Might I just take a quick moment to thank everyone who participated in yesterday's Menage, and welcome you back for round 2? Yesterday was already such a pleasure that I feel a bit greedy asking for more, but I will.
Today's question is more in-depth about the text and writing of these two books: George Saunders's The Braindead Megaphone (TBM) and Steven Millhauser's story collection Dangerous Laughter (DL). It is, in a way, an extension of yesterday's questions about which book you liked better, and why, so feel free to expand on anything we discussed yesterday. Today's question is a stand-alone:
Did any particular piece of text* (or story, or essay) in either (or both) of these books really stand out to you? (Another way to ask this: did you bookmark or otherwise mark anything in these books as you read?) If so, why?
*Please feel free to generalize if you can't locate the exact text; paraphrase! We proudly support loosey-goosey and "close enough" here at CR.
I found this bit very interesting, at the end of Saunders's final essay, "Manifesto":
"Since the world began, we have gone about our work quietly, resisting the urge to generalize, insisting upon valuing the individual over the group, the actual over the conceptual, the inherent sweetness of a peaceful moment over the theoretically peaceful future supposedly to be obtained via murder or massacre. Many of us have trouble sleeping, and lie awake at night, worrying about something catastrophic befalling someone we love. We rise in the morning with no plans to convert anyone via beating, humiliation, murder, or invasion. To tell the truth, we are tired...To those who would oppose us, I would simply say: We are many. We are worldwide. We, in fact, outnumber you." (p. 253-254.)
I thought that was optimistic. In fact, what I liked best about Saunders's book was that it was serious, quite negative in some parts, very smart, but yet smacked of hope. Is he too optimistic in the above paragraph? I kinda think so. But I hope he's right all the same.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 31 March 2009 at 08:30 AM
I didn't comment yesterday because I hadn't read both books. I read Saunders a bit ago and enjoyed it immensely. Yes, he did start out a bit angry - a fair stance when it comes to the media. I am a pacifist, but Diane Sawyer...well, I wanted to deck her before I read about her scene with the Dixie Chicks. Wait, I'm an American, so I'd have to hire an expert (costly) or a poor, possibly addicted member of an ethnic minority (cheaper) to deck her. I try not to hold it against the Chicks for agreeing to an interview. It's not a perfect world.
I do wonder about the size of the group Saunders refers to above. I wonder how many people really value the individual over the group, the actual over the conceptual, a peaceful present over a peaceful future (ask yourself: why was it Tom Friedman found it so easy to incite an upper middle class white Oprah audience to Iraqi violence). However, I liked this quote, because I feel a part of such a group, and yes, it is because I am tired. I have a theory that much good and much evil has been achieved and perpetrated by the overly energetic. Maybe these folks are in fact the minority; they just get more done than those of us with mild mitochondrial disorders.
What's great about Saunders is that he is just energetic enough to participate, to ask questions, to try to understand. I thought he had an unusual skill in that he could call a spade a spade but still seek to live in peace with it and remain hopeful. That's a trick I'd like in my repertoire. (What about the Dubai essay where he thinks about helping the employee clean the steps but finds himself sticking with observing?) CR, we once had a conversation about Saunders's age--that he was young enough to get out there but old enough to feel it. It would be interesting to look at some of his older work to see if it's age or really just his personality/ability.
I also found the Barthelme essay very interesting. Can anyone recommend any good Barthelme stories? I read one in college and have wanted to re-read it many times, but cannot remember the name.
Posted by: Mrs. Thornton | 31 March 2009 at 10:40 AM
I have to go with the Room in the Attic in Dangerous Laughter. I will have to consider the specific text, but I love the peculiar atmosphere he created in the story.
Posted by: Tripp | 31 March 2009 at 11:14 AM
Mrs. Thornton,
We just discussed this so you know how I feel. The optimism of George's quote is what got me--I really don't believe, I'm sorry, that more people value the individual over the group. And I think the really sad part is that we're trained to value the group in a way that is unhealthy--not in how we can help the group, or make the group better, but mostly in how we can conform to the group. So how Saunders manages to stay so optimistic is what stymies me. Particularly after all he's seen.
I've not read any Barthelme. At all. Has anyone else here?
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 31 March 2009 at 03:27 PM
Tripp,
I know what you mean about the atmosphere of that story. I do think I need to re-read DL sometime when I'm not in a hurry, Millhauser does have a nice way with language. In the very beginning of the story his description of the boy Wolf is quite detailed: "He sat down, not quickly or clumsily as I would have done, and leaned back in an attitude of polite attention as class began." There's nothing fancy there but I do know just what he means--quickly or clumsily is the way I always sit down after introducing myself.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 31 March 2009 at 03:29 PM
Yes, he does get the sense of being unsure, by contrast doesn't he? Spoiler alert, but also I like how he ends it. I have a strong preference for ambiguous endings and Millhauser serves one up, almost as a comment that we want ambiguity in life.
Posted by: Tripp | 31 March 2009 at 03:45 PM
My favorite section in Millhauser was "Impossible Architectures," I think because the stories were so clever in the way they took an idea or obsession Americans have today and then show how that can go out of control. He did what good sci fi does -- shows us a future that helps us reflect on our present. All of those stories made me think a lot.
There were a lot of great essays in Saunders. I got into the book during the essay about Dubai (I think I said yesterday it was because of his repetition of the idea of complexity -- I love how nuanced his criticism was in that way). I also really liked his analysis of Huck Finn, and a couple of the other essays more specifically related to literature (I can't remember the topics off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to go across the room to get my book). I love reading people analyze literature though, it's an English major thing, I think :)
Posted by: Kim (Sophisticated Dorkiness) | 31 March 2009 at 11:18 PM
I'm looking back over The Braindead Megaphone and refinding "The Great Divider" which is about his trip to watch vigilantes trying to police the Rio Grande. I think Saunders really captures the inept but still dangerous quality of the lop-sided people of culture. Maybe our whole foreign policy is this way. I'll nominate it for a favorite in that book.
I'll agree with Tripp about "The Room in the Attic" being the masterpiece in Dangerous Laughter. It has more narrative appeal than the rest of the book. I think I actually like some of the other pieces more for their sheer creativity, but I suspect its my nerdy tastes.
Posted by: Rick Roche | 02 April 2009 at 10:29 PM
Kim:
I must admit that was really my favorite section of DL as well, and where most of the stories that I understood were. Actually, the Mirror Town story got under my skin a little bi--I'm still think about it.
I couldn't agree more about essays about literature. I love 'em! Have you seen Steve Almond's latest book "Not that You Asked"? It's got a great piece in it on Vonnegut.
We love English majors here at Chez CR. Thanks for discussing!
Rick,
Yes, "The Great Divider" was very strong. It reminded me a lot of William Langewiesche's book about the border, "Cutting for Sign." And you know that I love anything that reminds me of William Langewiesche.
Hmm, narrative appeal. Yes, I can see that. Ironically, although I like to understand what is going on, I can't say that I always need a very narrative piece of fiction, which may explain why "The Room in the Attic" was not my favorite. Although. Now that I think about it, I may have to re-read it to see what was a bigger draw about it: story or character. Or the writing? Hm...
We like nerdy tastes here too. Bring 'em!
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 02 April 2009 at 11:05 PM