response 244 of 298:

Jan 22 08:11 UTC 2001

*wracks [racks?] brains* Obviously it's because they both have to do with
multiplying the number of things, but why this is abominable to Borges
I've forgotten if I ever knew. Why is it?

I guess I was exaggerating a bit when I said I "knew" the story, as now
that I try to think about it my recollection is distinctly fuzzy (it
wasn't one of the stories I read closely for the research paper, and now
I can only remember the part about the encyclopedia entry and something
about things coming into existence when they were written about.) I'll
be down at the library some time this week though and will look for the
anthology in which I originally read it, and then I might be able to
write something meaningful.

The research assignment was a whole lot of fun. I can't say that I'm
too happy with the final product as a whole, because it doesn't really
have much of a thesis--I have a tendency to start writing such things with
only a general sort of "focus" in mind, in this case the theme of the
labyrinth, and hope that by the end I'll have discovered something which then
can be made into a thesie statement. In this case it didn't really work,
principally I think because I kept hoping to find that the stories featuring 
labyrinths would turn out to have a kind of philosophical consensus,
and they rather obviously don't, as I belatedly realized at 2a.m. on the
morning of the day the paper was due. For example: in the famous "Garden
of Forking Paths" Borges presents the idea that the universe is constantly
being duplicated in slightly different forms as decisions are made, so the
number of "possible futures" increases exponentially with the passage of
time. But in "A Survey of the works of Herbert Quain" he seems to present
the opposite view, in the form of a book with nine possible stories of
Evening #1, three possible stories for Evening #2 and only one for the
third evening. (He then goes on to say that this is only a poor imitation of
the universe's true scheme, which would feature [naturally ;-] an infinite
number of branches). There are other examples too, like "The Lottery in
Babylon" where the labyrinth is constructed not by conscious decisions but
by chance. Borges is less interested in presenting a single view of the
world than he is in toying with the various possibilities. At least that's
what I think. :-)

(Apart from a couple of interviews in which he talks about his innate
philosophical skepticism [fairly selective it seems, since he also has a
great interest in mysticism and suchlike], I think it was "The Library of
Babel" that led me to this conclusion. The Library is obviously the universe,
and there are descriptions of various groups who seem to symbolize different
"ways of knowing", to borrow the relativists' phrase; the narrator expresses
distrust for more or less all of them.)

(Another story I really enjoyed was "Death and the Compass", which has both
a nice symmetry of construction [to go along with the symmetry of the 
mansion?] and a macabre murder mystery keeping up the pace.)

--
query: what are the four elements of fantasy, according to Borges? I remember
the story within the story but not the other three.

response 246 of 298:

Jan 31 16:23 UTC 2001

At the end of November, my wife gave me Tom Clancy's _The_Bear_and_the_Dragon_.
 When I started reading it, I realised that he had covered a lot of ground
since _The_Sum_of_All_Fears_, so I went to the library and got
_Without_Remorse_, _Debt_of_Honor_, and _Executive_Orders_.  When I finished
them, I went back to _Bear_, and discovered there was another one,
_Rainbow_Six_.  So I got it and started reading.  Got a little bit into it, and
decided that _Bear_ was chronologically earlier, so I went back to that. Then I
came across a reference to Rainbow which made it clear that I was wrong, so I
finished _Rainbow_ before continuing with _Bear_.  Now I'm done.

Clancy is an exciting writer, but I've decided he is also a poor writer.
It's not just the proofreading, which seems to be a general problem these
days, and it's not just the inconsistency in continuity, which is more
important to his books than to some other authors'.  But I can't quite
put my finger on why he leaves me dissatisfied.  I guess it is the details
he gets wrong after appearing to be putting so much effort into getting
them right.

Consider.  He designates a Marine helicopter squadron as "VMH-1".
Problem is, the "V" means "fixed-wing"; Marine helicopter squadrons are
designated HM_-xx.  The third character identifies the kind of helicopter:
Attack, Light, Medium, and Heavy are the usual choices.  The squadron he is
talking about in his books doesn't quite follow that pattern; it is HMX-1.
I know he wants to avoid entanglements with Real Life, but this isn't the
way to do it.  Change the third character from an X to an M or an L or H;
change the number to 5.  But calling a rotary-wing unit by a fixed-wing
designator is Just Wrong.

Inconsistency in Continuity:  In _Debt_, _Orders_, and _Rainbow_, he
calls the successor to the KGB "RVS."  In _Bear_, he changes it to SVR.
EXCEPT at the top of one page its RVS, and then toward the bottom of
that same page it is back to SVR.  (That's also a proof-reading problem,
isn't it?)  In the first three, John Clark uses the Russian name Ivan
Timofeyevich Klerk.  In _Bear_, it's Ivan Sergeyevich.  Except at the
very end when he's called "Ivan Timofeyevich" again.

I won't comment on the physics he uses at the end of _Bear_ to build
fake-suspense, but I will say that I *still* haven't figured out how
six plus two equals ten.

response 248 of 298:

Nov 9 14:44 UTC 2001

Franzen is reportedly a good writer (I've only read a couple of his New 
Yorker pieces) but a social idiot.  When The Corrections was selected 
as the next Oprah Club book, Franzen made some supercilious remarks 
about the Oprah Club, whereupon Oprah Winfrey announced that she was 
skipping The Corrections and going on to the next book.  This was after 
Franzen's publisher had increased the first printing from 80,000 to 
500,000 on the strength of the Oprah Club selection.  Franzen issued an 
apology, but it was too late.  Then he started a book-signing at some 
chain store with a remark about how lowbrow he thought chain-store book 
signings are.  

response 250 of 298:

Jan 21 20:34 UTC 2002

I think the last book I read was _The_Return_of_the_King_.  I'm currently
reading _Fire_Bringer_.

response 252 of 298:

Jan 22 00:50 UTC 2002

Nope.  I read it the first time in Sep/Oct '73; a month or later I dipped into
it for "research" and ended up reading the last half or more.  Then I read
it again in Dec '73/Jan '74.  And so many times since that I can no longer
count.  It just happens to be the most recent book I've finished. :)

response 254 of 298:

Jan 23 15:37 UTC 2002

I disagree; I find LotR much more readable than _The_Hobbit_.

response 256 of 298:

Jan 23 20:31 UTC 2002

Harold Schechter, _The Hum Bug_, Pocket Books, 2001. 

This is novel written in the first person of Edgar Allen Poe about a
series of grisly murders in New York City in ca. 1844, in connection with
which Poe is described as helping to investigate. There are many subplots,
the major one of which is Poe's association with P. T. Barnum and his
"American Museum" in New York of "oddities", of animals, objects, and
humans. 

As far as the murder mystery theme is concerned, it is less skillful than
the real Poe's stories. There are a lot of subplots involving strange
characters, while real clues to the murders appear in contrived manners
and often much delayed - that is, the reader is not provided clues early
enough to get involved in the unravelling of the crimes.

Of much greater interest to me than the story was the persona presented
for Poe. He arrives in New York accompanied by his wife, who's name is
Virginia but who is called "Sissy", and referred to by Poe as his "wifey",
with much ado about his devotion to his delicate helpmate. Also in the
family is his wife's mother, who is spoken to as "Muffy". (In real life
Poe's wife is his first cousin, so his mother-in-law was also his aunt,
and this is briefly alluded to in the story.)

So Poe comes across as a somewhat fastidious romantic very solicitous of
his family members, devoting his time only peripherally to his writing. 
This was very much at odds with my preconception of Poe from only reading
his stories and brief biolgraphies (usually emphasizing his drinking and
monetary problems). 

A brief diversion in the story involves Poe suddenly deciding he wanted to
write a poem in his frequent theme of the death of a beautiful woman. He
titled the resulting work _The Raven_.

The more interesting character in the novel is P. T. Barnum, the ultimate
humbug, self-promoter, and bon-viant. 

The author, Schechter, a professor of literature, has written the
non-fiction books _The A-Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers_, _Bestial_,
_Depraved_, _Deranged_, Deviant, Outcry, and the prior "Poe" novel
_Nevermore_. 

response 258 of 298:

Jan 25 03:40 UTC 2002

LotR is an adult book, Hobbit is a not-bad-for-adults kid book. 

response 260 of 298:

Feb 6 06:19 UTC 2002

  I'd never heard of Trevanian before a friend recently recommended that
  I read the ultra-cheezy sounding spy novel "Shibumi."  The way it was 
  described, it sounded just bad enough to be good..

response 262 of 298:

Mar 15 23:55 UTC 2002

the sound and the fury
faulkner

response 264 of 298:

Mar 23 18:50 UTC 2002

The book that I'm currently reading is _The_Wheel_Of_Time_ Series, book number
five _The_Fires_Of_Heaven_.  Is anyone else reading this awesome series by
Robert Jordan?  These books are awesome, I've been recommending them to any
fantasy fiction fan I can get ahold of - at my school I suggested them to a
friend who inturn suggested them to his friends.. let's just say now like half
the class is reading his series, it is soo awesome.  Exciting, Moving,
tastefully written, and in times very humourous.

response 266 of 298:

Mar 24 12:35 UTC 2002

I also like the Jordan series very well.  He's visibly improved (in things
like economy of style) as he's gone on.  I'm beginning to wonder if he'll ever
get to the point where he can wrap things up, though.  (And he's already put
in some hooks for a followup series, at that.)  He's now done at least as many
books as called for by his early projections, and he's got so many plot lines
open that he can't reasonably finish in less than another couple of books;
these very large books are now covering a time span of a month or two at most.