Catching up on about half my stack.
Perry Mason, Case of the Amorous Aunt. The plot was a bit of a mess, but it departed a bit from Los Angeles and added a young attorney to fight by Perry's side, so it had a certain piquancy.
Larry McMurtry, Oh What a Slaughter: Massacres in the American West: 1846-1890. I've never read any McMurtry, surprisingly enough (although I do finally have Lonesome Dove on the TBR stack ... which means I'll hopefully get to it before my kids all get through high school), and I did like his writing style. This felt like a lifelong dream book - the book he'd always wanted to write. But it wasn't long enough, and/or the subject matter was too sweeping. The framing chapters were all very good, but there just wasn't enough space in this rather slim book to do justice to any of the massacres he talked about. It read more like a thesis than a masterwork by a major author. So not a keeper, but I'll definitely give McMurtry another try.
Anne Perry, No Graves As Yet. My reaction to Perry is a little funny. I like her Thomas/Charlotte Pitt novels but do not enjoy the increasingly politically complex plots they're getting entangled in as the series goes on. I never got excited about the William Monk mysteries. No Graves As Yet is the first in a new series set during World War I, and it took me a while to pick it up, as I wasn't sure how I would feel about it. And it was a slow starter, I have to say. Also, more political conspiracy, which leaves me cold. But the characters were delicately drawn and complex, and they made me want to read more, so I've already picked up the next one. (Lou made me break my vow by bringing me to a used bookstore, and then Jordan's Furniture made me do it again by being closed on an early Sunday evening, forcing us to a new bookstore!)
Finally, delightfully: Errol Lincoln Uys, Riding the Rails: Teenagers on the Move in the Great Depression. Fabulous, fascinating, moving book. It's a companion (an expansion, really) to a documentary film by the same name, which was also quite good. But the book was raw and powerful and filled with the reality of these people's lives, which were truly pathetic in the most basic sense of the term. Absolutely a keeper!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
5 things that make me happy today
Time for another round! Not because I need a reminder - I'm having a pretty good day - but more just 'cause sometimes I'm interested in what makes the list. (I know, it's my brain, I ought to know what's in it.)
1. Coffee. (Yep, said it before. I'll say it again. Get used to it.) The smell of nice freshly brewed dark beans is lovely.
2. "The Wish". Best Buffy episode ever - a truly masterful piece of art.
3. Veronica - big, vibrant, cuddly, funny. I love the smell of a toddler in the summer - just at the back of the neck, you know?
4. Standing in the cool shade with a mild breeze wafting past on a hot sunny day. Need I elaborate?
5. Books! I read a couple of good ones over the weekend and am in the middle of a fascinating one right now.
1. Coffee. (Yep, said it before. I'll say it again. Get used to it.) The smell of nice freshly brewed dark beans is lovely.
2. "The Wish". Best Buffy episode ever - a truly masterful piece of art.
3. Veronica - big, vibrant, cuddly, funny. I love the smell of a toddler in the summer - just at the back of the neck, you know?
4. Standing in the cool shade with a mild breeze wafting past on a hot sunny day. Need I elaborate?
5. Books! I read a couple of good ones over the weekend and am in the middle of a fascinating one right now.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
mothers and more
I don't usually do two entries in a day, but I've read a couple of things about this topic today and I feel strongly.
I was meandering through pregnancy bulletin boards today (I like to read the new baby names, and while I'm there I occasionally glance at other interesting threads), and there was a thread from a woman who intends to go back to work after her child is born, saying that she's been getting a hard time because she's not planning on staying home. Now, I stay home. I love it - frankly, my happiest days are the ones where I never leave the house. The fact that I have children in the house with me? Mostly a bonus. But of course, I also have the financial incentive that no job that I could easily get would actually pay for after-school care, summers, commuting, etc. We simply couldn't afford for me to work outside the house. (The joys of an English degree.)
But that being said ... it drives me crazy when women short-change themselves. Yes, parenting small children is hard, and it sucks up time and energy like you wouldn't believe. But this idea that somehow you're supposed to give up everything you are to become simply "Mommy", for a time span ranging from 4 years to 18, is entirely counter-productive. And frankly I think short-changes everyone involved. If there's no time/support for a woman to continue pursuing the things that challenge and excite her, beyond parenting, then who will she be when her children are grown? What will she have to offer them as they grow, how will she model for them the kind of strong, confident spirit that they need to know women are capable of?
I'm not trying to say that women shouldn't be happy to be SAHMs. Or that being a SAHM isn't enough. I am privileged to know several women who throw their entire energies into being creative, active, totally nurturing mothers, and their kids are lucky to have them. I know others who excel in the running of their home - through the careful organization of their belongings, the joyful richness (I mean in breadth, not necessarily in caloric content) of their cooking. What I advocate is this: every mother needs to know what she's good at, what brings her joy in her own accomplishments - her OWN, the "I did that" moment of pride - and no mother should be made to feel badly because she has the awareness and good sense to know that she'll be a better parent if she goes to work outside the home.
I think I can't say it any better than Tom Colicchio, in his Bravotv.com blog for Top Chef (note that there are spoilers if you haven't seen the finale ... and if the link doesn't work it's because blogger wouldn't let me copy and paste it. Who knows why.):
"Just as the world won’t change for women until men (and companies and governments) change their thinking about how to create a truly equitable playing field, nor will the field change until women with families start to recognize that being a great mother and having great ambition for oneself are not mutually exclusive. Their families might miss them at times, but the role modeling for girls AND boys just might be worth it."
Bravo, Tom. And Bravo to mothers everywhere who challenge themselves to go after what they're passionate about.
I was meandering through pregnancy bulletin boards today (I like to read the new baby names, and while I'm there I occasionally glance at other interesting threads), and there was a thread from a woman who intends to go back to work after her child is born, saying that she's been getting a hard time because she's not planning on staying home. Now, I stay home. I love it - frankly, my happiest days are the ones where I never leave the house. The fact that I have children in the house with me? Mostly a bonus. But of course, I also have the financial incentive that no job that I could easily get would actually pay for after-school care, summers, commuting, etc. We simply couldn't afford for me to work outside the house. (The joys of an English degree.)
But that being said ... it drives me crazy when women short-change themselves. Yes, parenting small children is hard, and it sucks up time and energy like you wouldn't believe. But this idea that somehow you're supposed to give up everything you are to become simply "Mommy", for a time span ranging from 4 years to 18, is entirely counter-productive. And frankly I think short-changes everyone involved. If there's no time/support for a woman to continue pursuing the things that challenge and excite her, beyond parenting, then who will she be when her children are grown? What will she have to offer them as they grow, how will she model for them the kind of strong, confident spirit that they need to know women are capable of?
I'm not trying to say that women shouldn't be happy to be SAHMs. Or that being a SAHM isn't enough. I am privileged to know several women who throw their entire energies into being creative, active, totally nurturing mothers, and their kids are lucky to have them. I know others who excel in the running of their home - through the careful organization of their belongings, the joyful richness (I mean in breadth, not necessarily in caloric content) of their cooking. What I advocate is this: every mother needs to know what she's good at, what brings her joy in her own accomplishments - her OWN, the "I did that" moment of pride - and no mother should be made to feel badly because she has the awareness and good sense to know that she'll be a better parent if she goes to work outside the home.
I think I can't say it any better than Tom Colicchio, in his Bravotv.com blog for Top Chef (note that there are spoilers if you haven't seen the finale ... and if the link doesn't work it's because blogger wouldn't let me copy and paste it. Who knows why.):
"Just as the world won’t change for women until men (and companies and governments) change their thinking about how to create a truly equitable playing field, nor will the field change until women with families start to recognize that being a great mother and having great ambition for oneself are not mutually exclusive. Their families might miss them at times, but the role modeling for girls AND boys just might be worth it."
Bravo, Tom. And Bravo to mothers everywhere who challenge themselves to go after what they're passionate about.
book report
I've finished quite a few books in the last month or so - my reading speed has bumped up with the finishing of two large tomes, whose chapter lengths were definitely slowing me down.
The first of them was Charles Darwin's The Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. I think it was well worth reading - his descriptions of the various locations they visited, the local flora, fauna, and culture, were both interesting and informative, if dense. I don't consider it a keeper, but it was good to read once.
Secondly, the whole twelve hundred-some pages of Gotham, by Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace. Fascinating book - the depth of discussion of Manhattan's entire history must have taken years of research. (Finishing it also felt like a significant achievement!) Highly enjoyable - definitely a keeper.
I also read Conrad Richter's The Trees, the story of a pioneer family. In its unflinching survey of the brutality of early frontier life and really of people's emotions and actions, it reminded me a lot of Annie Dillard's The Living. Both refuse to romanticize the people and places they're chronicling, but nonetheless paint vivid pictures. The Trees has two sequels, which I'm looking forward to.
My newest attempt to pick up a new series based on a blog was a tremendous success. I've stopped reading The Lipstick Chronicles, but I had already picked up Shop till You Drop, by Elaine Viets, one of the bloggers from that site. I was delighted to discover that I loved it - first time in a long time that I had to stay up until I finished a book! The characters were memorable, surprising, and entertaining, and the setting vividly imagined. Now I have a new series to look for - always a bonus.
Finally, I reread Scott Turow's The Laws of Our Fathers. Turow's interesting - I read I think his first five books, then apparently lost interest, since I don't know if he's even written anything in the last 10 years! Laws seems to be the last one I picked up. It's not my favorite, nor my least favorite. It's a solid read, interesting characters, compelling and tightly woven story ... but not much more than that.
The first of them was Charles Darwin's The Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. I think it was well worth reading - his descriptions of the various locations they visited, the local flora, fauna, and culture, were both interesting and informative, if dense. I don't consider it a keeper, but it was good to read once.
Secondly, the whole twelve hundred-some pages of Gotham, by Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace. Fascinating book - the depth of discussion of Manhattan's entire history must have taken years of research. (Finishing it also felt like a significant achievement!) Highly enjoyable - definitely a keeper.
I also read Conrad Richter's The Trees, the story of a pioneer family. In its unflinching survey of the brutality of early frontier life and really of people's emotions and actions, it reminded me a lot of Annie Dillard's The Living. Both refuse to romanticize the people and places they're chronicling, but nonetheless paint vivid pictures. The Trees has two sequels, which I'm looking forward to.
My newest attempt to pick up a new series based on a blog was a tremendous success. I've stopped reading The Lipstick Chronicles, but I had already picked up Shop till You Drop, by Elaine Viets, one of the bloggers from that site. I was delighted to discover that I loved it - first time in a long time that I had to stay up until I finished a book! The characters were memorable, surprising, and entertaining, and the setting vividly imagined. Now I have a new series to look for - always a bonus.
Finally, I reread Scott Turow's The Laws of Our Fathers. Turow's interesting - I read I think his first five books, then apparently lost interest, since I don't know if he's even written anything in the last 10 years! Laws seems to be the last one I picked up. It's not my favorite, nor my least favorite. It's a solid read, interesting characters, compelling and tightly woven story ... but not much more than that.
Monday, June 09, 2008
my mother's house
I am obsessed with houses. One of the things I love about where we live now is the large range in house styles, and all the interesting houses I drive by every time I have to go somewhere. The various houses and lots take on personalities of their own in my mind, and I enjoy thinking about what kind of family must live in each place. One in particular has taken position in my mind as 'my mother's house'. I'm not entirely sure why. It's kind of nondescript as houses go, with a random assortment of stuff filling up the front yard. Maybe it's something about the atmosphere that makes it seem like the kind of place my mother would have landed in during her 60s and 70s. In many ways, it reminds me of my grandparents' house, but a little more of an eclectic hodge-podge. Inside I'm willing to bet it's furnished in what my mother used to call "early American attic".
Not sure what that all says about me or my feelings toward my mother. Mostly I find it interesting that this house has named itself without my ever consciously thinking about it. Suddenly one day I drove by it thinking, almost subconsciously, "oh, there's my mother's house." In some ways it's comforting ... in others it's just weird.
Not sure what that all says about me or my feelings toward my mother. Mostly I find it interesting that this house has named itself without my ever consciously thinking about it. Suddenly one day I drove by it thinking, almost subconsciously, "oh, there's my mother's house." In some ways it's comforting ... in others it's just weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)