I re-read Stoner and here are some of my impressions the second time around.
Much of the book is telling not showing. In the first 20% of the book StonI re-read Stoner and here are some of my impressions the second time around.
Much of the book is telling not showing. In the first 20% of the book Stoner hardly says anything but "yes, sir" and "no, sir." Instead the reader gets this extended background article on Stoner, like a long CV. The author also inserts history excerpts here and there, for example about the stoicism of the Romans, that sound as if they're text grabs from Wikipedia.
Here's a sample of a Stoner interaction....
"William Stoner realized that for several moments he had been holding his breath. He expelled it gently, minutely aware of his clothing moving upon his body as his breath went out of his lungs. . . . Light slanted from the windows and settled upon the faces of his fellow students, so that the illumination seemed to come from within them and go out against a dimness; a student blinked, and a thin shadow fell upon a cheek whose down had caught the sunlight. Stoner became aware that his fingers were unclenching their hard grip on his desk-top. He turned his hands about under his gaze, marveling at their brownness, at the intricate way the nails fit into his blunt finger-ends; he thought he could feel the blood flowing invisibly through the tiny veins and arteries, throbbing delicately and precariously from his fingertips through his body.
Sloane was speaking again. “What does he say to you, Mr. Stoner? What does his sonnet mean?”
Stoner’s eyes lifted slowly and reluctantly. “It means,” he said, and with a small movement raised his hands up toward the air; he felt his eyes glaze over as they sought the figure of Archer Sloane. “It means,” he said again, and could not finish what he had begun to say."
This moment is the closest Stoner ever comes to literary criticism in the entire book; not only does he not say anything about the sonnet, he isn’t even thinking about it.
I also find the author's descriptive style very cliched, the "cracked hands" of his father farmer and so on. There are whole passages like this I could paste in.
At one point, one of Stoner's colleagues goes into a rant about how no one in the cruel world cares about literature and so they are all martyrs to a beautiful cause that is doomed to failure. This gives the sense that bibliophiles are somehow a misunderstood minority. I don't feel that way, but perhaps some readers do. And I do think the author expected readers to sympathize with Stoner, no matter his faults and some of his bad behavior.
Meanwhile, attempts to compare the writing in this book to Nabokov or Proust don't work, IMHO.
==========
Astute review of Stoner that goes into more detail...
"Williams’s cultural revival has coincided, not surprisingly, with the demand that art be relatable, allowing the audience to easily fit themselves in. But to be relatable, art must also be incurious, not really interested in the mechanisms of why people are what they are, the texture of their lives, or the objects around them. To be interested in these things is to generate friction between the reader and the text, or at least to elude easy points of identification."
This is the opposite of Proust, who is intensely interested in and perceptive of the world around him, the people he encounters, the beauty of the arts. Life is endlessly fascinating. All described in beautiful prose.
I'm a trained historian. The author of this book is an English professor. If you're properly trained you learn the historical method.
For a book I wasI'm a trained historian. The author of this book is an English professor. If you're properly trained you learn the historical method.
For a book I was working on, I researched Columbus. I had no political agenda. I was simply trying to learn what happened in the first voyage that ended in the shipwreck of the Santa Maria.
I read the entire text of Columbus' first voyage log book. From his own words, it's clear he was a not an explorer. He mistakenly thought he had landed in East Asia instead of the West Indies. He was commissioned by the Spanish Crown to find gold. He was surprised by the people there, the Arawaks, whom he referred to as "talking animals." He ruthlessly pursued the search for gold, though there was very little there.
The late Harvard historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, was an expert on Columbus and wrote a bio of him that was essentially hagiography, "Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus," which I've read. But even in this book, the author admits that Columbus perpetrated genocide in the New World, but with only one sentence.
What followed Columbus was the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors and missionaries. The Arawak were enslaved and made to work on what the Spanish called encomienda. This is documented in the books of the Dominican missionary, Bartolomé de Las Casas, who originally attempted to convert the Arawaks until he saw how wretchedly they were being treated by their conquerors. Las Casas became an advocate for the people that included an audience with the Pope and a meeting with the Spanish crown. Both agreed with Las Casas, but the New World was too far away to enforce the law.
All of this is covered in Zinn's book and properly documented, but typically we want to sweep this under the rug.
And might I add that the removal of Columbus statues is obviously quite justified....more
Researched and documented in detail, how Stegner's plagiarism was flat out theft. Non-writers don't seem to get it. What if you came home from vacatioResearched and documented in detail, how Stegner's plagiarism was flat out theft. Non-writers don't seem to get it. What if you came home from vacation to find your house, cars, and everything gone? But plagiarism is even worse because the writing is the artist's personal creation and someone with a lack of ideas and no talent is taking it as their own.
"I respected (Uncle) John Steinbeck for never jumping through all the hoops at Stanford, even if he kept going back and letting people like Wallace Stegner tell him what The Great American Novel ought to be. Uncle John could write rings around any of them."
-Ursula Le Guin
========
A more detailed account of how Stegner went about it. Makes me despise him even more. Total fraud.
It's easy to connect the dots backwards, as Steve Jobs once put it. Hindsight does not equal foresight.
Luck and timing matter far more than many want to admit.
For example, there were several personal computers that were superior to the IBM/MS version, but they were too early, not a market for them yet, so they ended up in the historical dustbin. ...more
NetGalley isn't going to like this, but I did not learn much from this book. I read his two previous books and have been covering Silicon Valley for 3NetGalley isn't going to like this, but I did not learn much from this book. I read his two previous books and have been covering Silicon Valley for 30 years. There was nothing new for me in his tech discussion. I also have deep background in religion and history, which he covers extensively. But don't let me discourage anyone else for whom the details of these topics are somewhat new. He's done his homework. Now on to a topic I know almost nothing about, everyday life in North Korea.
=============
An attempt at deploying artificial intelligence and some amusing attempts to thwart it....
I took a full two-year course of art history at university, as well as an entire course on the Italian Renaissance from a top expert. I have also travI took a full two-year course of art history at university, as well as an entire course on the Italian Renaissance from a top expert. I have also traveled to Italy several times to see the art & architecture in person. I was looking forward to treating this book as a refresher course. Alas, it was not to be.
I'm not sure the author really knew what he wanted this book to be. The vacuous, self-help prattle is absolutely unnecessary. I suspect the publisher came up with this angle to try to make the book more "relevant" to modern readers. For those who are really interested in Leonardo, I think it's fair to say this aspect could have been left to the reader's imagination.
Several chapters in, it also became clear that historians still don't know that much about Leonardo personally. Early in the book, the author dismisses a biography of Leonardo by contemporary Giorgio Vasari as exaggerated and romanticized, but later in this book quotes Vasari in much the same tone to try to flesh out the subject and fill space.
Much of the book is an attempt at art history. But the author isn't really qualified to render his own judgments. He frequently quotes true experts whose works we should probably read instead. It was not long before I felt this book was a maddening waste of time.
-------------
I have not read the author's books on Benjamin Franklin or Einstein, but can say he really missed the mark with his Steve Jobs biography.
Since college, the author has suffered with a chronic illness, ME/CFS, that went undiagnosed for many years. I read in an interview with her that she Since college, the author has suffered with a chronic illness, ME/CFS, that went undiagnosed for many years. I read in an interview with her that she tended to project her own suffering and illness on to Zamperini, which is only going to cloud his story, rather than illuminate it.
I thought her Seabiscuit was better written and saw a significant drop off on this one. It would not be surprising if her illness impaired her writing style for Unbroken. She has not written a book since.
I'm a trained historian with a degree from U.C. Berkeley. It's important to realize that many writing pop histories and biographies are not. Most of the time, that's okay. But it sometimes results in glaring factual holes. I think that's what happened in this case with the Chernow book. And, of course, it was creatively adapted as an entertaining musical, which I greatly enjoyed. But from my courses in American history and on the Constitution, I was aware of the problems. It's more forgivable for the musical, but not for a fat, detailed book. If you go in with a preconceived notion of your subject, that's what you'll find in your research. Cognitive bias.
I recall Jefferson getting similar scrutiny in the 70's. He was a favorite of many as a kind of Renaissance man until his slave history came out, especially the book on fathering several children with the slave, Sally Hemings.
Ishmael Reed wrote a review challenging the veracity of the Hamilton book and musical
A learned critique of Huntington's derivative notions. There's no honest cultural understanding or analysis in Huntington, just shallow, political hysA learned critique of Huntington's derivative notions. There's no honest cultural understanding or analysis in Huntington, just shallow, political hysteria. It's an exercise in confirmation bias for the ignorant.
This book came out when I had already covered Silicon Valley as a journalist and author for several years. He states his thesis in the intro, which stThis book came out when I had already covered Silicon Valley as a journalist and author for several years. He states his thesis in the intro, which struck me as rather obvious.
Learned nothing from the rest of his book. In fact, saw a great deal of plagiarism from other books I'd read and authors I know. That's Friedman's reputation. He comes out a year late with his ideas, which he has borrowed from many others already.
Then he'd go on TV and talk to the clueless Charlie Rose ...more
sorry, she's still plagiarizing. To any one who knows anything about writing, it should be obvious.... the abrupt changes of writing style for certainsorry, she's still plagiarizing. To any one who knows anything about writing, it should be obvious.... the abrupt changes of writing style for certain passages and descriptions that are obviously lifted, almost wholesale, from the books of others, with no in-text attribution. Saw this throughout and this is precisely what she was caught out on before.
If you're an author, you're acutely aware of the trangression. Some other author has put in all the sweat equity to do the research and to wordsmith the writing and someone just steals it to make themselves look smarter and more lucid. It's plain wrong. Its theft.
The concept of mindfulness has been oversold. I took a course on it at Stanford, with this book as the supporting text, and it was pretty bogus. Some The concept of mindfulness has been oversold. I took a course on it at Stanford, with this book as the supporting text, and it was pretty bogus. Some of the folks in the group were mentally ill and needed professional therapy...more
why the "Broken Windows" concept of crime prevention, advocated in this book, turned out to be a disaster.
Despite all the evidence, the idea continueswhy the "Broken Windows" concept of crime prevention, advocated in this book, turned out to be a disaster.
Despite all the evidence, the idea continues to be popular. Why? The story of broken windows is a story of our fascination with easy fixes and seductive theories.
"It's a simple story that people can latch onto and that is a lot more pleasant to live with than the complexities of life. The fact is that crime dropped in America dramatically from the 1990s, and that there aren't really good, clean nationwide explanations for it."
This was true of numerous metro areas, including LA, that did not implement such a policy.
Loading...
