Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Book, Movie & Podcast Reviews my own book page

I'll reread. Maybe the story alone (without the bio, etc.) will produce a different response. I'm willing right now to admit my "review" was more of the woman and the presentation than the story itself.

I have reread, trying to be as open to it as possible. When I found myself getting angry at the narrator, I'd read the section again. I told myself not to believe the narrator. I began questioning her. Why at first was the wallpaper only torn away above the bed? Because that was as far as she could reach?

Whom should the reader believe about "how" the narrator asked the question? No longer believing the narrator, I'll take Jenne's version and can "see" a deranged woman screaming about her wallpaper.

At all times I tried to picture what the room would look like, especially when John sees it--and her--at the end and faints. Wonderful image at that point--her creeping and looking back at him over her shoulder, the wallpaper destroyed, the bed gnawed.

I revise my theory of a happy ending because the woman is out from behind the wallpaper prison. Yes, she's out. And she's creeping back and forth across her husband's body. No way that falls anywhere near happy.

I appreciated the story far more this time. I still dislike the narrator, mostly because of her self-image. John tells her she's getting better, so she must be. Damn all the evidence to the contrary! So why am I reacting so negatively to that aspect of her? Because I see her in myself? After all, I'm capable of letting a doctor's refusal of a therapy dump me into Scrooge's "surplus population." I've read--no, I don't have a source--that what we dislike in others is often what we can't face in ourselves. Guess that could also be true of reactions to characters.

Another thing I "brought" to the story is one aspect of a relationship I have with a friend. He is in many, many ways a good friend, but the problem I have is he suffers from depression. (Okay. It's his problem, too.) A conversation will slide onto that subject, and--practical me--I'll offer suggestions. But he has the last word in every discussion because he'll say that I don't understand. Part of his depression is that he doesn't want to deal successfully with it. He's right. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. You deal with what's dealt. You follow your dreams. I think part of my dislike the first time I read the story was seeing that friend in the narrator.

Whatever. I'm glad I read it again.

Martha - I love your frustration with the woman who accepts what her husband tells her, "damn all the evidence to the contrary!" Again, my reading differs - for me it has always been true that she knows what the real truth is, but knows that her opinion bears no weight whatsoever; she is completely powerless.

And you are quite right; there is a resemblance to depression. I never quite saw this before...but what we don't understand about those who are seriously depressed is that they are defeated before they ever start to fight. They are like the woman in the story - whether she sees what needs to be done or not, she doesn't have the tools, the strength, to do it. Neither does your friend. He is a prisoner of his own inabilities.

Thank you for that insight; I will perhaps be more patient with a friend of my own, in future.

I highly recommend In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor's Journey in the Saudi Kingdom by Qanta A. Ahmed, MD

Dr. Ahmed is a British citizen, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, who received her medical training in the US. Unable to extend her visa in the US, she took a job at a hospital in Riyadh, in Saudi Arabia.

I found this book absolutely fascinating - from the time she buys her first abayyah until she leaves it behind her on the plane out of Saudi.

She talks about the difficulties of being taken seriously as a doctor in such a male-dominated culture (of making hospital rounds while veiled!) She talks about the difficulties in forming relationships: she must be escorted by co-workers in visiting a (male) friend who has lost a child; she has no idea how to begin a flirtation with another doctor; she talks to friends about their arranged marriages.

She documents her experiences with the hajj, and her great love of Islam.

She tells of a private dinner party, given in a private room in a restaurant so that men and women may eat together -- only to be interrupted by the Mutawaeen - the (extremely dangerous) religious police, so influential that even married Saudis carry their marriages licenses at all times, to prove that they have a right to be in each others' company!

This is one of those non-fiction books that reads like fiction. Clearly Ahmed loves her Saudi friends; just as clearly, she has real difficulty with Saudi culture. Her time there was ending in September 2001, and her outlook towards Saudis was clearly colored by their responses to events in America.

Terrific book, with a great deal of insight into the position of women in Saudi Arabia.

Another James Lee Burke's Detective Dave Robicheau book bites the dust. This time it was Cadillac Jukebox, a tale of southern politics, the effects of segregation, and a sampling of murders, revenge and other dastardly deeds performed by seedy characters. (You know, reading the Robicheau books I'm beginning to be reminded of the chariot race in Ben Hur. Every time Charlton Heston and his nemesis—can't remember the character's name or the actor ((greypanther?))—would make it 'round the track, one of a row of fish would flop over. Each time when it happened, I'd mutter, "Four fish to go, three fish to go, etc.") As with all the Detective Dave novels, I ploughed through Burke's description to find a story, good enough to convince me to read another. And there were high spots:

1) At one point Burke made an interesting choice in writing. Detective Dave is being pursued by an old flame. One night he's sleeping in a hotel. He partially wakes up when a female enters his room, arouses him, climbs on top and inserts penis. He's expecting his wife to arrive during the night so he's happily going along with the seduction (rape?) until he opens his eyes, sees that it's the old flame and pushes her off. At that point the scene ends. The next morning he's having coffee with a fellow officer and describes what happened. Turns out the wife arrived when while the old flame was dressing. Now, I'm wondering why he didn't write the arrival scene. It sure would have been dramatic. I wonder if he wrote it, then decided skipping it was better, or if he instinctively knew the omission was the way to go. Whichever, it worked, and I'm certainly filing the technique away for use. (PS: I'm not talking about the technique when an author ends a scene mid-drama and jumps years ahead—see John Irving's The World According to Garp or Galveston by a Suzanne Morris. What impressed me here was jumping the dramatic scene entirely and having that work.)

2) Of course, sometimes the extra word can work—even when used by someone who habitually describes in too much detail. Here Dave encounters a man who's not particularly glad to see him. "'You again. Like bubble gum under the shoe,' Buford said." (page 243) IMHO, specifying bubble adds a necessay zing.

3) "Presidents who had never heard a shot fired in anger vicariously revised the inadequacy of their own lives by precipitating suffering in the lives of others, and they were lauded for it." (pages 288-289) It surprised me to see that the book's publication date, 1996, was pre-Bush. I just knew Lee was talking about Bush. Premonition?

4) "… I saw some Kit Carsons bind the wrists of captured Viet Cong and wrap towels around their faces and pour water onto the cloth a canteen at a time until they were willing to trade their own families for a teaspoon of air." (page 368) Isn't that, at a minimum, water-boarding lite? I didn't think anyone from the US did that until after 9-11.

Enough details. Summing up the whole book: six fish to go.

I figured the time had come to read some John O'Hara. No. I'll start earlier than that. A couple years ago a search for Somerset Maugham's short-short story about Death being surprised to see someone in a Baghdad marketplace because they had an appointment that night in Samarra led me to read a collection of Maugham's short stories. It wasn't there. Then a few months ago I came across mention of John O'Hara's Appointment in Samarra. At that point two lines met, and it was time for O'Hara.

My quest started off well. O'Hara presents the Maugham story as a preface to Appointment in Samarra. Finally, success on one front.

So onto the novel, which was pretty good. It's all about rich people, the depression, religion, sex and bootleggers. At the start of the book the protagonist, a well-to-do man who runs an automobile dealership throws a drink in the face of a boring Irishman. Complications devlope, and at the end of the book the protagonist kills himself. Everything is very brittle and sophisticated..

Will I read more O'Hara? Not sure. I remember seeing and liking a movie many, many years ago called Ten North Frederick that I'm pretty sure was based on an O'Hara novel. I might look for that. And a few years ago a friend gave me the complete New Yorker on CD. I might check O'Hara's short stories there, but I've been saying the same thing about Truman Capote's New Yorker writing for two year.

Do I recommend Appointment in Samarra?. Sure. Why not? I'll give it a solid two thumbs pointing at each other.

I didn’t dislike Dog Soldiers nearly as much as I thought I would. (I'm not big on war stories, and Dog Soldiers starts in Vietnam and follows the trials of an American journalist who deals drugs there and attempts to continue his "trade" when he returns to California.) The beginning of the book was rough going. It passed the 50-page test with just enough interest for me to decide to give it another 25 pages. Somewhere in the sixties it got good, and I remained involved for a hundred plus pages. Then it dwindled. And dwindled. Right before the end there's a stream-of-consciousness section that's well done—if you like that style. I don't--although there's a plus in its use in Dog Soldiers. The section's much shorter than [iA Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man[/i].

There were high points and questionable issues, particularly in the one really good section.

1) "…just because the papers say something and J. Edgar Hoover says something doesn't make it true." (page 64) Good advice in the 70s and, with a name change, good advice now.

2) Miss Picky's having a fit. "In the record department they were playing the 'Age of Aquarius.'" (page 120) Should that "the" be there? Actually it's Google to the rescue. The title is "The Age of Aquarius," so "the" should be there but inside the quotes. Miss Picky can rest easy. Until she starts wondering if a book with such a grievous error should win the National Book Award. Whatever is happening to— Stop it, Martha! Now!

3) "(F)atigue was undercutting the alcohol in his blood, and he felt no closer to intoxication than tachycardia." (page 121) Anyone who knows what "tachycardia" means, raise your hand. No? Go look it up. I did. How can any writer who knows "tachycardia" get the title of— Martha! Oh, okay.

4) My absolute favorite, laugh-out-loud scene is when a major character, Converse, goes to visit his father-in-law, Elmer, publisher of an unusual magazine. The scene takes place in Elmer's office. "Across the surface of the desk were spread pictures of dead people which would be used to illustrate the stories in Nightbeat. Dead people could be portrayed as anything—killer hermits, spanking judges, teen-aged nymphomaniacs—they had no recourse to the law. Only in Utah could lawsuits be filed on the behalf of the dead, so it was important that the dead people come from somewhere else." (page 123) I don't know if the author is right about the law, but I absolutely love the idea behind the magazine.

5) In the same scene Elmer recommends a lawyer to Converse because he's already into the California drug scene. The following conversation ensues:
How 'bout it, Phil? Don't you think you could make it work? Bet Perry Mason could.

6) "So many people have it all figured out and they're all full of s---. It's sad." (page 230) It is sad. And true. And a good line.

7) Speaking of Dog Soldiers being a National Book Award Winner, it contains the following sentence: "The triangle held and his legs with it." (page 309) Huh? I read the sentence, I reread the page before it, I looked for a triangle or at least a reference to a triangle. Not there. So if anyone's a big fan of this book, please read that section over and 'splain it to me.

Overall? I strongly recommend pages 64 through 180.

In the introduction to Freedom Walk: Mississippi or Bust, Mary Stanton, the author, categorizes her book as "shadow history," books that celebrate the, let's say, supporting actors in major historical events. They're the people that might start something or move something along, but they're not the names history connects to the event. They're not the stars.

Freedom Walk's event is the push for civil rights in the early sixties. It's recent; we can easily name the stars, and they do appear in Freedom Walk—but mostly as offstage characters since this book studies a pretty-much unpublicized event. "On April 23, 1963 Bill Moore, a white mailman, was shot on a highway near Attala, Alabama. He was walking to Jackson, Mississippi, from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to hand-deliver a plea for racial tolerance to Governor Ross Barnett. Floyd Simpson, a white Alabama grocer, was arrested and charged with Moore's murder." (page xiii)

Freedom Walk is then about Bill Moore, racial conditions in the South, and the people who marched as a way of honoring his sacrifice. It's interesting. I first heard mention of the book while reading a book on integration in the Methodist church. In my review I quoted a section that mentioned Freedom Walk, and Emma G. (I'm pretty sure it was Emma G.) posted that her family was in it. So, is Sam Shirah the one in your family, Emma?

Interesting stuff:

1) Long before the walk, Moore was diagnosed as schizophrenic and hospitalized. His stay was probably longer than necessary because he refused to step down from principles he held. "It does no good to yield on one point. They will insist that I yield and yield until I have no independent mind left. Better hold the line and never compromise." (page27) Gotta admire that type of thinking, at least IMHO.

2) In a diary Moore ruminates on that period of his life. "Was I crazy? … Yes, I was crazy as fanatical Christians are crazy, though not quite so bad. I never predicted an eternity of hell for those who disagreed with me." (page 31) Gotta admire that type of thinking.

3) Each chapter begins with a quote, two of which are really cool. A) "Nothing will ever be accomplished if all possible objections must be first overcome." Dr. Samuel Johnson. (page 33) B) "Beware of the man whose God is in heaven." George Bernard Shaw.

4) From Moore's diary: "I think of all the troubles all over the earth and I wonder if I'll ever really be able to do my share to help save the world." (page 84) Are there really people who think that way? Are they crazy? I have enough trouble getting successfully through a day; being responsible for a share in saving the world is way outside my parameters. Maybe I'm just too selfish. Do you think Obama thinks he must take a part in saving the US, or is it all an ego trip?

5) In Fort Payne, Alabama, "Shirah (a young man taking part in a later, Moore-inspired walk) noticed a little white boy clutching at his mother's skirts. With his free hand the boy waved to them. When the mother realized what he was doing she slapped him hard, and he started to cry." (page 121) Two thoughts: A) Yep, hate is taught, and B) I really hope that little boy grew up and realized his mother was wrong.

6) "Simpson (the murderer) knew that not all men were saved and not everyone could claim God's love. Only born-again Christians enjoyed that privilege." (page 141) grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Moore himself was an atheist, a belief that was as despised as much as or maybe more than his position on race.

7) At one point marchers asked J. Edgar Hoover if the FBI could provide protection. He responded, "[W]e most certainly do not and will not give protection to civil rights workers. The FBI is not a police organization." (page 172) Whoooe, Grandpa! Get your rifle. Its open season on the civil rights folks.

8) Shirah was eventually shot ( BTW the shooter was a jealous husband not related in any way to the civil rights movement), and in a memorial service the pastor said of Shirah that "Samuel was one of the children of the parsonage who frightened us by taking what he heard in church more seriously than we ever dreamed he might." (page 206) Yep. Christians better be careful. Someone might actually think you want what you preach. (Scoutgal, please don't be offended. I know not all Christians are hypocrites.)

9) Lets end this part with a quote from George Wallace. "The instincts of a common-sense Alabamian … are better than the brains of any New York intellectual moron." (page 207) AARGH! Please tell me there's a none-of-the-above category.

Final thoughts: I found the book interesting and think anyone interested in the civil rights movement would also.

For the most part, Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild irritated me. Oddly enough, I didn't realize why until Krakauer quoted from a letter he received after his article on Alex McCandless was first published. And that solidified what I felt. I dislike ignorance and detest arrogance.

I will, however, admit to enough interest in McCandless to want to know the particulars of what happened to him. So I continued.

But then the author screwed it up—IMHO. He veered off, covering tales of others who had attempted similar treks. Some were successful; some weren't. I read on in horror that Krakaurer would have found a dozen more who started into the Alaskan wilderness but were stopped by something dire, like say a hangnail. Of course he didn't go that far, but he did devote two chapters to his own adventures in Alaska. A book written by a friend received a negative review because of her "intrusive voice." To me, two chapters by the author about the author define intrusive.

Let's just say it's not my type of book.

Martha - I strongly recommend you avoid at all costs, the book by the hiker who had to amputate his own arm. Arrogance and carelessness do not begin to describe the man, or the book.