I'd like to start off Day 3 by saying that I realized as I re-read The Father of All Things that it was really quite a meaty book, and kind of a tough one to read quickly. It is most emphatically not what one would think of as either a "beach read" or "summer read." But I'd like to thank you for giving it a try all the same.
So here are my questions for you about this book. Feel free to answer any or all; likewise, if you'd like to answer yesterday's questions for this book, that's fine by me too. As you know, "Loosey Goosey" is one of the few operating principles we follow here at CR.
1. What do you think of the structure of this book? If you had to give it one label (e.g., History, Memoir, Travel, War, etc.) which one would you choose, and why?
2. Was this book what you expected it to be? Why or why not?
3. At one point Bissell quotes his father, who suggests that "war is an illness caused by youth" (which is also used by Bissell as a heading for one of his book's sections). What do you think that means? Do you agree with that statement, or not?
Okay, please do have at. I know I say this every time, but I think this is the Menage I'm enjoying the most, so far. Thank you!
Tomorrow: The Power of Memory
1. The book definitely transcended traditional categorizing, but I wasn't terribly bothered by this. In fact, the more I think about it the more I think it's an idea whose time has come. History is more approachable when the human element is retained. Good travel books simply must contain a bit of memoir. Herodotus gave us a bit of both history and travel, right? War books are probably a great deal of memoir, by default, because even if someone was there, everyone experienced something different. I hark to Tolstoy and the big battle with Napoleon's army, here.
2. I'm not sure I really had expectations for this book, other than that it would turn out to be a worthy read. I've been trying for the last year not to read book jackets or reviews, but just to pick up a book that was recommended by a reliable source and dig in.
3. I think "war is an illness caused by youth" is a classic line from an old soldier, and I would like to believe it. It seems to mean that it takes a callow young man to lash out and use physical force to try to solve problems, while a wiser, older man whose physical strength has declined knows it's not the only way to do things. But it definitely seems to me that young men are more likely to express violence at the personal level, through fist fighting, for example, while it takes a committee of old men to create a war. Who contributed more to the illness of war, a group of 18-year-olds or a group of seasoned politicians?
Posted by: Jessica | 22 July 2009 at 10:56 AM
Oh wicked CR, that first question is a tough one. If I had to pick, I would call it travel. It is personal and it has a large dose of history, but the central story is that of the father and son's trip to Vietnam. They go so younger can understand older, but the trip is still organizes and defines the book. Everything else is there for context.
I didn't expect quite as much discussion of the war itself and the various issues, but as it turned out, I quite liked these often lengthy asides. I thought that Bissell was quite even handed in his treatment of the subjects. Part of this is the younger generation that did not experience the war directly, so there is no need to deal with pro or anti war baggage.
The causes of war are so many, but I think that his father is getting at the idea that youth is headstrong, certain, desirous of glory (of all shades) and neglectful of consequences. All of these things make war more likely. I agree that it is part of the equation, but certainly not all.
Posted by: Tripp | 22 July 2009 at 10:57 AM
What great questions! Having just read the few pages in A Prayer for Owen Meany where the narrator lists the sequence of events that became the Vietnam War, I would have said it is politicians that 'cause' war, but I really like how Jessica answered the Q.
Tripp's answer to the genre question reminds me that I need to read a travel book... I'm sad I couldnt' get this in my hands before the Menage. Is it Jessica's OPINION that 'good travel books must contain memior'? or is it truth?
Posted by: Care | 22 July 2009 at 12:19 PM
Care, it's definitely only an opinion! I make no claims to being the ultimate arbiter of truth, though that would be a cool superhero name.
A travel book is going to try to tell others what it's like to go to a certain place. Even a guidebook is going to list certain restaurants, hotels, and museums and not others, based on a certain amount of subjective criteria. I don't think it would be possible to put out readable travel writing that contained nothing of the author's personality. I'm thinking of books like "Lost on Planet China" or "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star." Is it a travelogue with personal information about the author, or a memoir that happens to involve a trip somewhere?
Sometimes it can be hard to draw the line between memoir and "a bit of color." I think almost anything could be construed as a memoir if you look at it in a certain way.
Posted by: Jessica | 22 July 2009 at 03:00 PM
Jessica,
I agree that the book could be (and is) several types of books all in one. In fact, these are usually my favorite types of books--not because they defy classification, but because they demand so much more of it. I'd guess that I'd put this one in History or Memoir; although you make a good case for travel. I also tend to think of it as "relationship" nonfiction--in which the author looks at relationships as one of his main plot points. I'd call the Perry a "relationships" book too, but more about community connections. I realize that "relationships" is not an accepted nonfiction genre, but I think it should be, personally.
I'm also intrigued by your no reviews policy on the year. I think I may try that. So often I order books on the basis of their reviews or what I hear about them. Perhaps I should be making more of an effort just to browse and let the books pick me.
I'm also intrigued by your comments about war. I thought this line was an interesting contrast to Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," in which the front line boys speculated that it was all the old higher-ups (and the old enthusiastic war veterans at home) who caused the war. But enthusiasm for death is, I think, a necessary component, and perhaps that is present more in the young. Which just strikes me as weird.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 22 July 2009 at 03:26 PM
Tripp,
I love being wicked. And I have loved everyone's different takes on what this book is. I myself was surprised at its opening, and the in-depth (and horrible) consideration of the fall of Saigon. That wasn't reallywhat I was expecting, but now that I've read it this way, I can't imagine it starting any other way. And now I've had to check out a video about the fall of Saigon--but I don't know if I have the heart to watch it.
Also: yes to everything you say about youth contributing because of neglect of consequences. Another very important component in the recipe. Myself, I tend to think that good health is the father of war--maybe if everyone had a few all-consuming medical issues of their own, they'd be less in a hurry to cause pain and kill other people in the name of any cause. I say this from personal experience: nothing makes you more appreciative of, and less in the mood for blowing up, sewer systems than a good bout with flu or any other intestinal/post-surgical illness. Is it possible that all these old politicians and young kids wanting to fight simply feel too good?
That's simplistic, I know, but I can't help feeling it plays a part.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 22 July 2009 at 03:31 PM
Care, Jessica,
Here's a fun one to chew on: aren't all opinions truth? Or, at least, true? (Note I'm not saying valid.)
And yes, Jessica, on the inclusiveness of memoir. It's a very open genre, which is part of what makes it (and other NF categories) tricky to classify.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 22 July 2009 at 03:32 PM
Are opinions true? Yes. If I say, "In my opinion, yellow is the prettiest color," that's true.
On the other hand, I was reading something just this morning in "Crimes Against Logic" that said it's a common fallacy for people to say "I'm entitled to my opinion" as a way to avoid accepting that the facts contradict their beliefs.
That's why I think it's so great that Bissell combined factual reporting with subjective personal experience. There's suddenly a context behind that family story. It's almost trite to say, "Gee, my dad was rough to grow up with," but it's a totally different story when that dad was blown up by a mine in a war.
Posted by: Jessica | 22 July 2009 at 04:46 PM
So many good comments today! On the notion of travel being a subset of memoir, I think it is certainly true of most travel books I have read. Travel writers seem to really like talking about themselves, Paul Theroux being a case in point. Also a big part of travel is supposed to be its impact on your point of view and life experience, so it makes sense to bring in the memoir piece. Rory Stewart's The Places in Between stands out as the rare memoir free travel book. You can barely find Stewart in that book despite the fact it is about his travels.
Following up on Jessica's point 2, I have been trying to avoid dusk jackets and reviews, but I am addicted. If I see them I read them. Somehow I can go into a movie without information, but not a book.
Posted by: Tripp | 22 July 2009 at 07:09 PM
The genre discussion has been interesting. I was surprised at the amount of history in Bissell's book, but I did enjoy it. (Not enjoy in a happy way, but enjoy in an interesting way). While thinking about this, I remembered my student teaching experience at a high school outside Flint, MI. One class of students who were born around 1970 wanted to do a unit on the Vietnam War. I'll never forget what one high school senior said to me, "My dad was in Vietnam, and he won't ever talk about it." If this kid twenty years later were to write a memoir, he would have to include the war even if it's from a historical point of view rather than a personal one. The pain this kid felt from being excluded from an important part of his dad' life was terrible. The war, in whatever form, was part of his life - the legacy. I thought Bissell did a nice job bringing the personal together with the historical.
Posted by: Venta | 23 July 2009 at 09:01 AM
Tripp,
I couldn't agree more. I love these discussions. They always go somewhere I don't expect.
I agree that travel books often include a healthy dose of the personal (at least, my favorite ones seem to--those by J. Maarten Troost, Redmond O'Hanlon, etc.--Paul Theroux is a good--if cranky--example too). But yet there is something larger and indefinable about travel--I think the books you cite like Rory Stewart's can also be quite personal, even if the author doesn't say much about him or herself. (William Langewiesche's "Sahara" also comes to mind.) After all, most travel is one person's taking in of an entire place and culture, right?
I agree I could never give up reading book jackets. Usually I have to pick up and feel a book to seriously consider it, and if I don't follow that up with at least reading the jacket, it makes me feel like I'm just using the book for a cheap feel.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 23 July 2009 at 09:12 AM
Venta,
I was surprised too, especially that he opened the book with such a lengthy discussion of the fall of Saigon. (I watched an episode of the documentary "Vietnam: A Television History" last night on the fall, and firmly believe that program should be a part of all high school history classes.)
Your story from the school is really interesting, if sad. I wonder how many kids (particularly boys?) are hurting because their fathers just couldn't talk about being in this war. I wonder how that will work for kids of Iraq War veterans as well.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 23 July 2009 at 09:15 AM
On book jackets, I used to read every word of them, but I was converted by my friend Becky. When she said she refused to read book jackets, I made fun of her, but it rankled in my mind so much I couldn't stop thinking about it. Then I read a spoiler on a book jacket and it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. It really bothers me now when I know anything precise about the book going in, because it influences my reading too much.
I read book jackets for non-fiction books, but only after I finish the book. I don't read book jackets for fiction at all. I might glance at the review comments by other authors, but usually I skip those too.
Posted by: Jessica | 23 July 2009 at 10:36 AM
I rarely read the book jackets and blurbs when I start a book. I save them for last to see if they got it right. I might read when I buy the book but that could be months (and hopefully forgotten) before I eventually start reading!
Posted by: Care | 23 July 2009 at 10:38 AM
Does anyone remember the TV commercial from a LONG time ago about how wouldn't it be better if wars were fought between old men in a boxing ring, and then they had footage of two old white men in white shirts and black trousers duking it out. Might have been during the Vietnam War. Ancient history, ya know
Posted by: Sarah | 23 July 2009 at 11:33 AM
Sarah,
I've never seen that ad but the soldier boys in "All Quiet on the Western Front" suggested much the same thing. I think they're on to something, personally.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 23 July 2009 at 02:56 PM