Infinite Joe

In an amusing story about an author creating a story involving an author who creates lots of stories, Vonnegut hits on so many pertinent topics. He does it in a way that strips the themes bare, like the way an alien might see things if dropped for the first time on this planet. He lays out the problems of the world, and America in particular, without the shitty justifications that people often use to be able to allow these problems to persist and fester.

The issue touched on in this book:

Overpopulation - This was addressed a few times. The fact that it was addressed at all really stood out to me, because the only other book that I can remember reading that handles this topic is Freedom, by Franzen. I think it should be confronted more often, actually.

Environmental Issues - Heavy manufacturing, dumping of wastes into streams, etc.

War - The breeding of human killing machines.

Greed and the hoarding of wealth.

Censorship - Even as far as pornography. People have differing views on what is "obscene".

Gluttony - And the throwing away of food, while so many starve of hunger.

Irresponsible Media - Sensationalism and propagation of misinformation.

Healthcare - "One of the most expensive things a person could do was get sick."

Religion - The plethora of them, and some of the silly ideas associated with them. (I like how he characterized God as not being a conservationist, since he would be the one responsible for the volcanoes, tornadoes, and tidal waves.)

Much of the book also deals with the philosophical argument of determinism vs. free will.

After reading this book, I thought to myself, "You know, this guy sounds like a humanist and a freethinker and a skeptic, and maybe even an atheist." So I decided to read up on him on Wikipedia, and I found out that he had referred to himself at various times as a humanist and a freethinker and a skeptic and even an atheist. He even won Humanist of the Year in 1992 and went on to serve as honorary president of the American Humanist Association. No wonder I like the guy so much.

I noted and highlighted this book very often, and it's tough to choose which quotes I liked best, but runner-up would have to be, "Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe sacred in any of us. Everything else about us is dead machinery."

And the winner would have to be what was written on Kilgore Trout's tombstone:

"We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane."

I read a recent story by Wolff in The New Yorker and liked it, and so I thought I'd give one of his collections a try. Aside from "Desert Breakdown, 1968", which I would give a 5, and maybe one other story that I'd give a 3, the rest of the stories just did absolutely nothing for me.

3.5 stars (I was going to give it a 4, but I see I gave her other books 3.5’s, and I seem to remember liking them all about the same, so to keep things consistent, I’ll stick with a 3.5)

Life isn't easy. And long the way, we invariably make poor decisions and hurt others in the process. Some people lash out and spiral out of control, and some people withdraw completely, both taking the easy way out. Others, however, attempt to plow through and lead their lives the best they can, as a way to atone for their faults, both past and present. This often is the more difficult and complicated route, and one that Amy Homes explores in this book.

The characters were nicely developed, each with their own personalities and quirks, and I felt the “plot” (use the term loosely) moved along nicely. Mixing ‘funny’ and ‘insightful’ into a soup of endearing dysfunction, I think the book delivered well. I could have done without the “cellular memory” scene towards the end of the book, due to both its pseudo-scientific premise, and it being completely unnecessary, but now I’m just being picky.

Another great collection by Mr. Saudners, especially the first and last stories in the book. To me, the stories touched on the ways in which we view ourselves, the things we desire to be, and who, when you really get down to it, we actually are. It also deals with the ways we view and interact with others, both inwardly and outwardly. I love how Mr.. Saunders skews the reality of each story so that there are always things that happen to be slightly “off” about the characters or the settings. This was most evident in Pastoralia, where you get a pretty good idea as to what the jobs of the main characters area, but you don’t get the whole story, which leaves some pretty intriguing questions that need to be answered.

I know I'm going to rate a book highly when I highlight/note the book heavily. That was definitely true of this book. Touching on science, technology, religion, and the morality of them all, this book really had a lot going for it, and dealt with all of the themes evenly and seriously, with a good plot behind it. The pace of the book was great. Short chapters. Fast moving. But deep as well. Great book. Vonnegut is fast becoming one of my favorites.

I saw a lot of 4 star reviews on this one, which I can completely understand, because I was going to give it 4 stars too, because how could I possibly give this the same amount of stars that I gave DFW's actual books? And then I thought, you know what, screw it, it's 5 stars. Maybe not a 5 stars in the way that Infinite Jest was a 5 stars, but it's a 5 stars nonetheless. Although DFW's books give you a deep understanding of his innermost thoughts and feelings, this "book" gives it to you in a more straightforward and unedited (well, less edited, at least) form. It really highlights what a brilliant person he was, and yet how unbelievably conflicted he could be (or always was), and it sadly reminds me of just how much we lost not only as readers, but as people, when he decided to take his own life.

Disturbing and unsettling. And I liked the book because of it, not in spite of it. Sometimes it's good to connect with some of the characters you're reading about, and other times it's necessary to be caught outside of your comfort zone, and not particularly like ANY of the characters you're reading about, because really, do you feel like you connect with the majority of people you know/meet, or it is actually just a very select few? A lot of people out there simply aren't very good people, or good parents. And some kids do grow up to be impossible to discipline, affectless, without empathy, and yes, mass murderers. True, it doesn't always happen the way it does in the book, but who ever said that it did? This book was a good read throughout, with a chilling ending, and then what I thought was an even chillier ending to that ending.

Henderson is a great character. An emotional bull in a china shop. Impulsive. Impetuous. Never satisfied. Wanting to please everybody, but doing a horrible job at it. However, he is aware of these things and he sets out on an African adventure to discover himself, and hopefully change. I enjoyed the story and the characters, and I liked where the revealing journey took Henderson, which might not be anywhere at all.

Outstanding, as usual. The fact that most of the stories take place decades ago in the Canadian countryside (with an occasional glimpse or mention of Toronto) seems to have the effect of slowing the pace down, and allows you to digest each story more completely. The four partially autobiographical short stories at the end were a nice surprise too.

When I started reading this book, I felt that the writing was a bit commercial and unrefined. I felt there were too many superlative adjectives and unnecessary “forceful” verbs for my taste, like “He jammed the disc into the boom box”. Then I read the parts involving Chase buying the book “Obstinate Dust” from Perkus’s acquaintance, which is a clear allusion to David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest”. What was said in this part of the novel about “Obstinate Dust” was not all that favorable, and I was ready to rip Chronic City apart, and had witty alternate titles ready to refer to it as, such as “Subsonic Pity”, or just “Chronic Pity”. But then I did some Google searching, and read an interview with Lethem where he says that anything that gets into his book is something that has “tremendous meaning to me, value, and interest”. So even though he could be playing it safe by saying this, I found myself easing up on my critique of Lethem, but then I think, whoa, this should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether I enjoy and find value in a novel or not. Have I lost all objectivity?

Soooo.....

I read (or at least I believe I tried to read) the rest of the book with an open mind, and I ended up really liking it. At its heart , I felt the book was about the search for truth in a world where much can be fabricated, both by the people around you and also by yourself. It was well done, and the writing style really picked up after what I felt was a rough start.

Also, “Obstinate Dust” made a reappearance towards the end of the novel, and in a slightly better light, so all is forgiven I guess.

I was all set to give this book a four star review. I enjoyed the writing, which was well above that of typical commercial fiction. I enjoyed the slow moving story involving an orphaned psychopath with a god-complex and some peculiar attributes and even more peculiar desires. I enjoyed this book as being a little different and outside the norm, but in a subtle way. And then I read the last 20 pages. The climactic scene turned out not to be not so climactic. In fact, it turned out to be a joke. And the final scene made me feel like I was reading a poorly-written comedic parody of a twilight zone episode. Even though I was very disappointed with the ending of this book, I fully enjoyed the first 92% of it, and so in the end, I'm giving it 3 stars.

Nabakov's mastery of the English language and of English prose is astounding, considering English is his second (or third?) language, and that he left Russia at 18 for Europe, left there for America when he was 41, and published this book a little more than a decade after that. Authors of contemporary fiction can only dream to write as well as Nabakov does.

Anyway, I really enjoyed this character study of the Russian emigre who "teaches" at an American university. Timofey Pnin evokes many feelings out of the reader, including pity, fondness, and disappointment (among a laundry list of others) which is what what makes the book so good. Many of the situations you find him in leaving you laughing and cringing at the same time, while always rooting for him to make it through somehow.

Time to put more Nabakov on my "To-Read" shelf.

I was waffling between a 4 and a 5 on this one, but after letting the short stories and novella sink in a little bit, I lean more towards the 5.

Mostly following the downtrodden and oppressed in slightly surreal near-future dystopias, these unrelated and well-written stories pack a lot into them. Hardly uplifting, but laced with subtle humor, the stories offer characters that we can relate to on one level or another, and ideas that promote further thinking.

I really enjoyed this collection, the second of Saunders that I've read, and they were both good enough that I put him on my favorite authors list. I'm looking forward to reading more.

3.5 stars.

A challenging book to read, mainly because of the author’s mastery of the language and impressive prose. I almost stopped reading because of Jethro’s ‘stream of consciousness’ section in the earlier part of the book which was not only a difficult read, but carried on a bit too long. But I persevered, and in the end, was glad I did.

For me, the story was reminiscent of the witch hunts, where someone with evil in their hearts or psychopathy in their brains can single handedly turn a community against a single person.

I like how the Jethro Furber, who was a bit “off” as a child, found comfort in the murder, violence, genocide, rape, and incest in the old testament, so much so that he became a reverend not for the belief in a loving god, but for the perversities he could relate to in those “holy” texts. He then hid behind his occupation as he jealously carried out his scheme against Omensetter.

This book included an afterword, which I thought was just as good as the book. It’s crazy to think of what the author went through to finish his book and get it published.

I enjoyed this one, although there was a section in there that went a little slower for me, but that was my own fault for never having read The Diary of Anne Frank. I liked how Roth depicted the life, or should I say anti-life, of a serious writer, how it affects those around them, and how their stories are often times more exciting than their actual lives, which can be a let-down to the readers who idolize them.

It was easy to give this one 5-stars. Although the book itself was short, and the prose was as well, I felt this book had a lot packed into it, and would probably even benefit from a re-read at some point, to give the themes a second soak:

- The absurdity of war (with the firebombing of Dresden during WWII as the focal point). - "(The book)..is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like "Poo-tee-weet?""
- Determinism vs. Free-Will.
- The inevitability of war. - "You know what I say to people when I hear they're writing anti-war books?" - "No, what do you say, Harrison Starr?' - "I say, 'Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?'" - "What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers."
- The inevitability of death - "And even wars didn't keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death." See also, "So it goes."
- A playful take on religion's role in death, war, and massacre.
- Our desire to still be "human" (like Lot's wife looking back on Sodom and Gomorrah), even in the face of predetermination.

Before reading this book, I read a number of reviews, as this was to be my first Vonnegut read. I almost passed on it because some people characterized it as having to do with time travel. I'm glad I didn't, as the time travel was more about the mental breakage of a man due to war and injury, and was a device used to allow the non-linear telling of this story. Very well done, in my opinion.

Actually, the entire thing was well done. Period.