OK, I frankly am not all that worried about spoilers. It's a long book, and it doesn't seem to be "plot driven" unlike a Harry Potter or a Da Vinci Code, so I think spoilers won't be a big deal. My thought is that if you are posting something that you think might ruin something, just put a "spoiler warning" somewhere in the title or something. But whatever everybody wants to do is fine with me.
Secondly, let me briefly bring Kyra and Katie up to speed on the twenty odd years of friendship that Phil and I have behind us. Phil and I are very similar in a lot of ways, but very different in others, and I think it creates a nice dramatic tension. (Sidenote: I unequivocally consider Phil to be one my best and truest friends. Sidesidenote: I had a girlfriend once in college who was convinced that if Phil and I hadn't known each other for so long we never would have become friends. I always hated when she would say that.)
But as Eggars described in the introduction, I agree that there are two camps in literature: the ones who think that writing should be extremely accessible and those that thing it should be arduous and challenging. I guess I see where you're coming from when you called Eggars "cute," but I think I'm in the camp that believes that writing should be accessible, and that's how I feel like Eggars writes. In fact, I think I might even be a little of an extremist. In all of the books I had to read for my English major (which has been SUPER useful...ear tug) I felt like I got the most out of the ones that were written in my language, or better, my vernacular. I felt the same way on my mission: As good as I ever got at Porkandcheese, my communication skills never even came close to my native language. Which, incidentally, is why I think that missionaries that bring home "natives" to marry that don't share a common first language is not a good idea.
But, I recognize that I am on the far side of the camp, and it's refreshing to hear someone who has a different opinion, and I can certainly respect the sentiment. And, I sort of agree with Eggars that this book is somewhere in the middle, which is kind of nice. I'm also very excited for Phil to do some groundwork for us and find out about his hometown.
OK, so this isn't that far into the book, and it isn't a spoiler, but the part after the marijuana scene where he describes his encounter with the therapist ("conversationalist") I thought was great. It's interesting because I have essentially seen a therapist and been a therapist (in a way). Allow me to explain: I work with a pediatric psychiatrist once a week at children's hospital as a part of the "treatment team." So we go and meet with kids that have problems that are far beyond their age. When I saw a therapist to help me decide whether or not to go back to school, I loved it. I saw her as a benevolent third party to help me sort out my issues. When I'm on the "treatment team" though it is very different. Today for instance, I saw a fifteen year old kid who was living in a foster home, has ADHD, Bipolar, and diabetes. When he's on a bipolar swing, or when he's just feeling like a fifteen year old, he doesn't take his diabetes medicine, and he winds up in the hospital, like today. So we're called in to do a "psych consult" meaning we spend about an hour talking to the kid and his foster mom. Point being: this kid is sick. He's in the hospital. He's all teenage-y and angst-y and we march in with five strangers, wake him up from his nap, and ask him to tell us about his feelings. As you can imagine, he didn't respond that well. And so I thought that chapter captured the dichotomy pretty well. On the one hand, therapy can be this kind, semi-omnipotent, even paternalistic experience, but on the other hand it can be a little "big brother;" controlling and intimidating.
And that chapter, not to keep bringing up AHWOSG, reminded me of the part in Eggars where he's doing the interview for MTV's Real World, and suddenly the interviewer explains that he's not really in the interview, but that it's a platform for a monologue. I thought it was a pretty clever literary device, although I thought it worked a little better in AHWOSG.
SOOOO, as Katie pointed out, this sucker is real long, and I'm not too far, but hopefully I will have some more time this Christmas to do a little reading and post some real nuggets. In the mean time, I love you guys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I stumbled upon this blog via my friendship with Katie, and don't really have any idea what book you are talking about (as I only read the most recent post) but several thoughts struck me on the points you made:
As far as their being two camps of literature, and accessibility holding primacy over complexity: what constitutes "accessible" is going to be variable across different demographics - the point of education, or one of them, is to constantly increase ones intelectual capacity and cognitive power.
To illustrate: for many, the works of Shakespeare, due to their use of archaic English, are highly inaccessible to a majority of the populace. I took a class focused on Shakespeare, and the more time I spent with the language the easier it became to understand. By the end of the course Hamlet had become one of my favorite books and I had written several analytical papers on various Shakespearean works.
Linguistical, as well as intellectual hurdles can be overcome with the proper training. I don't think we should shy away from any work because it's initially difficult for us to comprehend. Only through stretching the intellect past levels it has already achieved can it grow.
I learned Polish on my mission. I went from incompetence to a very high level of mastery. Given more time and immersion in the language I'm confident my ability would have continued to grow.
We can consistently and frequently immerse ourselves in writing and literature and continually stretch our mastery of language and the written word.
SAM! Ha. I think you'd love this book (Infinite Jest). You'd probably carry it around as long as you did Brothers of Karamazov. (which is a favorite of mine, and I toted around for what I think was multiple years in my case.)
I forgot I had a real comment about the original post. I spattered this out right after I read Erik's comments.
Therapy is such a stigmatized intervention, which is a tragic commentary on our social values.
I have a friend who went to therapy a lot, and after graduating could not longer afford it. When she ended up returning home, her parents refused to help her out with it because they have this ridiculous obsession with image, and needing therapy is not “normal.” Along with an array of other complex problems, her father says he had a rough life too, and he turned out all right. (That fact is debatable, but nonetheless his argument).
The reality is that she is a very smart girl, a good head on her shoulders, and someone I trust explicitly for seeing the world rather clearly and objectively, and therapy was good for her, she thrived on it, gave perspective, sorted out issues, was a good sounding board for problem solving.
On the other hand society has a need to over psycho-analyze everything. In my Abnormal Psych class we talked about the growing trend of providing trauma de-briefing teams and crisis tents during “traumatic events.” There was later documentation published that has said it made things worse. It made the stable people less stable, and those who would benefit from the service just as if no treatment was given.
It seems like everyone nowadays has to be diagnosed with something…at times it is used as an excuse for our behaviors. Pharmaceutical solutions can perhaps be worse for the generalized social views, implying that pill popping is a satisfactory treatment rather than communication and responsibility. I believe in the reality of chemical benefits but I do believe it is a benefit that is misconceived on a wide scale.
In a book called One Nation Under Therapy, they talk about the resiliency of kids. My favorite chapter discusses the debate of banning dodge ball in public schools, fearing it alienates and emotionally scars and damages sensitive and "different" children. It singles them out. This book basically calls it like it is, it frankly says, "Suck it up." Like it or not, you learn life skills that way. I persoanlly learned life strategies in grade school dodge ball. I hated dodge ball, but I learned to get out and get by.
This book continues to argue that if we protect them from dodge ball, what will happen when a real crisis shows up and they do not have coping strategies? Their world falls apart and the constructs their whole life was built upon tumble down around them. I assume everything feels like a lie and they do not have the resources instilled in them to pick up the pieces.
I had a good friend tell me that you should have at least one serious fight with your significant other before you marry them. She said you gotta know they won't up and leave, or quit. If your most serious argument is about what movie to rent, you have no concept of what will happen when life does; when a real crisis occurs.
Anyway, the situation of a boy sent to 'talk' is funny, and telling of our sometimes ridiculous attempts to "fix something" that could very well not be broken. The attempts to have an effect on his kid vicariously through a sterile 3rd party. It is weird.
Oh, I could reread it, but for some reason I imagined it aa a mock interrogation setting, where the kid can't see the 'conversationalist; in person, but just responds to an overhead voice. Set up as a sort of "behind a two-way-mirror" gig. Did I make this up?
Post a Comment