Collected Miscellany

I am on the road in Indiana visiting some old college buddies and so not likely to be posting that much for a couple of days. I have received some interesting comments on the post below and hope to reflect on those comments with another post in the not too distant future. I also have a number of book reivews in the queue so make sure and check back later for more content. hopefully my co-bloggers here will kick in some content too.

If you need a fix of my writing and you missed it when it was posted here, National Review Online has posted my book review of Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World. Thanks as always for visiting and I will check back in as I am able.

Yesterday Maud Newton posted an interview with the Scottish writer A.L. Kennedy that prompted a very mixed bag of feelings. What follows are my thoughts as best as I can collect them. Although it will seem lame and artificial, I want to assure readers, and Maud herself, that my intent is not to somehow attack Maud personally or denigrate her site. I read her regularly and bear no ill will toward her; in fact wish her the best. There seems to be some pressure on her to post more often or cover more subjects or in some way please her readers more. I have no issue on that front. Maud should post whatever she wants whenever she wants. (I had troubling following it but I think I was on Maud’s side in the New Partisan contretemps.) She should do what she thinks is best and in her own interest. I doubt very much that any criticisms coming from this post will hurt her or cause her stress, but if in some way they do I apologize. But this blog is often a way for me to get things off my chest and wouldn’t be nearly as much fun if I held back. What follows is simply my reactions, feelings, thoughts, and whatnot. If you disagree feel free to fire back, if you agree feel free to shout amen, if you could care less feel free to ignore it.

Continue reading →

I am not one to abandon a book midway through it. I am not sure why but I am usually obsessive about finishing every book I start. I must be getting older and more conscious of time, however, because I also used to insist on starting a series from the beginning. If I saw a book that was part of a series I would go to the library and check all of the book in that series and start at the beginning. Recently I find myself too time conscious to read the previous volumes in a series before I start the one in front of me.

All of this is a round about way to discuss my failure to complete Dickens and the Social Order by Myron Magnet. The good people at ISI Books were kind enough to send me their reissue of this classic work and I really thought this would be a good companion to Jane Smiley’s bio of Dickens. I am afraid, however, the Mr. Magnet’s knowledge of Dickens goes a bit deep for me. The writing is intelligent and the subject interesting, but to get something out of it would require a commitment of time and energy I simply don’t have.

Those of you who – unlike me – have read Dickens’s work and/or have a background in academia would likely find Dickens and the Social Order a worthwhile endeavor. Magnet focuses on four of Dickens’ early works Nicholas Nickelby, Barnaby Rudge, American Notes and Martin Chuzzlewit while arguing that the liberal reformism for which Dickens is so well known rested on a surprisingly traditional view of society. So far so good as this is an interesting thesis. The rub lies in the 2700 plus pages these four books contain. I was originally hoping to read one of the novels and then take up Magnet’s critique, but I soon wimped out. I will admit it, I am not interested in reading 800 page books these days. Call me lazy if you will but there it is.

Continue reading →

John J. Miller has an interview with Robert Ferrigno (author of The Wake Up), over at National Review Online today. Given my discussion of morality in Kevin Wignall’s People Die, I found this exchange interesting:

National Review Online: In The Wake-Up, the plot turns on a hard-charging businessman who is cruel to a boy and a bystander’s belief that a wrong must be made right. Like your other novels, it feature loads of bad guys and no cops, yet there’s a moral sensibility as well. How do you work that in when even the good guys live outside the system?

ROBERT FERRIGNO: I think the highest morality is by definition, personal, and outside any system. As a character in one of my previous books says, “if you need a rule book to tell you the difference between right and wrong, you’re f*** ed forever.” Consequently, none of my protagonists are cops, and there is little official police presence. This began instinctively and has since become quite deliberate, as a reflection of the moral imperative of my fictional universe. I don’t like characters who are required to do the right thing as part of their job descriptions — so no cops, no firefighters, no crusading attorneys. I prefer the individual who is confronted with a moral choice and, out of his own free will, does the right thing. The fact that the consequences of such action are that things are frequently made worse is part of the moral conundrum. (The Wake-Up revolves around an innocent good deed that has terrible consequences, and the “hero” of my last book, Scavenger Hunt, investigates an old crime, a supposedly solved case, and in so doing sets the real killer back killing to cover his tracks) My protagonists, even knowing the risks of moral involvement, always choose to take that risk. The good man is compelled to do good, no matter the consequences. It is the blowback, and how the good man deals with the blowback, that I am most interested in. The hero cleans up his own mess. I take my work very seriously — the dangers of an undergraduate degree in philosophy — but while Nietzsche said he philosophized with a hammer, I prefer a more deft approach, and a funnier one. I spend most of my time at the keyboard laughing at the things my characters say. If the writer isn’t having fun, the reader isn’t going to get a satisfying ride, and that’s my true intention.

Continue reading →

A note from Bud Parr at Chekhov’s Mistress as well Booksquare’s sound advice lead me to consider further preparations for the upcoming conference. Booksquare notes certain blunders to avoid. While it’s too late for me to avoid many of them, they are worth repeating.

Speaking of Chekhov, never compare your work to his. With film people, this will lead to a pointless discussion of all the Star Trek characters. This is a three minute sidetrack and you only have seven minutes left.

If it’s a three day conference, use Day One to create a mental grid map of the facilities. The people you want to speak to will eventually need food and drink; hire lookouts and a team of runners.

Oh My GOD Jillian Manus knows my name! This is a more of Day Two peril; she knows your name because she can read. It’s easy to forget that you’re wearing a name tag.

Your pitch is interrupted to search for sliced mangos; this is a high risk scenario with FILM PEOPLE. Mangos aren’t native to the Pacific Northwest; the busboy will probably leave the building rather than disappoint the man in sunglasses. A volunteer may bring canned peaches; don’t be distracted.

Let the work speak for you. Hand over a one page synopsis; answer questions as best you can. If it’s a BOOK PERSON, you won’t have to shout. Sometimes a low-key approach can result in a reverse pitch wherein they describe your work to you and you nod.

My people will talk to your people. Don’t be alarmed if you don’t have any ‘people.’ Don’t try to memorize references to ‘Matt’ or ‘Trish.’ Obtain a business card; if the person says that the address on the card is ‘old’, tear the card up.

Try not to frighten random hotel guests; they don’t understand what’s happening in the lobby. They’re on vacation.

Avoid that fortieth cup of coffee. Have a mango instead.

Let’s say that you enjoy literary novels but disdain thrillers. Or, you’re the kind of reader who fidgets around page one hundred of a book you believe you should want to read. You want to finish that big book; it’s a kind of talisman.

Yeah, I was speeding officer, but I read The Corrections. Well, some of it. Just the good bits during a pause in round 127 of the NFL draft.

Then you have Steve Hamilton who writes extremely well while telling a story about characters you care about. His latest is ICE RUN, part of his Alex McKnight series.

Although the novel picks up where BLOOD IS THE SKY left off, it’s not a sequel. Alex is dating Natalie Reynaud of the Ontario Provincial Police; we met Natalie in the previous novel. She’s on leave, recovering from events both tragic and deeply personal.

Alex and Natalie are star crossed lovers. It’s not easy for either of them and the weather isn’t helping; climate and setting are crucial elements in the story. Alex lives in a cabin near the hamlet of Paradise in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula; Natalie lives across the border in Blind River, Ontario.

Continue reading →