I am not sure what to call the stories Levi presents, but essays (what’s on the cover) seems wrong. They are more than vignettes. They are, perhaps, sketches of decency amidst the everyday horror of Levi’s experience at Auschwitz. In addition to the beauty evoked by Levi’s account of the surprising appearance of a violin or the astonishing decision by a prisoner to ask for his food to be saved for a day because it was Yom Kippur (and the equally astonishing decision to grant this request) is Levi’s apparent lack of bitterness. His criticisms are gentle but definitive. Perhaps it’s because he knows that the horrors have been described elsewhere. I was surprised to learn that he’d read biographies of various leading Nazis.
These stories, these as true as they can be stories (Levi acknowledges the limits of memory and perspective) areas human and detailed and as moving as language can create. Each one could become a whole novel. Instead, Levi paints his sketch and leaves the gaps and the colors and the implications for his readers to supply.
This book is difficult to describe or to even categorize. The back of the book calls it “Memoir / Criticism,” a combination I’ve not seen before. At times, it felt like I was walking into the middle of a conversation, but that is probably more of a reflection of a lack of experience and knowledge when it comes to the language and issues of gender and sexuality. I was definitely struck by Nelson’s observation that to use language, as she does, is to name and names, indeed words, no matter how many you use, are limiting. And when it comes to issues of gender and sexuality, it seems like writing on these issues is akin to trying to lasso the wind. This prompted Nelson’s title:
I sent you the passage from Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes in which Barthes describes how the subject who utters the phrase “I love you” is like “the Argonaut renewing his ship during its voyage without changing its name.” Just as the Argo’s parts may be replaced over time but the boat is still called the Argo, whenever the lover utters the phrase “I love you,” its meaning must be renewed by each use, as “the very task of love and of language is to give to one and the same phrase inflections whick will be forever new.”
I thought he passage was romantic. You read it as a possible retraction. In retrospect, I guess it was both.
I also appreciated the way Nelson questioned the priorities of the queer community when it comes to the military and marriage. She writes, “if we want to do more than claw our way into repressive structures, we have our work cut out for us.” It was not deliberate, but it felt relevant to read this on the same day the White House announced its absurd and vicious intention to ban transgender people from the military. If I am going to enter that conversation, I need to make sure I enter appropriately, and Nelson has opened the door for me a bit. I need to enter without limits and without limiting anyone else.
Much of the book also centers on Nelson’s experience with pregnancy and her “fluidly gendered partner,” Harry. Their attempts, eventually successful, to have a child are juxtaposed with the need for both of them to deal with their respective mothers, both of whom are dying. And for a time, Nelson has a stalker.
Even if I did not always understand the conversation here, I found Nelson’s writing electric. And funny (see above). I look forward to reading more.
I’ve had the good fortune to see a great deal of theatre in my time and one of the first playwrights I swore off of was Chekhov. (The second was Noel Coward.) I just felt like, “Okay, I got this. Enough already.”
Then along came my book club with the suggestion that we consider him first as a short story writer because he’s known as “the greatest short story writer who has ever lived.” And this, from Raymond Carver, not a bad one himself.
I think I only knew of one story before I started in on this collection and that was “The Bet,” which I like. This collection? Not so much. A recipe emerges –
- Two people, sometimes known to each other, sometimes not, meet
- They talk. A lot.
- They talk about Russia, religion, how to live. They tell stories.
I’m not obsessed with plot, but I think something has to happen. Whatever it is people are seeing in this guy, I’m just not getting it.
I am no chemist. My efforts in high school were absurd (and so was my teacher). But I understood enough to see the chemistry here not just as chemistry – because it was still that. Levi clearly has a high regard for his own vocation as a chemist. But it’s also (and this element was more accessible to me) chemistry as metaphor. The ability to control, transform, analyze, indeed to be rational, when all around you is anything but (i.e., WW2). Science, here, in contrast perhaps to any sense of a deity, is dependable, both in the form of its sometimes monotonous practice and in content. There are rules, laws here – not even a fascist can deny them. Therefore, there is freedom, at least in the mind.
It’s a tough book to classify, which is okay by me. Levi considered it a “micro-history.” I don’t have that category, and since I don’t think it would fit anything else, I did the best I could.
Have you ever read something and been shocked that the author knows the inside of your head so well? This was certainly the case with Canty’s book. And given the fact that the book is set where I grew up, I am wondering if that feeling was more than a coincidence. The compelling intricacy and self-consciousness of Kenny’s thinking is honest, true and familiar. We put words into the air so recklessly. Each one, as we see in this book, can cause damage. The plot, perhaps predictable in places, is not central here. This book is about being on the cusp of adulthood and trying to figure out what means and how to proceed, especially when you are starting to awaken to the fact that those who are older than you may have things that mark success, but they are no more certain about how to move forward than you are.
For a while there, I was sure that the dystopian market was saturated, that agents and publishers were telling authors, “No, for the love of whomever, no more dystopian stories.” But given the state of things in the United States these days, I will not be shocked to find more and more on the market. If they’re as good as Gold Fame Citrus, well, that’ll be a good thing.
We’re out of water. Not in real life, though we’re close to both running out and ruining what we have left. In Watkins’ novel, though, we’re in California, or what’s left of it. And Watkins is wise enough to make a nod to Chinatown.
It seems appropriate, given the way the dunes are increasing and swallowing up everyone and everything, to say that Watkins is adept at shifting the ground beneath our feet. Expectations about genre, plot, conflict are established and not as much upended as they are altered. This is, indeed, a brave new world.
My one criticism is with her depiction of minor characters. There aren’t many, so I was hoping for more depth or nuance with them. The 4 main characters (and I include one here who barely speaks) are wonderful. The others, not so much. Dallas is the most interesting one.
But the story and the imagery are haunting. I may have closed the book, but there is much about the book – from beginning to end – that is staying on my mind.
Our son came home from school with this intriguing title, and he said he was really enjoying it. Since it’s a departure from what he generally likes, I thought I’d investigate. It’s entertaining and provides a nice sketch of what it is like to move from one country to another (which I believe is his teacher’s purpose, since they are studying immigration). The baseball angle is appealing on a number of levels. The presence of Jackie Robinson and indeed, baseball, in her life and then at her school, well, Lord may have overplayed her hand there. Still, it’s a good, engaging read with a great deal to prompt conversation.