MENAGE! Day one: Essays v. Short Stories.

Hi everyone, and welcome to the March Book Menage, featuring George Saunders's book of essays, The Braindead Megaphone, and Steven Millhauser's New York Times Notable book of short stories, Dangerous Laughter!*

And yes, I know when we have these, we normally start off with a few questions and then have a beautiful free-for-all in the comments. Although I am a huge fan of the free-for-all, I thought we'd do things a bit differently this time around:

Instead of having one big discussion in the comments, I thought I'd post a few different questions each day, and each day can then have its own discussion. Also, if there's any questions you'd like to ask about these books, you should ask them in the comments (and I'll pull them out into the next day's post to highlight them) or email me with them at realstory@tds.net. So it'll still be a free-for-all...times five! And whoever comments in any day's discussion will be entered in the drawing to win the next Menage books (meaning, you don't have to comment every day if you don't want to).

So let's start out pretty basic. Here's what I'm wondering:

1. Did you read all of each book? Or did you skip some parts?

2. HOW did you read these books? Straight through? Picking and choosing your essays or stories to read? How did you choose your reading order?

And here's a big one (and one we'll revisit throughout the week, I'm sure):

3. Did you like or not like either or both of these books? Why or why not?

I'll start us off in the comments, because I believe it's only fair to answer the questions one asks of others. Welcome to the Menage!

*Technically, I'm posting this on Sunday night. I couldn't help myself. I always get overexcited about the Menage.

Comments

[Citizen Reader]

1 and 2. I did read all of TBM; I skipped the last two stories in DL. I loved the first essay in Saunders, and then chose the rest of my reading by looking at them in order, and if I loved the first paragraph, I stuck with the whole thing; then, afterwards, I finished up by reading the essays I hadn't read yet because I just wanted more Saunders.

I chose the DL stories to read by length, starting with the shortest, leaving the two longest (kind of) for last, which I then didn't read. (Bad fiction reader!)

3. I can nutshell it, although I look forward to discussing these issues further: Loved the Saunders. The first essay was beautiful, I thought, even on such a dull topic as the media, and of course, he's got some essays about Vonnegut and Britain, so it's like his book was largely custom-made for me.

I was disappointed in DL. It was all right but certainly nothing I would have stuck with if not for the Menage. And what was the deal with that first story? He did not lead with his strongest, I thought. I was bummed I didn't like it more, because I LOVED his book The King in the Tree (a retelling of the Tristan/Isolde story).

[Tripp]

CR, thanks for the menage, as I probably would not have read the books without it!

I took the opposite view on the books. I quite liked DL and found the Saunders more spotty. I think this comes down in part to organization. I liked that DL was organized into some thematic groups, while I found the transitions in style and content in the Saunders book to be jarring. I do agree that the first story in the DL was an odd choice. If I had not planned on reading the rest, I might have put it down at that point.

This though is probably due to my doctrinaire approach to reading anthologies/collections such as these. I tend to read from start to finish and skip (which I did) as I go along. I would, I believe, be better served if I picked it up and read them as the fancy struck. That said, I probably won't do that.

This isn't to say I didn't like the Saunders, I particularly liked the travel articles, but it didn't feel as strong a read.

[Citizen Reader]

Tripp,
You're very welcome. I wouldn't have read as much of DL as I had without it, and I did enjoy parts.

What you say about your doctrinaire approach is interesting. Have you always read start to finish? Does it feel weird if you don't do that?

Do you think Saunders should have organized his essays into larger groups (Lit, travel writing, etc.?). Do you think that would have helped your enjoyment of his stuff?

Also: can you tell me what the point of that first story in DL was? I didn't get it AT ALL.

Anything in Saunders you particularly didn't like, or was it mainly a question of organization (or lack thereof)?

[Tripp]

CR,

I am ashamed to admit it, but yes I am a start to finish sort of person. I wish I had a rational reason for this, such as, the writer (or editor) put them in this order for a reason and they are best enjoyed thusly, but no, I just do it out of habit. It feels like breaking a rule. Sad, but there you go.

I would have liked it if Saunders had organized his essays into type, that way I could more easily tackle them as a group and I think they would have reinforced one another more than they did.

On the first story, no, I can't see anything grand here. Maybe just to show what a cartoon would look like as a story? On a side note, (insert obligatory protestation that we don't let out kids watch too much TV and by the way did you know we don't have cable?) our kids find the Tom & Jerry cartoons intensely funny. This didn't come over into the story.

Although I liked the Saunders stories to varying degrees, I found the switch in voice (polemical to humorous to thoughtful) jarring. So yes, it was mostly about the organization rather than anything else.

Tripp

[Jessica]

Hi from Oahu! I'm checking in while the menfolk in our party are off learning to scuba.

1. I read all of Megaphone and I'm halfway through Dangerous Laughter. I would have finished it, but, well, personal events will shall be announced later intervened. :-) As it is, I'm hooked and I'll finish it today.

2. I always read books from start to finish, unless I'm doing research and I don't intend to read the whole thing. I figure something led the author or editor to compile the work in that order, so I might as well try to find out what it was.

3. I'm thrilled with both books! I went to a David Sedaris reading last year, and at the end he read part of Saunders, so I've been wanting to read it for ages. I kept following my man RS around trying to read parts of it to him, which is hard on vacation. My only issue with it is that, as excited as I was by Saunders's political message, I don't think it would be as likely to reach more conservative readers.

I think Millhauser writes as well as anyone I've ever read. I'm amazed at how clearly he describes scenery and actions. I have to say that I was CRAZY about "Cat 'n' Mouse" and I almost didn't want to read further, because I didn't think he'd be able to match the level of that story with anything else. I thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever read. There's this contrast between the verbosity and the almost academic language, and the screwball slapstick comedy of the action, that just kills me. I thought it was particularly hilarious that the cartoons were having these existential conflicts. You have to admit that all the animation tropes were perfectly executed. The other thing I thought was that there's a very 1950s feel to all the stories. In "The Room in the Attic" David Dave talks about the feeling of leaving a movie theatre and seeing the outside world again, and I think the stories in this book are a bit like that, so having an "opening cartoon" seems appropriate to me.

Aloha!

[Kim (Sophisticated Dorkiness)]

I like the idea of spreading out the questions. Here's what I think...

1 and 2. I read all of both, and I read them both straight through. I might not normally do that, but since I was having a discussion I wanted to be sure I had perspective on everything. I like the Millhauser order; the themes were very well put together. I wasn't crazy about the first Saunder's essay, but would have kept reading anyway because the topic (media and society) was important to me. I thought TBM got better as it went on, so I'm glad I read it in order.

3. I liked both of them a lot! I agree with Jessica; I loved the first Millhauser essay for a lot of the reasons she mentioned. I thought it was just so odd, but I think it set up the kind of approach Millhauser would take in the rest of the stories.

Like I said, I wasn't crazy about Saunders are first. The tone in the first essay was critical, which was fine, but I was worried the rest of the book was going to get more and more critical, which can start to sound mean (I've read a lot of political essays that just end up bashing things, which is a tone I don't like). I started to like Saunders more during the essay on Dubai when he repeatedly talked about things being "complicated" because it made feel like each essay was more of a meditation than a conclusion, and that's something I'm more interested in reading. As the book progressed, the essays continued to be thoughtful rather than angry, so it grew on me

Overall, two good books for the menage!

[Citizen Reader]

Tripp,
There's nothing to be ashamed about in being an orderly reader. I'm really interested to find how many people are reporting that! I guess I start in order, but especially in story and essay collections I start skipping around earlier than not. Perhaps this is why the lack of organization/switch of voice is not as jarring to me--I seem to go out of my way to set that up!

Actually, that may have affected my enjoyment of DL. Perhaps, in not paying any attention to the groupings, I missed part of the plan!

[Citizen Reader]

Jessica,
Hello in Hawaii! I hope you are having a great vacation. And to attend the Menage while on vacay, you ARE dedicated!
I'm so glad you're liking the books. Just listening to how others have enjoyed the first story in DL has made me have to re-evaluate it. Would you say it counted as "satire"? I have never really understood satire (I had this problem with Saunders's essay "Ask the Optimist" as well--it wasn't my favorite).

Also loved that you also read front to back. I find HOW people read almost as interesting as WHAT they read.

Your take on the stories sounding somewhat "50s" is perfect! I understand just what you mean--what do you suppose it is about them that makes them "feel" that way? Also thanks re: the comment on describing scenery; I may have to revisit these stories. I think I've rather got in the habit of skimming too much (and skipping around!). Perhaps I have to slow down in order to be able to enjoy the prose...

[Rick]

1. & 2. I also read all of both books in order. I was telling Bonnie just yesterday about how my family always arrived half an hour late for movies when I was a kid. We'd see the end of the picture and then stay to see the beginning. It drove me crazy. Now I like starting things at the beginning.

3. I liked both books, but I liked Dangerous Laughter better.

My interest in the Braindead Megaphone essays varied. I liked the beginning essay, I struggled through the middle, and I really liked the final four pieces, especially The Buddha Boy.

I thought the cartoon piece starting Dangerous Laughter was quite good. Only after reading all the others do I now realize why it belongs in the collection. At the heart of every story is obsession. The cat and the mouse are trapped in their behaviors, just like the boy who has to visit the girl in the dark.

I thought the stories about the mirror town and about the tower to heaven were fantastic. They are hard to reduce to a few statements, but certain things jump out at me. The US tries to make other societies think like us - it does not work. Also, the tower is like a society that has created hierarchies where people at the top have forgotten what it is like on the ground level. I've probably already said enough. I really enjoyed the stories.

[Citizen Reader]

Hello, Kim!
You are so dedicated (re: reading them both)! I wanted to be dedicated, I really did (actually, I read some of the Saunders essays twice) but I just wasn't enjoying the Millhauser and I was starting to hate him for it, and I didn't want that.

I'm so glad you're enjoying these--I also asked Jessica (above), but would you say the cat and mouse story functions as "satire"? I never really understand what satire looks like, so I thouth I'd ask.

I too enjoyed Saunders's switch in tone. Although I am not a big one for overtly political books (Coulter, Franken, O'Reilly, Olbermann, et al) I do like angry commentary. I thought Saunders did a nice job of being bitter and jaded without sounding overly bitter and jaded. And that's tough to do, I think!

Thanks for commenting. I hope the rest of the week is as interesting as today has already proved to be!

[Laura]

Hello,
I'm a new reader to your site (a friend recommended it a few weeks ago and I haven't been able to stop reading!) but I thought I'd drop a comment. I read all of TBM in just a few hours - I loved it. The only one I couldn't finish was "Ask the Optimist," which I just didn't get. I really enjoyed the longer pieces, especially the one on the US/Mexico border. What an interesting, multi-faceted exploration of a topic that usually just elicts knee jerk reactions. I haven't read DL yet. I started the cat and mouse one and just didn't get into it. I'm not much of a reader of short fiction, so I let myself be distracted by other things. I'm not sure why I don't like short stories, but I've never been a fan. I'll try again tonight . . . we'll see.

Thanks for a great blog and I'm so happy I participated. I probably wouldn't have picked up TBM otherwise. I love book discussions because they force me out of my reading ruts. Thanks!

[Care]

I didn't read these so I don't know why I am so excited to read all the comments, but I am. I like discussion. I'm only jumping in to say that I never read essay or short story collections in order. Never, ever. Maybe, I'm a rebel.

[Citizen Reader]

Rick,
WOW, there's a lot going on in your comments. For starters, I loved the story about your family catching the beginning of movies after the ending. I can see where that would drive you batty. I too am from an "always late" family and have had to change my ways to fit in with my extremely punctual husband. But I can't say seeing the ending first bothers me--I routinely read the end of books before I get there naturally.

Your point about the first story in DL (as well as many others) being about OBSESSION has cleared a lot up for me. This may be why they weren't my cuppa. Wide-ranging interests I get, intense short-lived passion okay, but sustained and single-minded obsession I have never understood. On any level. I think it is because I am lazy.

My laziness might have contributed to my problem with the short stories, too. Clearly you got a lot more out of them (as did many commenters here) than I did--but perhaps I did not put enough work into them. Although I did like the mirror town story--I certainly wouldn't have thought to make the connection to the deeper thoughts/ideas about America and society that you did. Fascinating!

[Citizen Reader]

Laura,
Thanks so much for joining us! I just laughed when I read your comment about TBM--I had the exact same reaction! The "Ask the Optimist" and the Barthelme essays were my least favorite (I've never read ANY Barthelme and was lost) but I maintain that the first essay is a thoughtful thing of beauty and the Mexican border essay wasn't far behind it in quality. Lovely.

Do allow yourself to skip the cat and mouse story--although others here have lived it, which I find so fascinating, I think if you didn't get it within the first few pages it just wasn't for you. The stories in the "Impossible Architectures" segment were my favorite--maybe those would work better for you?

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion and read something you might not have otherwise--I love discussions for that reason, but also mainly for the conversation. Just reading today's comments has given me whole new takes on these books!

Care,
Oh, I'm totally with you. I love conversations about reading, even if I've not read what's on offer. I always want to know more about HOW and WHY people read what they do--and for that sort of thing, you really don't need to have read the same books. And--I'm glad to hear there's someone else out there who skips around in these collections--you rebel--although I often start in the beginning, my favorite part of collections like these is that I can jump around. Very freeing.

[Jessica]

What's interesting about "Ask the Optimist" is that it was the piece David Sedaris chose to read aloud for the audience. I remember that we were all shaking with laughter. Maybe it's funnier out loud.

Thinking about the 50's feel in Millhauser, I think it has much to do with the suburban settings and something else to do with the characters. Some of the stories remind me of science fiction stories from that era. Now that I've read the whole book, I'd have to revise my opinion and say it applies to "many" of the stories.

[Citizen Reader]

Jessica,
Oh, man, you've totally planted an idea in my head. Now I want to go back and read "Ask the Optimist" out loud. Hopefully my cat will be amused.

Although, I am of the opinion that anything David Sedaris reads out loud will be funny--he has such unique delivery, and that voice! Totally weird but totally right in that his voice is exactly what I expected him to sound like.

Thank you for explaining the 50s feel. Definitely something about the mirror town made me feel that way. He must have been going for that, on purpose, don't you think? Do you think he was trying to give the book its sci fi feel?