novels. But I somewhat like interacting with those novels because I know other people are reading them, and I want to be able to say, “Yes, I’ve read them. Here’s why I disagree.” More recently, the name came up again in a list compiled by Leland Ryken in his new study on Pastors in the Classics. I’ve been trying to read a lot of the books on that list, and so when Ms. Kingsolver’s name came up in my book club I was pretty excited. Even though this was a different novel.

     Barbara Kingsolver is a talented writer. No dispute. She has eccentric and beautiful ways of crafting her books sentence by lovely sentence. I often fall for books based on the beauty of the language. She’s one of those people who can take something you feel and speak about it in a way that makes you say, “Yes! That’s exactly what it’s like!” Her powers of description and storytelling were absolutely mesmerizing. I can’t overstate how wonderful this book was.

     However (of course there has to be a however), the main character is a homosexual. Now, this neither adds nor takes away from the story. In fact, I think Ms. Kingsolver included it for the same reason Mr. Young portrayed "god in his unfortunately best selling book The Shack, as an African-American woman. Basically to be hip/edgy/relevant/cool, whatever you want to call it. (Though it has been suggested she used his orientation as a way to get him out of military service later on. Homosexuality was considered a mental deficiency and as such those who were weren't accepted for military service) I actually thought it was sort of a disappointment considering how fabulous this story is, that she felt like she had to be cool and shock the puritanical reading public (as if!) with a homosexual protagonist. The nice thing is, Ms. Kingsolver is very discreet. There are a few intimate interactions between the protagonist and another man, but you just barely get the idea of what is going on. In fact, it took me actually a hefty way into the book to realize that he wasn’t attracted to women. So, hats off to that. I guess if you must have sex scenes, at least be somewhat discreet. The puritanical reading public (or at least this corner of it) really appreciates that. So, I’m not kidding when I say his orientation neither adds to nor takes away from the story.

     The story is about Harrison Shepherd whose father was American and whose mother is Mexican. He was raised mainly in Mexico, went to school in America, worked back in Mexico, and ended up a writer in Cold War era America. Being outside the culture of communism v. anticommunism, his insight into things like J. Edgar Hoover and patriotism and HUAC were spellbinding. During his time in Mexico, he ends up a cook in the house of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo-Rivera (yes, the real life artists) who eventually take in the exiled Leon Trotsky (yes, the real life leader of the Bolshevik revolution). So, eventually, his past catches up with him as the anticommunist furor in America heats up. Mr. Shepherd begins with a great love for America and ends feeling betrayed, but you also don’t feel like you are reading a story set up to bash America (which I feel like is a bit overly popular for my taste).
     The book opens with Harrison as a young boy in Mexico, interested in a nearby underwater lacuna, which basically means gap or emptiness. He even goes far enough to get through the gap into the other side despite warnings that he might drown, but for the rest of his life there are holes in the story of his life that never get entirely filled in due to fear and self-censorship. This personal experience is widened in mid century America, as fear and censorship begins to control the general public arena.
     Like some of the best stories, it's a love story. An ultimately platonic (see orientation) relationship between Harrison Shepherd and his secretary Violent Brown plays a big role in the second half of the book. Ms. Brown urges Harrison to write the story of his life. She is his best friend and main encourager, eventually sacrificing her own reputation to see him succeed. She is, in my opinion, the steadying influence and voice of reason throughout the novel. She's also introduced at the beginning as the person compiling the notes and diary entries that comprise Mr. Shepherd's life, so it makes sense that she is the person bringing everything in order. The affection that grows between them is confused, but it's actually very touching.  

     This is a well crafted story that combines themes of friendship, love, patriotism, and the power of words. Also, I cried at the end. Books that move me that much are winners in my estimation. So, I actually do recommend this. Yes, I surprised myself, but as long as you take the drawback into account, I think this is a really powerful and beautiful story, by a talented author. I actually am even more excited to read The Poisonwood Bible as a result.
     On an interesting personal note, when I was avisiting Boyfriend last month I met a friend of his who had come up to see an exhibit at the closest big art museum by Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. I actually hadn't heard of them until she was talking about them. Then I began this book and I was about halfway through the part of the story that was about them, before I realized that it was THAT Diego and Frida. 

Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl

     Special Topics in Calamity Physics has many of the elements I don’t like in a story. Bratty teens, teen drinking, teen sex, teens doing drugs, possibly sketchy student-teacher interactions, and a teacher who committed suicide (or DID she!? Dun dun DUNNN), but I’m getting ahead of myself.

     Special Topics in Calamity Physics is the story of 17 year old highly intelligent, and somewhat precocious Blue Van Meer (so named by her late mother who was interested in butterflies and could only seem to catch Blue Morphos). Blue and her unpleasant father (lecturer, professor, womanizer, and well rounded intellectual) have been leading a transient life since Blue’s mother died. She’s been in and out of schools all her life, until her senior year when they decide to spend one whole year at a high school in Stockton, North Carolina in order to get Blue into Harvard. Blue finds herself sucked up into a strange small social group by the maneuverings of the enigmatic film teacher, Hannah Schneider. But when Hannah Schneider is found dead (allegedly a suicide), Blue takes on the mysterious life and death of her former teacher armed only with her wit and cultural lexicon (I actually have no idea what “cultural lexicon” really means, I merely stole it from the back of the book)

     Ok, this is an exciting story. As I mentioned at the beginning it’s not a clean story. It’s also a weird story. I can’t get over Blue and her father’s relationship and conversation. He sounds excruciatingly impressed with himself and their overly witty repartee doesn’t sound natural to me. 

     So, why did I read this book you might ask? Well, wouldn’t you read a book with that name? I think I picked it up (at Goodwill) and bought it because the title of the book gripped me. I mean, isn’t that just the craziest title you’ve ever heard?

     You may want to know why I kept reading it. Well, so do I. I guess because the mystery was so gripping. If the mystery is mysterious enough I have a compulsion to know the end. At the end; however, I’m not sure I knew much more than I did at the beginning, though there were some serious surprises. I mean, you know why Hannah died, and you know the people involved in her death, but the story leaves you feeling a little incomplete. So, I can't say it was a fulfilling read.

     The one good thing about this book was the interesting main character and her relationship with her father. Though it was hard for the author to convince me that this was an actual seventeen year old interacting with her father, I did somewhat enjoy their wordplay. I did find her a little bratty at times, but the father was so unpleasant I couldn’t quite find it in my heart to feel sorry for him. It's not a relationship I would want to have with my own parents, but it was oddly fascinating.

     Overall, I think it was one to skip despite the interesting title and pretty catchy mystery. 

No Name by Wilkie Collins

     April is at an end? Already? Well, thankfully I did finish No Name by Wilkie Collins in time to participate in the Reading To Know bookclub. The book was chosen by Tim at Diary of an Autodidact. This review will contain spoilers. 

 

     This was my first Wilkie Collins book, and I hope it won’t be my last. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Being a contemporary and close friend of Charles Dickens, there shouldn’t be too much of a surprise when I tell you that the two authors are similar in style. I do think Dickens is the more masterful (and also more verbose) of the two, but that is a personal preference thing. Also, I’m not fully qualified to make that judgment since I’ve read countless Dickens books and only one Collins book. Anyway, I loved it. I rated it five stars on Goodreads, so that should say something.

     There is something wonderful about reading “the classics.” It might just be in my head or it might be just a purely emotional attachment, but I feel wholesome while reading it. I feel like I’m reading a great story, written by someone who has withstood the test of time. I feel like the book is adding to my life and bolstering my soul. I tightly cling to a (perhaps mystical, but perhaps not) belief that the things on earth that we find Beautiful or True or Good (note the capital letters) are teeny insights into the joy we will experience in heaven. So, I hope I’m not being too unorthodox when I say I believe reading a great novel, is a little bit like being in heaven.

     No Name is part revenge thriller and part social commentary. Collins spends a fair amount of time exploring the theme of illegitimate children, and how the law is particularly harsh on innocent children for the sins of their parents. I do think Collins deserves credit for not being too preachy on this theme. He is definitely exploring the social aspect of the illegitimacy laws, but folding it into a very fascinating story of a young girl seeking revenge for herself and her sister.

     Magdalen Vanstone and her sister Norah find out very early on in the book, so I don’t feel bad about revealing it, that their mother and father were only very recently married, and died before they could make a will leaving their money to their children. Thus, their father’s fortune was given to their cruel uncle, who only gave the girls a pittance to help them start their lives. Norah, the elder sister, resigns herself to her fate and goes to work at once in order to support herself. Magdalen, the younger sister, steels up her heart and works toward revenge at any cost. And I mean, ANY cost.

     Now, I don’t think the treatment of illegitimate children in this age was very good; however, these days we have way more illegitimate children. In fact, more than half of the children born to women under 30 are illegitimate. So, in actuality, illegitimacy is the norm. Perhaps if the consequences of illegitimacy were harsher, there would be less illegitimacy? Please don’t hear me saying that Magdalen and Norah deserved what they got. I don’t believe they did. But I don’t think we in the 21^st century have the right to look down on the laws of the 19^th  and assume we have progressed as a society. Yes, we don’t necessarily have a problem of innocent children being stripped of their inheritance by heartless uncles, but we have fatherless children and high rates of abortion and kids who don’t even know their family background. I think when looking at the past we often fall into two ways of thinking that are unhelpful. We either think, “Wow, things were SO much better back in the day. That’s the simple life. Things have seriously gone downhill.” Or we think, “Wow, things were SO much worse back then. It’s a good thing we’ve progressed so much further than our backwards ancestors.” In the historical profession these two ways of thinking are Nostalgia and Progressivism. From now on I want all my readers to avoid these two ways of thinking. Got it? Great.

     This story kind of reminded me, in a way, of Rebekah trying to trick her husband into blessing her favorite son. God had already told her that the “older will serve the younger” in chapter 25 of Genesis, but instead of trusting God to bring His own plans to fruition, Rebekah goes through an elaborate scheme to make sure her younger son is given the blessing. Jacob, the younger son, goes along with his mother’s schemes and lies to his father and supplants his older brother. Now, the analogy falls apart because we do know that was how God intended things to work out and Esau wasn’t exactly a model citizen, but in No Name we see the younger sister lying and manipulating and ruining her reputation to try and claim what is “rightfully hers.” Whereas Norah, the older sister, takes her fate in stride and sets out in gentleness and humility to make her way in the world. As it turns out, the injustice is set to rights mainly by Norah’s quiet humility and less by Magdalen’s striving and conniving.

     This was a wonderful story and accomplished author to add to my “Completed” list, and I’m grateful to Tim and Reading to Know for the opportunity.   

     I’m sad to report there weren’t any funny reviews on Goodreads to add to this one, but instead I’ll point out that No Name is actually the name of my favorite doughnut from Voodoo Doughnuts, a popular doughnut shop in Portland, OR. It’s just a chocolate frosted doughnut, but with rice krispies and peanut butter on the top. It’s delicious. I actually thought it would be fitting to eat one of the donuts while I read the book, but this never actually came together, sadly.

     Anyway, I have every intention of reading another. Blogger EmmyD put it bluntly by commanding me “Get thee to A Woman in White.” I will definitely comply.

Hushing Gosnell

     I don't always put up political posts, but when I do it's about something entirely unethical. There is a murder trial happening that I just found out about. Just found out. Like, this morning. The only reason I found out was because I read Christian blogs. Apparently when people who claim Christianity blow up abortion clinics it's a huge deal (it is, by the way, please don't claim to bear Christ's name and try to kill people), but when an abortionist commits atrocities we like to pretend to not notice.

     The last two days I've seen running commentary about the tragedy at the Boston Marathon. It's heartbreaking and horrible, and I cried over some of the stories coming out of there, but more people were killed by Kermit Gosnell than were killed at the Marathon. President Obama declined to comment about the trials since it was an open trial. Who is shocked? Any hands? No? No one?

     There are pro-choicers who are trying to turn this around by saying things like, "Yeah, well, see, this is where women will go if they have no access to a safe and legal abortion." (Cause you know...safe and abortion totally make sense in the same sentence...no) But oddly enough there had been complaints and investigations into Gosnell's clinic, all the way back to the 80s. No one did anything about them. This shouldn't be a big surprise since this was a clinic for minority and lower income women. Since abortion rights were strongly endorsed by a major eugenicist and racist, I don't imagine things have changed that much. No one really cares if poor minority women and babies are dying. No amount of regulations or money will make anyone care, or will make abortions safe for anyone.

     I don't know how obvious it is, but I'm seriously bent out of shape over this. I mean, the fact that I know Gosnell isn't a rarity. The fact that women are being sold their "rights" when actually they are being victimized. The fact that abortion is really just a way to get rid of poor minorities and no one understands that, and the fact that I saw Casey Anthony's face every day for nearly two years on the news or online for killing one child. This man kills countless children and a woman in horrifying ways, and I'm just now hearing about this and this is the 5th week of this trial.

     Trevin Wax from The Gospel Coalition posted 8 chilling reasons why we are ignoring this story.

"Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as a “refuge” for women in distress, not a "house of horrors," where women are taken advantage of. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps “abortion clinic” away from negative connotations...Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must be framed in terms of providing “access” for low-income, minority women. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from wondering if perhaps some abortion providers are “targeting” low-income, minority women." (Read more here)

    Another blog post by Ann Voskamp was particularly touching and inspiring to me while thinking about this tragedy.

"And hear me, Son — our voice about women’s abortions lacks authenticity unless we speak of male promiscuity. Male promiscuity is about power and pleasure and no presence. Male promiscuity is about sensuality and fertility and no responsibility...And the truth is — We turn away from Gosnell because it’s our high school friends and it’s our sisters, its our daughters and our sons, and our children, our stained hands. It’s our grief of loss and our sins of neglect and our failure as a community. The tender mourning of it is that: Abortion is a sign of failure of community." (Read more here)