Famous First Lines

The following block of text contains twenty-four famous first lines from novels. Or, more precisely, first lines from famous (and semi-famous) novels, novels that I’ve read in the past decade.

Most of you have some idea of what I like to read. I’ve simply scanned my fiction section, have pulled down some of my favorites, and have reproduced their opening lines below. Some are well-known. Others are relatively obscure. How many of them can you name? (Please google only as a last resort.)

  1. This is not a conventional cookbook.
  2. I have never begun a novel with more misgiving.
  3. Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
  4. My father and mother should have stayed in New York where they met and married and I was born.
  5. Call me Ishmael.
  6. Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.
  7. In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
  8. The idea of eternal return is a mysterious one, and Nietzsche has often perplexed other philosophers with it: to think that everything recurs as we once experienced it, and that the recurrence itself recurs ad infinitum!
  9. It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
  10. She stands up in the garden where she has been working and looks into the distance.
  11. Jewel and I came up from the field, following the path in single file.
  12. It seems increasingly likely that I really will undertake the expedition that has been preoccupying my imagination for some days.
  13. The British are frequently criticized by other nations for their dislike of change, and indeed we love England for those aspects of nature and life which change the least.
  14. In the late summer of that year we lived in a house in a village that looked across the river and the plain to the mountains.
  15. Except for the Marabar Caves — and they are twenty miles off — the city of Chandrapore presents nothing extraordinary.
  16. The schoolmaster was leaving the village, and everybody seemed sorry.
  17. The primroses were over.
  18. The music-room in the Governor’s House at Port Mahon, a tall, handsome, pillared octagon, was filled with the triumphant first movement of Locatelli’s C-major quartet.
  19. For a long time I used to go to be early.
  20. Last night I dreamt I went to Manderlay again.
  21. At the first gesture of morning, flies began stirring.
  22. Tyler gets me a job as a waiter, after that Tyler’s pushing a gun in my mouth and saying, the first step to eternal life is you have to die.
  23. You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement of an enterprise which you have regarded with such evil forebodings.
  24. “Sleep well, dear.”

Too difficult? If so, what are some of your favorite first lines?

Maybe in the future I’ll do this with my science fiction and fantasy novels. Somehow, I suspect their first lines are more revealing: “When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced�” — difficult, that.

Comments

On 12 July 2003 (12:28 PM),
Aimee said:

JD …

I was looking at your “like to read” link and noticed that you listed Nine Parts of Desire as a book group re-read … I was under the impression that at the time I chose the book it had just been published??? Did Powell’s play me false? Or, are you thinking of a different book? Clarify, please … Books are an obsession, aren’t they?

1. The Alice B. Toklas Cookbook?
4. Angle of Repose?
5. Duh.
6. P&P? Other Austen? Or perhaps Dickens?

That’s as far as I’ve gotten using memory and process of elimination. You must publish a key or offer a prize, my good man!

Yours,

On 12 July 2003 (12:37 PM),
J.D. said:

Now it’s a contest!

As per Aimee’s suggestion, I will offer a prize.

The first person to post, in the comments, the correct book and author for all twenty-four of these first lines will receive a lovely book of their own.

No guarantees as to the title (it’ll probably depend on the person; if Jeremy G. wins, he’s not going to want Proust, for example, and if Dana wins the book’s going to be some sort of speculative fiction), but it’ll likely be a book I hold in high esteem.

Post your guesses in the comments section. It’s a group-participation thing, where each guess builds on the ones before. Can you get all twenty-four?

On 12 July 2003 (01:16 PM),
Joel said:

How about we stipulate (honor code, of course) no Googling? Research to be done, at the most, in a library?

On 12 July 2003 (04:11 PM),
Joel said:

Okay, here goes.
1) Thai Food by David Thompson
2) No Fucking Clue by J. Gingerich
3) Anna Karenina by Tolstoy
4) Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt
5) Moby Dick (Or, “The Whiteness of the Whale and How it is Pale”) by Herman Melville
6) David Copperfield by Darle’s Chickens
7) The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
8) The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
9) Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
10) The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje
11) As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
12) The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishigiro
13) Mutiny on the Bounty by Charles Nordhoff and friends
14) A Farewell to Arms by Earnest Hemingway
15) Passage to India by E.M. Forster
16) Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy
17) Watership Down by Richard Adams
18) Master and Commander by Patrick O’Brian
19) Swann’s Way by Marcel Proust
20) Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
21) Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier
22) Fight Club by Chuck Pahlaniuk
23) Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
24) The Sailor Who Fell From Grace Into the Sea by Yukio Mishima

Congratulations, JD, this may be the first time in history that a weblog has made someone leave work early in order to go stalking around the library muttering “Tyler… Gun in my Face… FIGHT CLUB!”

On 12 July 2003 (04:38 PM),
Aimee said:

In three hours time, too … Your effort is utterly impressive, Love.

Yours,

On 13 July 2003 (10:56 AM),
Rich said:

Congrats, Joel. The real question is who many you answered off the top of your head.

My 3 favorite opening lines:

1. It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

2. Amerigo Bonasera sat in New York Criminal Court Number 3 and waited for justice; vengence on the men who had so cruelly hurt his daughter, who had tried to dishonor her.

3. If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all the David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like getting into it, if you want to know the truth.

On 13 July 2003 (03:52 PM),
J.D. said:

Sorry for the delay responding; I’ve been out clamdigging. More on that later.

Joel is close, but he hasn’t quite won the prize. The race is on!

I must say I’m impressed with how close Joel has come, though. I’ll bet his methodology consisted of the following: look at J.D.’s recently read list, and the list of book group books, and that should do the trick. For the most part, it did.

I’m particularly impressed that he managed the Kundera, the Ondaatje, the Hemingway, and the Mishima.

Which books are wrong? Only the first two. The first book isn’t a cookbook, it’s a novel. The second book is a potential book club selection in the future. It’s one of Nick’s favorite books. There have been two film versions, though the most recent movie has some gross miscalculations…

Rich, you’ve got some good choices there, too. Your first is 1984, and I suspect your third is Catcher in the Rye, but I’m not sure of that. I don’t know the second. Except for the New York bit, it sounds Kafka-esque. The quote sounds damn familiar, though.

Your choices remind me that I left one of my very favorite books:

“When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow.”

The line isn’t really that great, the book is one of my favorites…

On 13 July 2003 (06:16 PM),
Rich said:

j.d. – you are right on the two you listed. as for the 2nd one, it’s from a book that was made into a movie, and in the movie, that same character (Amerigo Bonasera) speaks the opening line of the movie: “I believe in America…”

your quote is from one of my favorite lawyer books of all time.

On 14 July 2003 (08:22 AM),
joel said:

Rich- That’s “Godfather”, right?
JD- Aimee and I only knew eight of them right off. You’re right, most of the rest I got off this very blog. A few others I remember chatting with you recently. I long to break into the reading room and scurry about, ripping books off the shelves and glancing at the first page before tossing them aside (A vision that patrons of the Mult. Co. Pub. Lib. were recently treated to). But, then again, if someone else winds up the victor, I ‘spose I’ll just have to borrow the book in question, eh?

On 14 July 2003 (08:45 AM),
J. Gingerich said:

Joel,

Thanks for the credit, but as of yet I have not completed my first novel. However, I have a very good real life basis for one at my work.

-jeremy

On 14 July 2003 (10:30 AM),
Rich said:

Joel – yep, the Godfather it is.

let me explain why i like it so much.

“Amerigo Bonasera sat in New York Criminal Court Number 3 and waited for justice; vengence on the men who had so cruelly hurt his daughter, who had tried to dishonor her.”

“Amerigo Bonasera…”
The first word in the book is the same Italian name from which the word “America” derived. (Amerigo Vespucci), so you have the linking of Italian and American cultures foreshadowed.

“…sat in New York Criminal Court Number 3…”
I don’t know if this is a clunky plot device or an elegant way of demonstrating that this book will take place in the NYC area, the American cradle of the flood of Italian immigrants, but I like it however you think it. Mostly, I like the almost clinical way in which he describes the location of the court, which is very much the style of large portions of the novel. Mario Puzo spends a lot of time going over the real and fictional histories of the various Mafia families that have roles in the book, sometimes in meticulous detail. He also spends a lot of time describing the way all characters look physically, and he reiterates that description often in the book.

“…and waited for justice;…”
By saying that he was *waiting* for justice, it implies that he was not going to get it, but that instead he was just sitting and waiting within the government buraeucracy, and would have to go elsewhere to get it.

“…vengence on the men who had so cruelly hurt his daughter…”
The way that “justice” and “vengence” are arranged so that they butt up against each other is fantastic. To Amerigo, and many like him, justice and vengence are the same thing. That is why they turn to Don Corleone and his world, since the courts and the police do not dole out vengence that appeases that baser side of the heart, but instead a non-emotional and impassionate justice. But since he “believes in America,” he first tries this route, and when he doesn’t get vengence, he goes to the Godfather. And he gets it. Immediately, and fully.

“…who had tried to dishonor her.”
The concept of honor and old-fashioned values plays a large role in the Godfather series, but yet it is juxtaposed againt the fact that the main characters and criminals and murderers. Sex is a main element of the book, though downplayed in the movie. The movie producer who found a horse in his bed (Jack Woltz), the prodigal godson Hollywood entertainer (Johnny Fontaine), and the hothead emotional son (Santino Corleone) all have sex lives that are described in great detail in the book, all for a purpose.

that might be a bit too analytical for some people’s tastes, and for all I know Mario Puzo wrote that sentence in 3 seconds, but to me it is a classic.

On 14 July 2003 (10:44 PM),
Andrew Parker said:

I can’t believe that no one got Debt to Pleasure *or* The Razor’s Edge, which may just be numbers one and two in my own favorites list. Too bad that other Lanchester and Maugham works aren’t all as worthy.

On 14 July 2003 (10:51 PM),
Andrew Parker said:

And with that inspiration, my present numbers three and four:

Sauti the storyteller told this tale to his friend Saunaka in the Naimisha Forest.

Hughes got it wrong, in one important detail.

On 15 July 2003 (08:37 AM),
Joel said:

Hey, Andrew, I just finished reading Flashman a few days ago. Definitely a good time, and an interesting antidote to the Patrick O’Brian that I love so much. I wish I’d read it back when we were hammering the Taliban.

On 02 April 2005 (03:46 PM),
Jess said:

XCELLENT

On 02 April 2005 (03:46 PM),
Jess said:

XCELLENT

125

Good news from the recovery front: yesterday I confessed to my physical therapist that I hadn’t worn the brace much for the past week. He sighed and scolded, but when Kevin had me walk around the office to observe my gait, he seemed impressed.

Apparently I’m only able to get by without my brace because my quad has recovered strength relatively quickly; I’ve been faithful about doing my exercises. I’m still at high risk for re-injury, and it’d be better if I wore my brace, especially during situations in which I have little control of my environment (around children, in crowds, etc.), but Kevin seems to think that, for the most part, I’ll do fine without it.

Kevin also introduced me to several new exercises yesterday which, when combined with the batch of new exercises he introduced last Thursday, means that I have an almost entirely new regimen compared to a week ago. Awesome! Unless one has been through this, one cannot realize how tedious the same exercises become when repeated day-in and day-out.

When we measured my range of motion at the beginning of the session, I was able to obtain 125 degrees of flexion without assistance. Rock on!


I started to read Swann’s Way yesterday. Perhaps not co-incidentally I managed to take in 125 pages.

I love it.

I love Proust’s long, convoluted sentences and paragraphs, his introspective nature, his obsession with details. I love his philosophy, his perception, his ability to capture the inner life and to put it into print.

Some favorite bits:

  • “The fault I find with our journalism is that it forces us to take an interest in some fresh triviality or other every day, whereas only three or four books in a lifetime give us anything that is of real importance.” Proust argues, in a pre-MTV world, that journalism leads to short attention spans, glosses over stories, attempts to pare the complex to just a few sentences. His method, obviously, is the reverse: he sometimes focuses on mere seconds, devoting eight pages to the moments during which one awakes, for example.
  • “Perhaps the immobility of the things that surround us is forced upon them by our conviction that they are themselves, and not anything else, and by the immobility of our conceptions of them.” How zen is that? This is similar to the social personality passage about which I raved previously.
  • “I became at once a man, and did what all we grown men do when face to face with suffering and injustice: I preferred not to see them.”
  • “The wall of the staircase, up which I had watched the light of his candle gradually climb, was long ago demolished. And in myself, too, many things have perished which, I imagined, would last for ever, and new structures have arisen, giving birth to new sorrows and new joys which in those days I could not have foreseen, just as now the old are difficult of comprehension.”
  • Young Marcel is fascinated by the theater, though he’s never seen a performance. He’s obsessed with the actors and actresses, and, with his friends, he rates them and ranks them according to their greatness. (A kindred spirit!)
  • “[I stood] still on that spot, before that steeple, for hours on end, motionless, trying to remember, feeling deep within myself a tract of soil reclaimed from the waters of Lethe slowly drying until the buildings rise on it again.”
  • There’s a portion of the novel—Proust’s thesis, really—which is very similar to my favorite segment from Amelie.

There are many other wonderful bits; I’ve marked up my book with heavy underlining, and I’ve scribbled notes throughout the margins.

I had started to worry that few people were going to complete Swann’s Way in time for book group, had become defensive because of the aspersions cast upon the book by my fellow readers, but now that I’ve actually begun to read it, I no longer care what the others think; if they are unable to appreciate the Swann’s Way, or are unwilling to even try to read it, it is their loss and not mine.

Perhaps, though, I could offer the other book group members some advice. First, remember that much of this is meant to be—and is— funny. It’s not all serious. Secondly, as I told Aimee, it helps to worry less about “getting” every little detail, helps to be unconcerned with the plot and the characters; one is better served by plowing headlong through the text, allowing oneself to be surrounded by Proust’s words, overwhelmed by mood and atmosphere.

From the introduction to the edition I’m reading (emphasis mine):

One of the publishers to whom Swann’s Way was submitted sent it back with the words: “I cannot understand why a gentleman would employ thirty pages to describe how he turns and returns on his bed before going to sleep.” Since that time many would-be readers have doubtless laid the volume down with a similar reflection but the loss has been theirs alone. Proust knew with uncommon exactness what it was he was about; he has a purpose in everything that he does, and even what appear to be digressions of inordinate length actually occupy a carefully proportioned and predetermined place in a structure whose architecture can only be understood when one stands off and regards it as a whole. The first rule for reading him is, therefore, complete submission…

Yes, this is a book I love. I’ve already decided that I will continue, read the second volume, Within a Budding Grove.

I wonder: what authors move others to this level of passion? What books inspire this degree of adoration in my friends? Is it common to find a writer whose internal monlogue so resembles one’s own?

Comments

On 09 July 2003 (09:35 AM),
Rich said:

From the Irony Department:

i love the fact that you believe that proust thinks the way you do, you discuss how proust advocates that “journalism leads to short attention spans, glosses over stories, attempts to pare the complex to just a few sentences,” and then one of the links on the side of your page is to “USA Today.” classic stuff.

i went to a lecture several years ago where the topic of media came up, and the moderator had a deep aversion to the USA Today. to this day, i remember a quote about those who read it: “If your idea of a newspaper is the USA Today, you’re not even trying.” it was such an elitist smackdown that i felt offended, yet i know he was right. that doesn’t stop me from buying it and reading it over lunch twice a week, but i rationalize it by saying i only read the Sports section, for which it is a good paper.

which reminds me of another quote from a journalism class i attended in college. a professor said that it was “America’s dirty little secret” that the very large majority of newspaper sales in this country, outside of the Sunday paper, are driven by the Sports section. for proof of this, he said that when you see a newspaper lying around in some public place (a mall food court, or on a bus, or a fast food place, etc.), odds are that when you pick it up and look through it, the Sports section is missing. what would Proust say about that?

On 09 July 2003 (09:54 AM),
J.D. said:

Rich, it’s even worse: I only read the headlines at the USA Today site. How’s that for the antithesis of Proust? :)

Of course I attempt to rationalize this by explaining that I read Harper’s, etc., and that I listen to NPR, and from these sources get longer, extended news coverage, and that USA Today is just a stopgap measure.

The truth is: I don’t pay much attention to news except in the broadest sense. I admire Pam’s intentional ignorance of current events, but am unable to allow myself to join her completely. So, I get my news from the USA Today web site headlines!

(It’s almost worse than news sometimes.)

On 09 July 2003 (11:13 AM),
Dana said:

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then
I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”
— Walt Whitman

A smattering of media outlets I peruse:

On 09 July 2003 (11:35 AM),
J.D. said:

Nice quote, Dana! :)

In siutations such as these (in which I aspire to a certain height but fall short), I console myself by responding:

  1. You do the same thing.”
  2. “Just because it’s my ideal, doesn’t mean I’m able to live it.”
  3. “At least I’m not a hypocrite.” (i.e. claiming to be something which I am not — mostly I aspire to certain states rather than claiming to obtain them)
  4. And, my favorite: “I am complex.”

Actually, I think it’s a good thing to hold ideals to which they aspire but which they never attain. A striving for excellence is a good thing.

On 09 July 2003 (12:38 PM),
Rich said:

striving for excellence is a great thing, agreed. the problem comes when you stop actively striving and simply contemplate/dream of that ideal (as Perry Farrell said in “Jane Says” — “Jane says ‘I’m going away to spain when i get my money saved, I’m gonna start tomorrow'”).

the other problem comes when you are striving for someone else’s ideal. if i strived to stop reading the USA Today because some talking head told me that it’s non-intellectual and instead buy the Wall Street Journal simply to show off, and yet was really unhappy missing some pie chart about how many football fields it would take to get from the earth to the moon, i should just admit what i like and damn those who disagree.

On 09 July 2003 (01:07 PM),
Tammy said:

Ok this is going to sound very simplistic to most of you but I’m ready to make a confession. My favorite author of all time is L.M.Montgomery. I see all you intellectuals scaratching your heads and wondering who she is! Ok I’ll tell you. She is the author of the Anne of Green Gables series.
She is also the author of such books as “The Golden Girl”, “Kilmeny of the Orchard” and Tales of Avonlea”. You talk about a book that is all marked up it’s my copy of the first two books of Anne of Green Gables. Now if you only know the story through the movies then you really don’t know the story. Annes most profound thoughts are left in the book. In Montgomerys character, Anne Shirley, I find a person so similar to myself and my outlook on life that it’s rather frightening. I love and adore her writings. So there. I’ve confessed. It’s like Rich says above,“…I should just admit what i like and d*** those who disagree.”

On 09 July 2003 (01:19 PM),
J.D. said:

My favorite author of all time is L.M. Montgomery.

This is nothing to be ashamed of; I think most of us are familiar with Anne of Green Gables.

I’ve never read any of Montgomery’s books, but at least once a year I watch the film versions of Green Gables and Avonlea with Kris. They’re great fun.

The second paragraph alone is enough to make me want to read the Anne of Green Gables:

There are plenty of people in Avonlea and out of it, who can attend closely to their neighbor’s business by dint of neglecting their own; but Mrs. Rachel Lynde was one of those capable creatures who can manage their own concerns and those of other folks into the bargain. She was a notable housewife; her work was always done and well done; she “ran” the Sewing Circle, helped run the Sunday-school, and was the strongest prop of the Church Aid Society and Foreign Missions Auxiliary. Yet with all this Mrs. Rachel found abundant time to sit for hours at her kitchen window, knitting “cotton warp” quilts–she had knitted sixteen of them, as Avonlea housekeepers were wont to tell in awed voices–and keeping a sharp eye on the main road that crossed the hollow and wound up the steep red hill beyond. Since Avonlea occupied a little triangular peninsula jutting out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence with water on two sides of it, anybody who went out of it or into it had to pass over that hill road and so run the unseen gauntlet of Mrs. Rachel’s all-seeing eye.

Don’t be ashamed, Tammy!

On 09 July 2003 (01:45 PM),
Tammy said:

Ahhhh! Just reading that excerpt makes me want to pull out my books and read them again! Um um um!!!

On 09 July 2003 (03:15 PM),
Tiffany said:

I am a fan of Anne also. I am just about always reading one of the series (since I read more then one book at a time). Anne is a cherished friend.

On 09 July 2003 (06:49 PM),
Tammy said:

Then, as Anne would say, we must be “kindred spirits”!

Within a Budding Grove

Stéphane Heuet is adapting Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past (a.k.a. In Search of Lost Time) into a twelve-volume graphic novel. (A definition: graphic novel == comic book with pretensions of greatness.) He has completed three of the volumes, adapting the first two parts of the novel, Swann’s Way and Within a Budding Grove.

[page showing narrator's trouble sleeping]  &nbsp[page showing the famous madeleine]
Click a thumbnail to view a larger image

The early reviews for Heuet’s adaptation were poor. The consensus seemed to be that it was insanity to attempt such a feat: how could Proust possibly be conveyed in a comic book? And what of the art? How dare Heuet iconify Marcel and Swann and Françoise and Albertine; his art — so-called — is nothing more than pastiche of Hergé‘s Tintin. Tintin and Proust? Bah!

Regardless the opinion of the professional critics, Heuet’s aims are admirable. Moreover, he succeeds in distilling a certain essence from Proust’s prose. He does not capture everything, to be sure, nor would I expect that of him. Instead, he’s managed to effectively dramatize the central narrative while touching — but only touching — upon some of Proust’s philosophical digressions.

[page showing narrator at Balbec]  &nbsp[page showing faces at the window]
Click a thumbnail to view a larger image

I wish that more classic literature was given this sort of attention. Heuet’s project might be reminiscent of Classics Illustrated (which, no surprise, I enjoy), but it takes the formula to another level. Certainly other classics cry out for similar treatment.

I’ve been pleased with what little Proust I’ve managed to read so far (which comprises only the first hundred pages of Swann’s Way, the first of seven volumes in his mammoth novel). Yet nothing I’ve yet read matches the promise present in the final part of Heuet’s adaptation of Within a Budding Grove.

[page showing game of ferret with Albertine]  &nbsp[page showing outcome of flirtations]
Click a thumbnail to view a larger image

It is here that the narrator becomes obsessed with, and pursues the attentions of, a little band of girls, most particularly the glowing Albertine, she of the “brilliant, laughing eyes and plump, matt cheeks”.

Heuet does a marvelous job at conveying the adolescent games that the narrator plays with these girls (and they with him), at drawing the growing affection between Marcel and Albertine, affection which alternates with (seemingly) arbitrary dismissal. How true their actions feel, so much like a similar boyhood romance of my own, one which also failed to reach fruition due to inopportune resistance on the part of both myself and the object of my affection, many times, over the course of many years. (One should not read this bit of nostalgia as regret, however; it is simply nostalgia.)

And surely the original Proust is even better, yes? I am eager to discover.

Here is the relevant portion of the text: Seascape, with frieze of girls, though the odds that anyone will follow this link, and read from the text, are slim indeed. Perhaps a quote is in order (emphasis is mine):

No doubt, all their faces had assumed quite new meanings for me since the manner in which they were to be read had been to some extent indicated to me by their talk, talk to which I could ascribe a value all the greater in that, by questioning them, I could prompt it whenever I chose, could vary it like an experimenter who seeks by corroborative proofs to establish the truth of his theory. And it is, after all, as good a way as any of solving the problem of existence to approach near enough to the things that have appeared to us from a distance to be beautiful and mysterious, to be able to satisfy ourselves that they have neither mystery nor beauty. It is one of the systems of hygiene among which we are at liberty to choose our own, a system which is perhaps not to be recommended too strongly, but it gives us a certain tranquility with which to spend what remains of life, and also — since it enables us to regret nothing, by assuring us that we have attained to the best, and that the best was nothing out of the common — with which to resign ourselves to death.

I had now substituted, in the brains of these girls, for their supposed contempt for chastity, their memories of daily ‘incidents,’ honest principles, liable, it might be, to relaxation, but principles which had hitherto kept unscathed the children who had acquired them in their own respectable homes. And yet, when one has been mistaken from the start, even in trifling details, when an error of assumption or recollection makes one seek for the author of a malicious slander, or for the place where one has lost something, in the wrong direction, it frequently happens that one discovers one’s error only to substitute for it not the truth but a fresh error. I drew, so far as their manner of life and the proper way to behave with them went, all the possible conclusions from the word ‘Innocence’ which I had read, in talking familiarly with them, upon their faces. But perhaps I had been reading carelessly, with the inaccuracy born of a too rapid deciphering, and it was no more written there than was the name of Jules Ferry on the program of the performance at which I had heard Berma for the first time, an omission which had not prevented me from maintaining to M. de Norpois that Jules Ferry, beyond any possibility of doubt, was a person who wrote curtain-raisers.

No matter which it might be of my friends of the little band, was not inevitably the face that I had last seen the only face that I could recall, since, of our memories with respect to a person, the mind eliminates everything that does not agree with our immediate purpose of our daily relations (especially if those relations are quickened with an element of love which, ever unsatisfied, lives always in the moment that is about to come)? That purpose allows the chain of spent days to slip away, holding on only to the very end of it, often of a quite different metal from the links that have vanished in the night, and in the journey which we make through life, counts as real only in the place in which we at any given moment are. But all those earliest impressions, already so remote, could not find, against the blunting process that assailed them day after day, any remedy in my memory; during the long hours which I spent in talking, eating, playing with these girls, I did not remember even that they were the same ruthless, sensual virgins whom I had seen, as in a fresco, file past between me and the sea.

If I dote on Proust, it’s only because he has, in the small portion I’ve read of him and about him, impressed with me with his artistry, his sensitivity, his perception. I feel — and this itself is a Proustian observation — that he is able to articulate certain feelings, certain emotions, in language that I could never hope to achieve.

Proust is not for everyone. His writing, though elegant, is dense, and requires patience to parse. Yet for those willing to persevere, the rewards are great.


Regarding my road to recovery:

At present these are the doctor’s orders: no driving, weight-bearing activities (such as walking) only with the brace locked at full extension, brace unlocked to allow flexion when seated, and physical therapy three times a week.

How am I coping with these requirements?

I’m driving, but only about town. I’m performing weight-bearing activities with the brace open to ninety degrees (though I’m quite careful), and will occasionally walk short distances on the knee without a brace. I’m going to physical therapy three times a week (and performing the assigned exercises three times per day).

I feel great. (Mostly.)

The physical therapists seem to think I’m making good progress, too. They said they don’t generally see ACL patients until the fifth or sixth week after the surgery, and that I’m actually ahead of most recoveries (I’ve been worried that I’m behind.) They warned me again that I’m at high risk of reinjury because the quick healing makes me prone to overconfidence. They’re right.

Best of all, tonight will be my last session in the continuous passive motion machine (a.k.a. The Rack). It gets taken away tomorrow.

I worked a full day yesterday, and will work close to a full day today. I have a tendency to bump into things, or to twist my leg/brace a bit, which caused a bit of trouble, but the experience is mostly a positive one. I’m less content today than yesterday; my knee is sore, and I have the chills.

Comments


On 10 June 2003 (02:42 PM),
tammy said:

And what makes you so sure that no one will follow the link. I follow almost everyone of your links if they have to do with a book. now if it has something to do with music or computer programs I don’t. But this link Iwould have definitly clicked on.



On 10 June 2003 (03:01 PM),
Dana said:

Ahem

Exhibit A
these are the doctor’s orders: no driving, weight-bearing activities (such as walking) only with the brace locked at full extension, brace unlocked to allow flexion when seated, and physical therapy three times a week.

Exhibit B
The physical therapists… warned me again that I’m at high risk of reinjury because the quick healing makes me prone to overconfidence. They’re right.

Exhibit C
I’m driving…
I’m performing weight-bearing activities with the brace open to ninety degrees…
[I] will… walk short distances on the knee without a brace.
I’m going to physical therapy three times a week

Exhibit D
I’m less content today than yesterday; my knee is sore

So, you’re following one of your doctors four orders and your knee is sore. Just how dumb are you intent on being? :/

Remember the root canal. This is far more serious.



On 10 June 2003 (03:04 PM),
dowingba said:

Bah, I say live now, you can always afford a wheelchair later on (I’m being sarcastic, of course).



On 10 June 2003 (03:25 PM),
Joelah said:

I think Heuet’s graphic novel is a noble failure. The question of whether a visual medium can equal or better print in depicting mental states is certainly a live one, but Proust is, at times, so deeply abstract that he makes the limitations of the comic form pretty glaring. E.g. the panel wherein the narrator is sampling the tea and madeleine. Somehow the big ‘ole question mark hovering next to his somewhat quizzical face doesn’t make me want to return my library copies.

Social Personality

Proust provides much food for thought; twenty pages of Proust provides more discussion fodder than two hundred pages of most books.

Here’s a passage that I believe could inspire an entire evening’s discussion:

Even in the most insignificant details of our daily life, none of us can be said to constitute a material whole, which is identical for everyone, and need only be turned up like a page in an account-book or the record of a will; our social personality is created by the thoughts of other people. Even the simple act which we describe as “seeing some one we know” is, to some extent, an intellectual process. We pack the physical outline of the creature we see with all the ideas we have already formed about him, and in the complete picture of him which we compose in our minds those ideas have certainly the principal place. In the end they come to fill out so completely the curve of his cheeks, to follow so exactly the line of his nose, they blend so harmoniously in the sound of his voice that these seem to be no more than a transparent envelope, so that each time we see the face or hear the voice it is our own ideas of him which we recognize and to which we listen.

How true.

It is both a great and terrible thing that the ideas we form of others — especially those first impressions which are constructed after mere moments of acquaintance — continue to dominate our relationships with them in the face of conflicting evidence. It’s a natural coping mechanism akin to the process of stereotyping, but applied to a single individual, and the real sin occurs when our formed image of a person is unyielding, stands fixed in the face of conflicting evidence.

I am as guilty of this as any other person. Poor Jeremy Gingerich long was the victim of my notion of his nature, and it was only when I allowed myself to really perceive him, to view him in diverse surroundings and situations, without filtering his behavior through a filter of my own prejudice (based primarily on antiquated notions and opinions of Jeremy), that I was able to alter my opinion of him. It works in the opposite direction, too, of course; we place some people on pedestals, even in the first few moments of a friendship, and in them we seem unable to note even the grossest flaw. The ugliest, most vile person in the world might seem beautiful and good if our minds have been swayed to that opinion and we are unwilling to relinquish it.

Are we what others perceive us to be? Does our social personality exist outside our interpersonal interactions? I suppose, by definition, it cannot. Is our social personality fixed, or is it malleable? Does it change from one social environment to another? For myself, I believe that some people’s perception of J.D. more closely matches my own than other people’s perceptions. Some view me in a negative light, and are not swayed by evidence that might assuage this disdain. Others like and respect me despite my foul actions and ill humor. But who sees me most truly? Is there a group that has a more accurate image of who I am?

Paul Carlile and I have discussed, at length, another aspect of social personality: the masques we wear from group-to-group. Paul makes no secret that he alters his masque to the social environment in which he finds himself. With me, alone, he is thoughtful and reserved. In a small group of close friends, he is mischievous, challenging, looking to goad staid thought toward something new, always “stirring the pot”. When he’s in a new social environment, mixing primarily with strangers, Paul plays the clown, the buffoon, going for cheap laughs, disarming those around him so that he can better gauge their personalities while delaying their view of his own. Each of these masques is a part of Paul, and he’s fully cognizant of the roles he is playing.

I prefer to maintain, essentially, the same persona in nearly every social situation. I am not socially facile, cannot cope with juggling multiple masques. Sure, my behavior alters slightly from one social context to another, but only slightly (on a conscious level). Still, each person’s perception of who I am is different, based on the social climate in which they know me. My soccer teammates have seen one facet of me, my family has seen another, and my geek pals have seen yet another.

In order to have a full grasp of another person’s nature, one must have known him for an extended period of time, have observed him in a variety of situations, have viewed every facet of his personality. How many people, then, can we claim to know fully?

How well do you know me? How well do I know you?

See how it goes?

Proust inspires self-reflection, close meditation.

Lovely.

What do you think about social personality and self-perception?

Comments

On 24 April 2003 (09:17 AM),
Tammy said:

Ok I’ll try this one. Actually, I had thought about this when we all did that quiz thing you had on strength, intelligence. charisma, etc. Those scores were based on individual perceptions; how much charisma and intelligence we “thought’ we had.

I know that I put on different masks for different groups of people. Most definitely! I think my husband is the only one that truly knows me.(Even then sometimes I wonder!lOl)

I see myself as haveing a lot of charisma. I see myself as a very blunt ,outspoken person, yet not rude. I think my friends see me as rude sometimes.

I can be very loud and annoying, or very quiet and reflective. Unfortunately the quiet side is usually only seen at home.

Above all things, I hate it when people think I am a certain way and won’t let me be anything else. Two weeks ago I attended a Ladies Seminar and we all stayed at a motel overnight. A bunch of us met in the speakers room to gab into the night. Well our pastors wife spent most of the night regaling us with tales of missionaries she had entertained in her home.

I was feeling particularly tired that night and a little worried about my kids at home so I wasn’t the life of the party like I usually am. When we got back to the conference the following mornign, one lady said, ” Oh Tammy, I so wish I could have gone to the motel. I bet you just kept every one in stitches all night!” I looked at her and informed that I was really tired and hadn’t participated much.

Now heres what just burns me up!!!! Another lady was standing there and she starts shaking her head like I wasn’t being truthful. (she had been to the motel) Lady no.1 says, “Oh so I am right! I bet you didn’t shut your mouth all night!” Lady no.2 says through clenched teeth while rolling her eyes,”Uh huh!”

Well I had HAD IT! I said, “Linda, how can you say that! Vicki talked all night telling missionary stories! I want you to know I scarecly said a word!” Linda just shrugged and walked away.

Now there, JD, is a true case of someone having a preconcieved notion of ones social personality. And what irks me is that once people have formed an opionion of you it doesn’t seem to matter what you do after that . You just can’t change it!

I think I know what my social personality is. It’s funny,witty, charismatic, and intelligent. Sometimes a little too loud perhaps. I also know that everyone percieves me as a gossip, which I am not! Gossiping, in my book, is purposely setting out to destroy someones good name. I don’t do that!

To wind up this long narrative I must say that my social personality and my self perception are not the same!

PS. I may have revealed more about myself in the above writing but I must always remember my mother is reading this!lol (Altho I do say that seriously too!)

On 24 April 2003 (09:45 AM),
Jeremy said:

I deserve to be judged for my unwillingness to fit in with “acceptable” social behaviors. This is a weakness of mine – most of the time I just don’t care what others think. I learned early on that trying to fit in, or trying to MAKE others like me as a way of feeling better about myself, left me exhausted, both emotionally and physically. This is often a point of great distress for my wife – she is the polar opposite on this subject.

Ultimately, my point is this. I like you JD. I like almost everyone I know. The people I like least are those who can never just be themselves – who always need some kind of a front. But there is no need for a statement like “poor Jeremy Gingerich.” I’m ok with you not liking me – or liking me. Although as I enjoy your company I prefer the latter.

It sounds as if I am a great deal like Tammy. I have been in many situations similar to the one desscribed as above (if you don’t believe me :) just see JD’s entry from April 22, 2002. I read this two days ago and found it funny. My wife would cringe as she read it and remember and be extremely upset with herself for marrying such a social idiot.

At any rate – don’t feel sorry for poor Jeremy Gingerich.

:)

On 24 April 2003 (10:34 AM),
Dana said:

Well, you’d better believe that I have an opinion on this :)

Nobody exists in a vacuum. Even those people who purposely go out of their way to wall themselves off from other people still have relationships with others — it’s just that those relationships are stilted and superficial, at least on the concious level. You can still read things about people around you, even without any councious interaction.

The thing about knowing someone else is that each interpersonal relationship is different. If both Able and Baker know Charlene, they know different Charlenes, because Able and Baker are themselves not the same person. Who they are colors their relationships with who Charlene is.

I think the most important parts of knowing another person are time and variety. Seeing them in many situations, over a long period of time.

Under those circumstances, you get to observe that person’s many masks, and how and when they employ them. You get the opportunity to learn what doesn’t change, despite the concious efforts of the person to adapt to his or her surroundings.

You also learn to read the person. You can tell their emotional state more readily, which allows you to pick up more subtle signals of how they are feeling and what they think about other people or situations.

I think others get to know us in spite of ourselves, not because of what we do. Because having someone else know you makes you vulnerable, and we are all careful to try and protect ourselves. And what is always amazing is when someone does get to know you, and sees through all those layers you put between yourself and the real world, and yet they still like and enjoy being around you.

That’s the basis for true friendship, and true love. At least, in my opinion. For most of us, it’s only our family that has the opportunity to get to know us this well. Our family, and our spouses.

If we’re lucky, we have a few friends who get there, too.

I think I know you pretty well, JD. I’ve known you for over a decade, and getting to know you in the Dorms at college gave me the opportunity to see you in lots of different contexts. Up until you started this blog, I think I’d probably read as much or more of your writing as anybody (because of our e-mail correspondences), and that reading has probably given me more insight into who (I think) you are than anything. You still surprise me, though, like with the kids at Clara’s BBQ. And I know that there are sides to you that I probably will never see.

Anyway, I do this sort of introspection all the time. I don’t need no stinkin’ Proust to trigger it — Heck, I go out of my way to pay people to listen to me do it :)

On 24 April 2003 (12:06 PM),
Joelah said:

So if these first impressions are so powerful and lingering, why do we make them? I’d argue that they do serve a purpose in our complicated social classfication system. They allow us to react and communicate more efficiently than we otherwise would. Imagine if everytime you encountered an acquaintance you had to sort of circle each other warily, testing out the roles you’d play socially. Each person would be reserved, reluctant to communicate, afraid of revealing too much. Because, after all, you never really know what someone else will do or say. You can get to know someone well enough to make very educated guesses, but there will always be uncertainty. I think our tendency to make and stick with first impressions allows us to overcome this first level of social inhibition.

On 24 April 2003 (12:13 PM),
J.D. said:

Ah, yes, I do agree that first-impressions, like stereotypes, serve a valuable psychological function in our ability to engage in social interaction.

The problem, comes, I believe, when one is unwilling to change a first impression or alter an existing stereotype based on evidence that contradicts the existing template. Often times we steadfastly refuse to change our perception of somebody (or some group) despite blatantly contradictory behavior. This phenomenon is more interesting to me.

Stereotypes and first-impressions aid in social interaction, but they should not be so rigid that we are unwilling to alter them in the face of new information.

On 24 April 2003 (12:57 PM),
Dana said:

If you buy my argument about time and variety, what you are describing is basically having the opportunity to get to know someone (ie, the opportunity to “circle each other warily, testing out the roles you’d play socially”), and yet not doing it for whatever reason.

Instead, you stick with a superficial impression of the person, and don’t take the effort to put the time and experiences you do have in common to learn more about that other person. You allow (either from laziness or, more likely, from indifference) the relationship to remain, at least from your point of view, superficial.

This isn’t necessarily bad. Lots of activities do not require deep interpersonal relationships (ie, playing Starcraft, soccer, or the like) and if you only did them with Close Personal Friends who know all about your Inner Soul, well, then you’d have pretty small teams and/or not get to participate in some enjoyable activities very often.

On the other hand, if you undertake one of these activities with a small group of people for, oh, 15 or 20 years and yet your relationship with them remains on a more superficial plane, well, I guess I’d wonder why. What else is going on? Why are you chosing to exclude those people, whom you’ve had ample opportunity to get to know well, from other areas of your life? There may be a good answer for it, but I would certainly wonder what that answer was.

(Note that this is all hypothetical rambling that I’m throwing out while I’m otherwise occupied at work. There Is No Subtext!)

On 24 April 2003 (08:00 PM),
Virginia said:

humm, this almost renders me speechless, however I do have a comment. When we moved to Idaho we met a family who viewed us from a distance (I know we look strange J.D. but they did too :o)
Anyhow we tried to be friendly and they were polite. This continued about 6 months. Then for some unknown reason we became their (They became our) best friends. They have confided in us, Taken us out for steak dinners (and paid the bill). Brought roses and pizza when we were sick, sent cards and the like.
Are first impressions always right? I don’t think so. Had you ask me about them a year ago I would have said they were nice, respectable people. Today I would say they are outgoing, friendly, and wonderful people.
About myself I would say I am mostly one to observe and watch other people. My voice is not often heard above the rest, (maybe because I married into a noisy family) However (if Tammy’s not around) and I am comfortable in the group I am in, I can be the life of the party. Like how do you be the life of the party when Tammy is there and tells an old school friend in the group, who is at least 4 years older than I am , “You look a lot younger than mom”… enough said.
About you J.D. Steve was his own person, You are your own person. I like that kind of person.
Different but likeable. You don’t seem to be afraid to do what you like and want to do. Also polite and respectable. And very interesting to talk to.
I have a feeling I’d better quit. I’m sure Tammy is checking my spelling and english and I don;t get a very good grade when she does.

On 24 April 2003 (10:15 PM),
Tammy said:

My mother strongly contends that the Roths are a quiet, intelligent bunch of people who would never think of being noisy and outspoken like the Swartendrubers.(her husbands side of the family)

Well she may be right. But once again that may just be a first impression. After all, according to all that has been written, only those who actually live with the Roths will ever really know! (spooky) And….. I have lived with a Roth!

Yet I will never tell!

Unsubscribe

I’m a chronic magazine subscriber.

I currently subscribe to:

I’ve dropped a half-dozen magazine subscriptions in the past year.

At one time, these magazine subscriptions were a good thing: I had the time and inclination to sit in the evening, leafing through Harper’s or National Review or Linux Journal. The magazines kept me well-informed, allowed me to read widely.

Over the past two years, however, I’ve retained my subscriptions merely out of habit. I rarely read the magazines that arrive each month and, as a result, my to-read pile grows and grows and grows.

Every few months I give up on this massive stack of words, and move the unread magazines to the storage shed. New magazines soon arrive, however, and the stack grows and grows and grows again.

Why don’t I read magazines any more? Two reasons:

  • I haven’t the time. I’m too busy reading books or spending time with friends or working on the computer or playing games with Kris to find time to read magazines.
  • More to the point: much of what I once obtained from magazines, I now find on the internet. A weekly news magazine? I’ve got USA Today and BBC News. Computer magazines? There are scores of computer-oriented web sites that are more up-to-date. Opinion pieces? I regularly read about 25 personal weblogs; I get my fill of opinion from these.

Weblogs—maligned by some as narcissistic and self-indulgent—are a revolutionary form of journalism, a type of personal journalism that, to me at least, is more compelling and more informative than traditional journalism (though, obviously, not subject to the same standards).

I’ll retain four subscriptions (Cook’s Illustrated, Harper’s, Orion, National Geographic), but I’m going to allow the others to lapse.


Two late nights recently:

  • Last night was the MNF group’s annual sweetheart banquet (delayed this year from Valentine’s Day). Jeremy and Jennifer, with Jeff’s help, prepared a fantastic feast for sixteen. This is the fourth or fifth year the Gingeriches have been holding this event, and I think it was the most successful yet. The conversation was good, the food delicious, and the pace relaxed. We didn’t get to bed til one o’clock, though.
  • Thursday we went to see a 10:20 showing of The Matrix with Joel and Aimee. The Matrix is a great film; the more I watch it, the more willing I am to forgive the sometimes gratuitous violence. I was impressed this time by the cinematography: some of the shots are beautiful. I wonder if the next two films can maintain the same level of quality. I didn’t get to bed until about two o’clock on Thursday night/Friday morning.

I was a zombie at work Friday. It was all I could do to stay awake. Apparently it was more than I could do: Jeff says that when he left the shop at about three, I was slumped back in my chair, slack-jawed and snoring.

Driving home after the movie, Joel made the statement: “All science fiction is about destruction.” I believe that science fiction is no more about destruction than any other form of narrative fiction, but my brain was too tired to put up a fight. Maybe I’ll write a rebuttal in the near future…

Comments


On 23 March 2003 (09:19 PM),
J.D. said:

Kris tells me that Joel clarified his statement to “All science fiction films are about destruction.” I still disagree, but not as much. The science fiction that gets put on the big screen is inherently more fraught with conflict than that in literature. In order for a film to maintain the audience’s interest, it has to have a strong central conflict. I still maintain that this focus on destruction is true of nearly all films, not just science fiction films.



On 24 March 2003 (11:05 AM),
Dana said:

Contact, 2001, and Gattaca are not about destruction, at least I don’t think so. They are about perspective, man’s relationship with his tools, and prejudice.

Neither are Time Bandits or Buckaroo Banzai, for that matter.

Of course, maybe I’m missing Joel’s point.



On 24 March 2003 (03:12 PM),
Joelah said:

Right, it would be unfair to say that ALL S.F. movies are fantasies of destruction. Just a whole bunch of them. I would venture to say that S.F. movies are (almost) always about Encountering the Other, and, in general, there is a very strong anxiety associated with the Other. In most cases this anxiety resolves itself when the Other is blown to pieces. What can separate interesting S.F. from the rest of Hollywood product is the leeway a fictional time/space frame allows the creators to approach the question: “What do we do about [slavering aliens/out-of-control-robots/spaced-based tyranny]?

Life of Pi

I should be reading Moby Dick for book group, but I’m not. I’m reading Yann Martel’s Life of Pi instead.

I had heard the book was about a boy shipwrecked on an island with a menagerie. So far it’s about a boy who a) dabbles in the three major religions and b) lives and plays in his father’s zoo in southern India.

Still, I like it.

The protagonist, Pi, is an intensely curious boy. He is surrounded by Hindus, Muslims, Christians. He even encounters atheists and agnostics:

�Atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them — and then they leap.

I’ll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” then surely we are also permitted to doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

Pi cannot choose one religion. He likes them all.

He is born Hindu:

I am a Hindu because of sculptured cones of red kumkum powder and baskets of yellow turmeric nuggets, because of garlands of flowers and pieces of broken coconut, because of the clanging of bells to announce one’s arrival to God, because of the whine of the reedy nadaswaram and the beating of drums, because of the patter of bare feet against stone floors down dark corridors pierced by shafts of sunlight, because of the fragrance of incense, because of flames of arati lamps circling in the darkness, because of bhajans being sweetly sung, because of elephants standing around to bless, because of colourful murals telling colourful stories, because of foreheads carrying, variously signified, the same word — faith. I became loyal to these sense impressions even before I knew what they meant or what they were for�.

But religion is more than rite and ritual. There is what the rite and ritual stand for. Here too I am a Hindu. The universe makes sense to me through Hindu eyes. There is Brahman, the world soul, the sustaining frame upon which is woven, warp and weft, the cloth of being, with all its decorative elements of space and time. There is Brahman nirguna, without qualities, which lies beyond understanding, beyond description, beyond approach; with our poor words we sew a suit for it — One, Truth, Unity, Absolute, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being — and we try to make it fit, but Brahman nigura always bursts the seams. We are left speechless. But there is also Brahman saguna, with qualities, where the suit fits. New we call it Shiva, Krishna, Shakti, Ganesha; we can approach it with some understanding; we can discern certain qualities — loving, merciful, frightening — and we feel the gentle pull of relationship. Brahman saguna is Brahman made manifest to our limited senses, Brahman expressed not only in gods but in humans, animals, trees, in a handful of earth, for everything has a trace of the divine in it.

Although Pi is born Hindu, he is drawn to other religions:

I was fourteen years old — and a well-contented Hindu — when I met Jesus Christ on a holiday.

[Father Martin] served me tea and biscuits in a tea set that tinkled and rattled with every touch; he treated me like a grown-up; and he told me a story. Or rather, since Christians or so fond of capital letters, a Story.

And what a story. The first thing that drew me in was disbelief. What? Humanity sins but it’s God’s Son who pays the price? I tried to imagine father saying to me, “Piscine, a lion slipped into the llama pen today and killed two llamas. Yesterday another one killed a black buck. Last week two of them ate the camel. The week before it was painted storks and grey herons. And who’s to say for sure who snacked on our golden agouti? The situation has become intolerable. Something must be done. I have decided that the only way the lions can atone for their sins is if I feed you to them.”

“Yes, father, that would be the right and logical thing to do. Give me a moment to wash up.”

“Halleluhah, my son.”

“Hallelujay, father.”

What a downright weird story. What peculiar psychology.

The chapter in which Pi becomes a Christian is especially well-written and it is difficult to pick any one piece to excerpt; it all flows together in a beautiful, orderly manner, representing the thought process that leads him to add Christianity to his Hindu beliefs.

After becoming a Christian, Pi also becomes a Muslim:

[The baker] was explaining to me how the bread baked on these heated pebbles when the nasal call of the muezzin wafted through the air from the mosque. I knew it was a call to prayer, but I didn’t know what it entailed. I imagined it beckoned the Muslim faithful to the mosque, much like bells summoned us Christians to church. Not so. The baker interrupted himself mid-sentence and said, “Excuse me.” He ducked into the next room for a minute and returned with a rolled-up carpet, which he unfurled on the floor of his bakery, throwing up a small storm of flour. And right there before me, in the midst of his workplace, he prayed. It was incongruous, but it was I who felt out of place. Luckily, he prayed with his eyes closed.

He stood straight. He muttered in Arabic. He brought his hands next to his ears, thumbs touching the lobes, looking as if he were straining to hear Allah replying. He bent forward. He stood straight again. He fell to his knees and brought his hands and forehead to the floor. He sat up. He fell forward again. He stood. He started the whole thing again.

Why, Islam is nothing but an easy sort of exercise, I thought. Hot-weather yoga for the Bedouins. Asanas without sweat, heaven without strain.

“What’s your religion about?” I asked.

His eyes lit up. “It is about the Beloved,” he replied.

I challenge anyone to understand Islam, its spirit, and not to love it. It is a beautiful religion of brotherhood and devotion.

The presence of God is the finest of rewards.

Eventually:

After the “Hellos” and the “Good days”, there was an awkward silence. The priest broke it when he said, with pride in his voice, “Piscine is a good Christian boy. I hope to see him join our choir soon.”

My parents, the pandit and the imam looked surprised.

“You must be mistaken. He’s a good Muslim boy. He comes without fail to Friday prayer, and his knowledge of the Holy Qur’an is coming along nicely.” So said the imam.

My parents, the priest and the pandit looked incredulous.

The pandit spoke. “You’re both wrong. He’s a good Hindu boy. I see him all the time at the temple coming for darshan and performing puja.”

My parents, the imam and priest looked astounded.

“There is no mistake,” said the priest. “I know this boy. He is Piscine Molitor Patel and he’s a Christian.”

“I know him too, and I tell you he’s a Muslim,” asserted the imam.

“Nonsense!” cried the pandit. “Piscene was born a Hindu, lives a Hindu and will die a Hindu!”

The three wise men stared at each other, breathless and disbelieving.

Lord, avert their eyes from me, I whispered in my soul.

All eyes fell upon me.

So: although has not yet provided the promised shipwreck with a menagerie of animals (is “menagerie of animals” redundant?), I like it. The book is well-written, entertaining and thoughtful.

Comments

On 26 November 2003 (02:59 PM),
Icedragon said:

This is a wonderful, amazing, enlightening book. It has made me believe in God, thank you Martel, thank you Richard Parker, thank you Pi!

On 02 February 2005 (03:17 PM),
Kat said:

This book has the most amazing quotes… the insight is deeper than any mere mortal can hope to percieve. I cannot say that I loved the book, or even its plot but its message and theme are more moving than most. Read for detail for it is in these aspects that true feeling of the book is communicated.

The Lee Shore

Things you learn as an uncle:

When your nephew, in a fit of orneriness, spits all over your corn dog, the correct response is not to say, “Fuckin’ A!”

oops


Here is my favorite chapter (so far) from Moby Dick:

CHAPTER 23
The Lee Shore

Some chapters back, one Bulkington was spoken of, a tall, newlanded mariner, encountered in New Bedford at the inn.

When on that shivering winter’s night, the Pequod thrust her vindictive bows into the cold malicious waves, who should I see standing at her helm but Bulkington! I looked with sympathetic awe and fearfulness upon the man, who in mid-winter just landed from a four years’ dangerous voyage, could so unrestingly push off again for still another tempestuous term. The land seemed scorching to his feet.

Wonderfullest things are ever the unmentionable; deep memories yield no epitaphs; this six-inch chapter is the stoneless grave of Bulkington. Let me only say that it fared with him as with the storm-tossed ship, that miserably drives along the leeward land. The port would fain give succor; the port is pitiful; in the port is safety, comfort, hearthstone, supper, warm blankets, friends, all that’s kind to our mortalities. But in that gale, the port, the land, is that ship’s direst jeopardy; she must fly all hospitality; one touch of land, though it but graze the keel, would make her shudder through and through. With all her might she crowds all sail off shore; in so doing, fights ‘gainst the very winds that fain would blow her homeward; seeks all the lashed sea’s landlessness again; for refuge’s sake forlornly rushing into peril; her only friend her bitterest foe!

Know ye now, Bulkington? Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore?

But as in landlessness alone resides highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as God- so better is it to perish in that howling infinite, than be ingloriously dashed upon the lee, even if that were safety! For worm-like, then, oh! who would craven crawl to land! Terrors of the terrible! is all this agony so vain? Take heart, take heart, O Bulkington! Bear thee grimly, demigod! Up from the spray of thy ocean-perishing- straight up, leaps thy apotheosis! Good stuff!

Comments

On 02 November 2002 (03:26 PM),
Tammy said:

One time I watched the true story of Moby Dick on the history channel. It was fascinating! I probably wouldn’t have watched it but my husband wanted to see it and at that time we only had one TV so that meant I watched it too. Now I’m glad I did. After reading through your page I find the style too laborious to follow. But I do like how descriptive it is. Altho as mother of two busy kids and defender of my household I just could not find the time to read that these days. Happy reading to you tho.

Angela’s Ashes, Part Two

You can imagine how stunned I was to read this article by Pat Buchanan, a man I quite dislike, and yet agree with nearly every word. This is what I’ve been saying since September 11th. This is what I’ve been arguing about, standing in the office, shouting over Mike (who is shouting over me), explaining that the United States can’t stop terrorism by going to Afghanistan and blowing people up, can’t stop terrorism through a war of rhetoric, can’t stop terrorism at all unless it leaves the Middle East. That’s too simple for most people to understand: the Saudis (and other people in the Middle East) don’t hate us for our politics, our freedom, our wealth (though they don’t like these things), they hate us because of our Imperialistic attitudes, because of our presence on their sovreign soil, on their holy lands.

Pat Buchanan is absolutely right on this particular issue.

(From metafilter, my original source for this Buchanan story, comes this McLaughlin Group transcript which features a quote from Buchanan in which he displays not only his insight on this particular issue, but also his particular brand of charm that makes me hate him so: “I am talking about an interventionist policy in every darn country in the world that is Islamic, where crazies are, so they turn all their attention right to the United States of America. What is there over there that is worth a nuclear weapon in my hometown?”)


As promised, here is another excerpt from Frank McCourt’s Pulitzer Prize winning autobiography, Angela’s Ashes:

The master, Mr. Benson, is very old. He roars and spits all over us every day. The boys in the front row hope he has no diseases for it’s the spit that carries all the diseases and he might be spreading consumption right and left. He tells us we have to know the catechism backwards, forwards and sideways. We have to know the Ten Commandments, the Seven Virtues, Divine and Moral, the Seven Sacraments, the Seven Deadly Sins. We have to know by heart all the prayers, the Hail Mary, the Our Father, the Confiteor, the Apostles’ Creed, the Act of Contrition, the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We have to know them in Irish and English and if we forget an Irish word and use an English he goes into a rage and goes at us with the stick. If he had his way we’d be learning our religion in Latin, the language of the saints who communed intimately with God and His Holy Mother, the language of the early Christians, who huddled in the catacombs and went forth to die on rack and sword, who expired in the foaming jaws of the ravenous lion. Irish is fine for patriots, English for traitors and informers, but it’s the Latin in which the barbarians pulled out their nails and cut their skin off inch by inch. He tells us we’re a disgrace to Ireland and her long sad history, that we’d be better off in Africa praying to bush or tree. He tells us we’re hopeless, the worst class he ever had for First Communion but as sure as God made little apples he’ll make Catholics of us, he’ll beat the idler out of us and the Sanctifying Grace into us.

Brendan Quigley raises his hand. We call him Question Quigley because he’s always asking questions. He can’t help himself. Sir, he says, what’s Sanctifying Grace?

The master rolls his eyes to heaven. He’s going to kill Quigley. Instead he barks at him, Never mind what Sanctifying Grace, Quigley. That’s none of your business. You’re here to learn the catechism and do what you’re told. You’re not here to be asking questions. There are too many people wandering the world asking questions and that’s what has us in the state we’re in and if I find any boy in this class asking questions I won’t be responsible for what happens. Do you hear me, Quigley?

I do.

I do, what?

I do, sir.

He goes on with his speech, There are boys in this class who will never know the Sanctifying Grace. And why? Because of the greed. I have heard them abroad in the schoolyard talking about First Communion day, the happiest day of your life. Are they talking about the body and blood of Our Lord? Oh, no. Those greedy little balguards are talking about the money they’ll get, The Collection. They’ll go from house to house in their little suits like beggars for The Collection. And will they take any of that money and send it to the little black babies in Africa? Will they think of those little pagans doomed forever for lack of baptism and knowledge of the True Faith? Little black babies denied knowledge of the Mystical Body of Christ? Limbo is packed with little black babies flying around and crying for their mothers because they’ll never be admitted to the ineffable presence of Our Lord and the glorious company of saints, martyrs, virgins. Oh, no. It’s off to the cinemas, our First Communion boys run to wallow in the filth spewed across the world by the devil’s henchmen in Hollywood. Isn’t that right, McCourt?

‘Tis, sir.

Question Quigley raises his hand again. There are looks around the room and we wonder if it’s suicide he’s after.

What’s henchmen, sir?

The master’s face goes white, then red. His mouth tightens and opens and spits fire everywhere. He walks to Question and drags him from his seat. He snorts and stutters and his spit flies around the room. He flogs Question across the shoulders, the bottom, the legs. He grabs him by the collar and drags him to the front of the room.

Look at this specimen, he roars.

Question is shaking and crying. I’m sorry, sir.

The master mocks him. I’m sorry, sir. What are you sorry for?

I’m sorry I asked the question. I’ll never ask a question again, sir.

The day you do, Quigley, will be the day you wish God would take you to His bosom. What will you wish, Quigley?

That God will take me to His bosom, sir.

Go back to your seat, you omadhaun, you poltroon, you thing from the dark corner of a bog.

He sits down with the stick before him on the desk. He tells Question to stop whimpering and be a man. If he hears a single boy in this class asking foolish questions or talking about The Collection again he’ll flog that boy till the blood spurts.

What will I do, boys?

Flog the boy, sir.

Till?

Till the blood spurts, sir.

Now, Clohessy, what is the Sixth Commandment?

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not commit adultery what?

Thou shalt not commit adultery, sir.

And what is adultery, Clohessy?

Impure thoughts, impure words, impure deeds, sir.

Good, Clohessy. You’re a good boy. You may be slow and forgetful in the sir department and you may not have a shoe to your foot but you’re powerful with the Sixth Commandment and that will keep you pure.

My “now reading” box on the right has been lying for the past couple of weeks. I’ve actually been reading William Faulkner’s The Sound and The Fury. I’ve started Angela’s Ashes now, though, and so Faulkner will have to wait because after I finish this book I’m going to reread Charles Frazier’s Cold Mountain (fifth or sixth time for that one), then read The Journals of Lewis and Clark (as edited by John Bakeless), and then read Angle of Repose. Only after I’ve finished all of these will I be able to return to Benji and the rest of the messed-up gang in The Sound and the Fury.

I love books.

Comments


On 07 June 2002 (07:20 PM),
Mom said:

I loved Angela’s Ashes and the scene you have included demonstrates the kind of religion I hate. As you may or may not know, I wasn’t brought up being allowed to question and it still doesn’t come easily for me. I’m better at it now than I’ve ever been before in my life. In my opinion, fanatical religion in various forms is the root of many kinds of cruelties and injustices in this world.

I, too, think it’s ironic that you are agreeing with Pat Buchanan. I think that our insistance on making sure we have ready sources of oil rather than finding alternative fuels is a big cause of our continuing strong presence in the Middle East. It is coming back to bite us.

I love books, too. I’m trying to read “A Fine Balance”, an Oprah book club book — can’t remember the author’s name at the moment — and it’s difficult to read because of the graphic way in which it portrays some of the past and present conditions in India. However, it’s probably something that I need to read. I’m in limbo a bit right now on reading material that I really enjoy. I suppose a visit to the bookstore is in order sometime soon.

I hadn’t been to your site to see what you were up to for a while. I hope you don’t mind me putting my 2 cents worth in!

Angela’s Ashes, Part One

Mac and Pam had checked out the Angela’s Ashes DVD from the public library so I borrowed it the other day. When I started to watch it, however, I was angered by the gloss of the adaptation. The small segment that I saw gave short shrift to the beginning of the story. And stylistically, the film had a sheen, a lack of authenticity, seemed to be portraying the Hollywood version of the poor in 1930s Ireland instead of the poor as they actually existed. (Hell, we poor 1970s Oregonians had worse conditions than the film’s poor 1930s Irish!)

I stopped the film, ripped it to my hard drive for later viewing, and from my bookshelf I took the book upon which the film was based.

This book is a fine piece of work, destined to become a classic. This is only the second time that I’ve read it and I regret that it’s taken me five years to return to it.

Here is the second paragraph (which, by all rights, ought to be the first paragraph), the best-known passage from the book:

When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood.

That paragraph is an apt summary of the book’s plot, but cannot begin to do justice to the range and degree of poverty that the author, Frank McCourt, experiences during his childhood.

Here is another great passage (and yet another will follow tomorrow):

Paddy Clohessy has no shoe on his foot, his mother shaves his head to keep the lice away, his eyes are red, his nose always snotty. The sores on his kneecaps never heal because he picks the scabs and puts them in his mouth. His clothes are rags he has to share with his six brothers and a sister and when he comes to school with a bloody nose or a black eye you know he had to fight over the clothes that morning. He hates school. He’s seven going on eight, the biggest and oldest boy in the class, and he can’t wait to grow up and join the English army and go to India where it’s nice and warm and he’ll live in a tent with a dark girl with the red dot on her forehead and he’ll be lying there eating figs, that’s what they eat in India, figs, and she’ll cook the curry day and night and plonk on a ukelele and when he has enough money he’ll send for the whole family and they’ll all live in the tent especially his poor father who’s at home coughing up great gobs of blood because of the consumption. When my mother sees Paddy on the street she says, Wisha, look at that poor child. He’s a skeleton with rags and if they were making a film about the famine they’d surely put him in the middle of it.

I think Paddy likes me because of the raisin and I feel a bit guilty because I wasn’t that generous in the first place. The master, Mr. Benson, said the government was going to give us the free lunch so we wouldn’t be going home in the freezing weather. He led us down to a cold room in the dungeons of Leamy’s School where the charwoman, Nellie Ahearn, was handing out the half pint of milk and the raisin bun. The milk was frozen in the bottles and we had to melt it between our thighs. The boys joked and said the bottles would freeze our things off and the master roared, Any more of that talk and I’ll warm the bottles on the backs of yeer heads. We all searched our raisin buns for a raisin but Nellie said they must have forgotten to put them in and she’d inquire form the man who delivered. We searched again every day till at last I found a raisin in my bun and held it up. The boys started grousing and said they wanted a raisin and Nellie said it wasn’t her fault. She’d ask the man again. Now the boys were begging me for the raisin and offering me everything, a slug of their milk, a pencil, a comic book. Toby Mackey said I could have his sister and Mr. Benson heard him and took him out to the hallway and knocked him around till he howled. I wanted the raisin for myself but I saw Paddy Clohessy standing in the corner with no shoes and the room was freezing and he was shivering like a dog that had been kicked and I always felt sad over kicked dogs so I walked over and gave Paddy the raisin because I didn’t know what else to do and all the boys yelled that I was a fool and a feckin’ eejit and I’d regret the day and after I handed the raisin to Paddy I longed for it but it was too late now because he pushed it right into his mouth and gulped it and looked at me and said nothing and I said in my head what kind of an eejit are you to be giving away your raisin.

Mr. Benson gave me a look and said nothing and Nellie Ahearn said, You’re a great oul’ Yankee, Frankie.

Great stuff.

Comments


On 18 January 2005 (05:46 AM),
emily clohessy said:

hi this is emily clohessy

do you know paddie clohessy he helped write angelas ashes



On 15 April 2005 (05:40 AM),
emily clohessy said:

hi this is emily again guess what paddie clohessy is my grandad and , heather clohessy is my mum and issable clohessy is my granma isn’t that great well send me a message back just click on post a message and type your name in and your message if you want to contact me just call 079703716326


On 15 April 2005 (05:42 AM),
gemma tregellas said:

HELLO GEMMA HERE WATS EVERYONE DOING IM BORED AT SCHOOL HELP ME



On 18 April 2005 (02:57 AM),
emily clohessy said:

is anyone going to reply xxxxxxx



On 20 September 2005 (12:55 AM),
Jane Foster said:

Hi Emily, I am Paddy Clohessy’s niece, it would be lovely to hear, send me a post. I am his sister Nancy’s daughter. I met Frank Mccourt in Sydney for the premiere of the movie in 2000. Regards Jane.

Rugby and Stephen King

Fox Sports World keeps showing the same rugby match over and over again. For the past week, I’ve been trying to tune in to watch some more rugby. I want to learn more about the sport. I want to try to determine when a ruck occurs and when a scrum occurs. I want to determine why and where a team has to be on-sides. The sport is fascinating its foreign-ness: similar to football and soccer, but sufficiently different to be something completely original. It’s not gratuitously brutal like football, and seems to have some depth to it.

But whenever I fire up the digital cable box and jump to channel 107, the only rugby game I can find is the NLC match between Canterbury and Otago that must have been played weeks ago. I always seem to find the game at about the eighteen minute mark, about the time that one of the Canterbury players becomes enraged at an Otago player and lays into him with his fists, pummeling him to the ground. The score is tied 3-3, but I know that by half-time Otago will hold a 16-6 lead, despite being the underdogs.

“Don’t get too cocky!” I want to shout. “Stay sharp!”

I know that the second half is a long and painful one for the men in the blue shirts. Canterbury comes out and dominates, moving the ball at will. I don’t recall the final score, but I think that Otago gets only another try, but Canterbury gets nearly 30 points in the final half.

“Watch your backs!”

I really want to see another game, though, not Canterbury vs. Otago again.


As I read Stephen King, I am again struck by how effortless he makes it seem.

King doesn’t write well, in a technical sense, but he doesn’t write poorly, either. His writing is serviceable, and in fact lives to service the story. It’s his story-telling that enchants the reader, dulls the outside world.

I’ve heard that a movie is well-directed if the viewer is unaware of the direction. Maybe the same is true with writing. Maybe a book is well-written if you don’t notice how it is written (technically). I’d like for it not to be so — I dearly love the work of Ursula LeGuin, and books like Cold Mountain and As I Lay Dying, books in which the writing is obvious, is part of the story, is a feature that cannot be ignored.

With King, though, you don’t notice the writing. You swallow the story effortlessly. You consume it. You sit down to read a few pages and when you look up, an hour has passed. Where did the time go? How many pages did you read? What’s going on around you? You note that you’ve read seventy pages. Seventy pages in an hour? That’s impossible; you don’t read that quickly! Oh crap — didn’t you put the tea kettle on? Damn! It must be dry by now. (A whistle-less kettle seemed like a good idea at the time, didn’t it?) How could you forget about that? And why is it dark already?

Several times, Kris and I have tried comparing Stephen King to Charles Dickens. Dickens was immensely popular in his day, both in England and in the United States. The masses loved his novels. For the most part, his stories dealt with every day life, every day concerns. They were populated by distinct characters and propelled by compelling stories. King’s work is nearly identical in these regards: popular, based in the every day, with strong characters in strong stories.

Admittedly, the two authors differ in objective and tone, but that’s not necessarily a strike against either one of them. Critics often deride King’s books as lacking merit, as being fluff. I used to join the chorus, denouncing King as a hack churning out one piece of junk after another. I’ve had to change my position after actually reading him, of course. In particular, his recent work has become something greater than what he once produced. His stories acquired greater depth, as if he were consciously attempting to add resonance. Is there symbolism in his work yet? Perhaps not, but not all great work needs symbolism (and some would be better without it).

One hundred years after his death, Dickens is firmly ensconced in the English canon. In fact, he’s generally elevated into the upper echelon of English writers, resting at the feat of Shakespeare. Will King ever attain such heights? I doubt it. But I suspect that one hundred years from now, his place in the canon will be more firmly established than we can possibly imagine: greater than Lovecraft (who, honestly, does not even near the canon), greater than Poe — King will be recognized as the greatest author of supernatural that ever lived.