Robert Hicks' A Separate Country

asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef
asef

Fans of Robert Hicks' Widow of the South - and there are quite a few of you out there - will be excited to learn of Hicks' newest release A Separate Country, a tale of redemption in the Reconstruction South. Following the bloody battle at Franklin, TN, Confederate General John Bell Hood retreats to New Orleans to start a new life. Over the next ten years, business hardships, disease, and a strong family love will transform him from the person he was during the Civil War.

Read the rest of my review at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

E.M.Forster's Howards End

Am grinding out my novel into a contrast between money and death—the latter is truly an ally of the personal against the mechanical." – E.M. Forster 1910

E. M. (Edward Morgan) Forster began writing his enduring classic Howards End in 1908, sometime after a visit to see his friends the Postens, a charming couple that would inspire Margaret and Henry Wilcox. Forster was keenly interested in the transition and contrast between city and country, modernity and tradition, culture and money. Margaret and Henry, like the Postens, epitomized the convergence – and integration – of these various themes. Forster, himself, had wrestled with how to balance these ideas, ultimately determining that a focus on relationships and the ‘human connection’ was the best way to achieve synthesis.

Howards End is a ‘big idea’ novel, one that gave Forster space to contemplate social issues that were coming to the fore in early 20th century England. The urbanization and mechanization of society, though ostensibly a positive, rubbed Forster the wrong way. The very things that were supposed to raise people up, to help them achieve a better life, were actually trampling them down. Socialism, and other notions of equalizing society, were being discussed in Forster’s circle – mainly moneyed intellectuals - and heartily supported by certain writers, like George Bernard Shaw. However, the idea that money was not important seemed hypocritical to Forster, as many of his compatriots were able to espouse such valiant theories because they had money.

Forster fleshes out this argument in the relationship between Margaret and Helen Schlegel, two sisters at the center of Howards End who have very different ideas about how money should be used in society. Helen champions the Socialist cause, even going so far as to give up a large portion of her income to support the Basts; while Margaret understands the privilege and necessity of money, without ignoring, of course, the point that to have money is important and to have access to achieving it even more so. In contrast to these two thinking sisters are the Wilcoxes, a family of great material comfort. Charles Wilcox, Henry Wilcox’s son is the epitome of empire and wealth. He is a person with no thought for others, particularly the poor. His mother Ruth, in contrast, cares deeply for people, but only in the abstract. She can appreciate the ideas of both sides, but her ethereal nature and inability to connect on a deeper level – except if it involves her beloved house Howards End – is almost as bad as Charles’ willful blindness towards the plights of others. Into this mix walks Leonard Bast, a poor clerk who desperately wants enlightenment, though his societal position and personal choices would make this almost impossible.

At the center of these characters and ideas is Howards End, Ruth’s family home and the fictive image of Forster’s own loved childhood home, Rooksnest. With the onslaught of urbanization and the increased population in England, Forster suggests, “The more people one knows, the easier it is to replace them. It is one of the curses of London. I quite expect to end my life caring most for a place."

The final moment of the novel – with Helen, Margaret, and Henry in pastoral peace at Howards End – suggests Forster’s ultimate point of his complex novel. Both Henry and Helen have moved to the middle to be more ideologically close to the balanced Margaret, the character, who in her ability to negotiate wealth, caring and intellectualism, most mirrors Forster. All three characters have vacated London to embrace the life force of the English countryside, a place that, for Forster, symbolized English values. Here they are able to connect not only with the essence of Englishness but with each other – a critical component, as the novel's epigraph implies, of a functional society.

BookCrossing

Two starcrossed lovers meet on a park bench...

In the case of BookCrossing, though, the lovers are book and reader. I find this concept very cool. Register at bookcrossing.com and leave books random places for random people to find. Spread the gift of knowledge or just get rid of used books in a unique way.

The site says this:

BookCrossing is earth-friendly and gives you a way to share your books, clear your shelves, and conserve precious resources at the same time. Through our own unique method of recycling reads, BookCrossers give life to books. A book registered on BookCrossing is ready for adventure.

Leave it on a park bench, a coffee shop, at a hotel on vacation. Share it with a friend or tuck it onto a bookshelf at the gym -- anywhere it might find a new reader! What happens next is up to fate, and we never know where our books might travel. Track the book's journey around the world as it is passed on from person to person.

A Better Pencil?

Dennis Baron, a linguistics and English professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, puts some historical context into the "Is the internet ruining our brains?" conversation. He says that every technological development involving communication has met a mixed reception. The internet, facebook, and texting is no different.

Read more here.

Gaynor Arnold's Girl in a Blue Dress

Author celebrity is nothing new. In fact, our version of author celebrity is quite tame compared to what Charles Dickens enjoyed in his life time. During his publicity tour of America,for example, he was thronged in the streets and every event sold out. Today, Charles Dickens is a household name, as are many of his beloved characters. Yet, Dickens as the man, not the author, is not as well known – at least not to the general public. Many do not know that the man who espoused family values and care of the hearth actually threw his wife out after 20 years of marriage to pursue a (somewhat clandestine) affair with an actress. Or at least this is the version according to Gaynor Arnold’s 2008 debut hit Girl in a Blue Dress.
asdf
Based on the life and marriage of Charles Dickens, Arnold’s novel follows Alfred and Dorothea Gibson (Charles and Catherine) through their courtship, marriage, separation, and Alfred’s death. Told from Dorothea’s point of view, the novel presents a viable explanation of troubling events: Gibson marries Dorothea out of great love, has 8 children with her, grows distant, and eventually pushes her aside – literally forcing her out of their marital home and into a small apartment with no family about her and only one servant. Through flashback, letters, and great emotional insight, Dorothea tries to come to terms with her husband’s treatment of her and the wreck of their married life.
asdf
Most interesting, perhaps, is Arnold's clear portrait of Alfred’s megalomania and his indisputable will. Family and friends cower in front of his every whim and Dorothea, often blinded by love and a little fear, never truly stands up for herself. Not that she should be expected to. Women led different lives in Victorian England, and Arnold’s subtle positioning of Dorothea’s experience in the context of Victorian womanhood is a triumph. Her 8 pregnancies leave her body tired and fat. Her despair over two dead children render her (mostly) incapable of handling the duties of her household and needs of her remaining children. Though Alfred pays lip service to Dorothea’s needs, his escapades in the middle of the night, worship of her sister Alice, reliance on her sister Sissy, and inability to see anything from her perspective, indicate his lack of deep caring for his wife. His writing and his needs are always paramount in his mind, as they should be – his behavior makes clear – to everyone around him.
asefd
Though it would be easy to see this novel as a portrait of female repression, it is not as clear cut as it seems. As soon as the reader wants to cast Alfred off as nothing but a patronistic pain, Dorothea or Arnold are quick to provide another view of him, one that forces the reader to see the complexity of this marriage. Dorothea is treated poorly, but there are two sides here, which Dorothea herself is quick to remind us.
asdf
Although, Arnold does not intend for us to take her version of this story as a literal interpretation, the characterization, historical detail, and persuasive motives, make it difficult to realize that this absorbing first novel is fiction. One feels at the end of this novel as if Charles Dickens and his challenging personality has been completely revealed.

Random Jottings

- The Lost Symbol busted out of the gate with the most sales of any adult book in one day, according to Barnes and Noble. Amazon has also seen record sales.

- I finished Gaynor Arnold's Girl in a Blue Dress, which was very good. The ending was a bit anti-climactic, but the insights into Catherine Dickens' life were interesting. More on this later.

- I also finished reading and reviewing Robert Hicks' A Separate Country, which will hit bookstores September 23. This post-Civil War historical drama follows the redemption of Civil War general John Bell Hood. Folks who liked Widow of the South (though I thought it had much to be desired in the plot department) will definitely want to pick this one up. Country improves upon Widow in every single way. Clearly, Hicks will not have the second novel slump. More on this later, too.

- An article at The Guardian updates us on one of the coolest things ever.

Are You Buying The Lost Symbol Tomorrow?

I’m not, but that doesn’t mean thousands of other folks won’t be flocking to the Krogers, Wal-Marts and Borders near them to pick “them up a copy,” like we say down South. I’m not saying that I’m not going to read it. My curiosity is too piqued to resist, but this isn’t Harry Potter, so I can wait until the library has an available copy.

I am dying, however, to know if Brown decided to live on the wild side and break free of his favorite plot structure: Smart person, usually Ph.D, searches for something important with the help of someone who is really the villain. Let’s hope for monotony’s sake that he did.

The New York Times has this to say.

In Defense of Fiction

Lev Grossman’s frantic apologia of mass market fiction in today’s Wall Street Journal is a jumbled argument at best, a misguided set of sentiments at worst. The basic notion that fiction with plot lies antithetical to literary fiction is just wrong. He even implicitly acknowledges this when he recommends The Great Gatsby as an example of good plot, though he listed it as an example of the Modernism that originally "killed" plot in the first place.

Let me state, however, before I move too far, that I believe ALL books have a place somewhere – yes, even the bad ones, like the Twilight series. Who knows when a book like this will get someone excited about reading? However, pitting one type of book against another type is just bad for business – especially when the type of books being championed are the easy, silly ones. I love a great story, but what I love even more is when a great story is told in a smart, unique way. However, let’s have a brief chat about what plot IS anyway – and yes, Mr. Grossman, the modernists did help us to expand this definition - not kill it -much to our gratitude.

The elementary school definition of “plot” is action and it follows a bell curve. A plot is introduced, rises in suspense to a climax, and then recedes to a resolution. Most plot is easy to identify because it takes place as external action. The characters perform action, things happen, things are resolved, the book is over. What the modernists did for us – and the postmodernists expanded upon – is the notion of internal action, the idea that tremendous things can happen in the mind that effect the outside world - or at least the character's view of it. Julia Leigh is a master of such plotting. Nothing much “happens” in her recent novella Disquiet, yet the main character is completely transformed by the end of the book. The small moments – her return to her childhood home, memories of trauma from her abusive marriage, thoughts of suicide while she floats in the lake – transform her just as radically as any major, dramatic event. Leigh’s precision in Olivia’s character allows us see to how these insignificant happenings could change a person. And, actually, this is closer to what happens in real life.

So. We have a new, more nuanced definition of plot, one that allows for a more interesting view of fiction. The best authors are able to manipulate these nuances, add some great language, and create a wonderfully rich novel. Some, like the mass market folks, are not. However, a spade should be called a spade when we see it, and Stephanie Meyer is not a great novelist because her books have sold millions of copies. (Determining the quality of any art through the market is always a faulty business.) Stephanie Meyer could never be Leo Tolstoy – not that she’s trying – and no amount of multiple weeks on the bestseller list makes her such. Let’s not be confused and think that it does.

Lev Grossman argues that because these mass market books are selling so well, they must be quality – or what they represent, plot over non-plot, must be - but one does not always equal the other. He also argues that they’re good because they are not hard. Perhaps they are not hard, but what is hard, and who defines it? I actually find (many of) the mass market books HARD to read because they’re so inane and boring. There is nothing to hold on to, no interesting characters, no unique insights into the human condition. Some people really like these books, and I think that’s fine, but let’s not be obtuse and say that their popularity argues for their quality.

In close, I find all cant like that of Grossman’s to be disturbing and not a little bit depressing. If the Time book critic is not arguing for people to expand their view of literature past the Kroger book section, who is going to make the argument that there are great books out there besides the ones that make big hits with the teens? Who is going to recommend Bram Stoker’s Dracula or Wilkie Collin’s The Woman in White to the person who has “fallen in love” with the Twilight series? If our “plot-deficient” novels of today are hard, then when will Dickens, Thackery, Eliot, Austen, Shakespeare, and Fitzgerald become hard? Oh, right, they have already because people like Grossman believe that reading is only GOOD when absorbed through easily digestible action. The notion of reading to expand a person’s view of the world, themselves, and humanity, I suppose, is too “hard.”

Disappearing Dictionaries?

An article in today's Wall Street Journal queries whether we still need dictionaries in the age of Google. Like encyclopedias, the idea of the print dictionary is quaint and bulky, but are online dictionaries just as passe? Online dictionaries have stepped in to provide more up to date definitions and use-in-context examples; however, these may not be an improvement over Google's mental monolith.

"Of course, there is plenty that dictionaries still do well. Online dictionaries provide most of the definition links that pop up in Google. Dictionaries are still good for obscure usages and etymologies. Dictionaries also can arbitrate disputes that arise during a game of Scrabble or late-night conversations.

sdf

But dictionaries have also failed us in many ways. They infuriate word sticklers by presenting a variety of usages and leaving the reader to decide which is correct. Dictionaries fail to update meanings often enough. And due to space constraints in the print editions, many dictionary definitions are so concise as to be unhelpful. Ever run into a definition like this one for calumnious: "of, involving, or using calumny'?"

Perhaps, though, dictionaries just need to change with the times, to update themselves to be more relevant. Or, has Google improved upon this system so that much that dictionaries - either online or in print - are no longer helpful?