Gasp!

Book Reviews: Dr. Bernie Siegel & Yosaif August, and 40 Weeks +: The Essential Pregnancy Organizer

I filed my book reviews before I left for my Honeymoon. If all goes well, they will continue to appear while I'm gone.  

My review of Dr. Bernie Siegel and Yosaif August's book "Help Me To Heal: A Practical Guidebook For Patients, Visitors, and Caregivers" appeared in the Birmingham News last week. It was picked up by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution yesterday.

"A hospital room is no different than a hotel room —- it's yours as long as you pay for it," write Dr. Bernie Siegel and Yosaif August in their book, "Help Me to Heal: A Practical Guidebook for Patients, Visitors, and Caregivers" (Hay House, $19.95). While hospital stays are no vacation, they could be viewed as a rest stop on the road to wellville."

My review of "40 Weeks +: The Essential Pregnancy Organizer" appears in today's Birmingham News. Look for it in the Health section, second page, top left... Where you will find my book reviews each week. Here's an excerpt:

"Pregnancy can feel like an overwhelming task. Most expectant mothers have little time to contend with minor details, such as shopping lists, child-care options and birth announcements. For women who need help keeping it together, Dani Rasmussen and Antoinette Perez have created "40 Weeks+: The Essential Pregnancy Organizer."

Married, with Cats & a Dog

Jethro and I got married over the weekend. I'm now a country-fied wife. As I told friends over the weekend, now I have to go huntin' something or another to prove it.

It was a wonderful ceremony and reception afterward. Debra Jo White, former backup singer to Lynyrd Skynyrd performed during the service. She sang "Love Me Tender" which made me cry a little. Okay, I cried a whole lot. Especially when Dad gave me away. 

Anyway, that's the reason I haven't updated more regularly. It's been a special kind of Hell, working on Project 1968 while planning a wedding. Oh yeah, and don't forget all those book reviews... Now that I'm on my Honeymoon, things will catch back up. So please be patient.

Book Reviews

My 60th book review for the Birmingham News was published yesterday. Hard to believe that I’ve written that many book reviews. Even harder to believe that they've published them.

Anyway, "Truth, Lies, and the O.R.," Dr. F.W. Ernst and Dr. William G. Pace III can be found here.

“A patient wakes up in the middle of surgery, paralyzed. Although he is fully conscious, he can't communicate to the doctors and nurses around him. He feels the pain of metal screws being inserted into his leg, but he can't flinch. In "Truth, Lies, and the O.R.," Dr. F.W. Ernst and Dr. William G. Pace III describe worst possible scenarios and ways to avoid medical disaster.”

My 59th review was for a less than stellar book. In the past, I’ve opted not to mention these types of books, but I’m reconsidering that policy. As you can see, the fact that the author is a popular blogger didn’t warrant a mention in the review. Why? Because it had nothing to do with anything, though I’m sure there are a few 20th century book critics who will find a way to slam her for having a blog.

My thoughts on number 59? She attempted to squash five summers into one. It shows.

And then there’s “Comfort” by Ann Hood. Upon re-reading the review, I can tell you that it comes off a little more positive than I felt at the time I wrote it.

“Rather than being a meditation on sorrow, "Comfort" is a literary portrait of a deceased daughter, drawn by the hand of her grieving mother. Many books will tell you how grief feels, but Hood's book honors a memory.”

Not a bad book. Some people will love it. It’s got an Oprahesque quality. It’s hard not to compare it to Joan Didion’s tome on death and grief. But that’s not fair to the author, so quit thinking like that.

Arlo Guthrie and Billy Preston

In order for someone like Arlo Guthrie to succeed these days, he would have to:

a) Sing with computerized "help," even though he doesn't need it.

b) Write songs that proclaim his hotness.

c) Have a relationship with a famous actress, preferably from a former hit tv series.

d) Pretend he was better than his audience.

e) Stay the heck away from politics.

f) All of the above.

Arlo and Billy may know sound, but something terrible has happened to music since then. That's for sure.

P.S. Some info on Billy Preston from Fox 411 today.

Reading it for the Articles

It would be very wrong to say that I collect vintage Playboy magazines. I do – in a way – but it would be very wrong to say it. You would probably take it the wrong way. You would assume that I’m some kind of pervert or worse.

I don’t mean to mislead you. I don’t have a vast array of Playboy magazines. But while I was living in Austin (circa 2005) I bumped into a vintage knick-knack dealer who specialized in 1970s artifacts. Sitting on a harvest gold TV table was a stack of Playboys from the 70s and 80s. I found more on the floor near a coat rack.

The old joke is that people read Playboy for the articles, but it’s not really a joke. Important news articles were mixed with pictures of naked women, ads for sex toys and expensive porn vacations. And let’s not forget men’s fashion.

In the 70s, Playboy employed some of the best writers of the day. Robert Scheer interviewed presidential candidates for Playboy. John Luis Borges and Paul Theroux were published within its pages. And, of course, many famous and emerging actresses stripped for its photographers. The components, melded together, created a magazine that was ultra-hip and edgy for its day.

I sorted through the stacks, looking through the collection of memorable articles. Since they were $5 each, I had to be selective in what I chose to purchase. There’s the issue featuring an interview with Jimmy Carter, in which he admits that he’s lusted in his heart. In another edition, there’s an interview with “America’s No. 1 fugitive: Abbie Hoffman.” The country is introduced to the “Not Ready for Prime Time Players” in another issue…

So you see, it’s not about the porn. Though I will admit that I couldn’t help but notice it. And I will tell you this: Playboy from the 70s is soft-core – sort of like Maxim or any other current over-the-counter men’s magazine. Like the rest of the country, Playboy in the 80s became something very different. It moved away from its “natural approach” and featured more glitz and tackiness. Perhaps it was only natural: as the US went, so did Playboy.

Rather than explain it any further, let’s take a look at the non-porn that Playboy featured in the 70s…. Starting with an ad for Johnny Carson Apparel.

Who knew that Johnny Carson could host America's favorite late night talk show, play tennis, scuba, and parachute out of a plane? Not me. I love how he says that he would like it "with the look of denim." Me too.

I really miss Johnny Carson.

Good News/Bad News about the Arts

A while back, I wondered how the plummeting economy was affecting arts organizations.

No one seemed to know, which didn’t surprise me. I figured that most companies were probably going to quietly cut back – either in performances, exhibits or staff. They certainly weren’t going to advertise their troubles.

This morning, the Birmingham News has good news and bad news for the arts.

The bad news? A cancelled production and staff cut-backs.

The good news? That company, along with many others, are surviving. Attendance is up – way up – for top arts organizations in Birmingham. Visit the page and see the figures for yourself.

Shoutout to the New York Theater Folks

Does anyone remember this? I think it was back in the late 80s/early 90s when a New York theater critic said that the cast (or show) should be steamrolled? It came up in a conversation yesterday and I was trying to remember which critic said it and about which show. I seem to recall that it was a Broadway musical, but I can't quite be sure. I would love to see a copy of the review if anyone has it.

Thanks!

Book Review: In Europe

Issac Butler and I recently discovered that we read the same book. So we decided to write a review of it on our respective blogs. Here's my review. His review can be found at Parabasis.

In Europe: Travels Through the Twentieth Century, by Geert Mak, translated from the Dutch by Sam Garrett. Pantheon Books. 896 pages. $35

In 1999, Geert Mak embarked on a journey, searching for the new Europe. The Euro had officially launched and talk was high that these cultures could meld into a cauldron of superpower strength. His yearlong series for the Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad provided a means for Europeans to reflect on their past and their future. These observations have been culled into a book, “In Europe: Travels Through the Twentieth Century.”
  
  Part travelogue and historical memoir, the book begins at the 1900 Paris World Fair, he slides his way through cities that experienced great moments in time. Queen Victoria’s funeral in London dissolves into a three dimensional literary portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm. Berlin shifts to Vienna, followed by World War I. There are no central characters, other than the continent itself.
  
  The settings are ample backdrop for the speaking parts of its citizens. Plain-spoken and at times harsh, these quotes provide insight into a very different mindset. People who have lived through a multitude of political regimes are allowed to question everything and accept nothing. It is a sensibility that is both intensely practical and world-weary.
  
  For the early part of the book, Mak relies on voices from history to get a feeling for what life was like in the early century. People speak through quotes from letters and other documents. As he reaches World War II, citizens begin to discuss their memories.
  
  Perhaps this is reason that World War II is underscored so heavily. There are close to 400 pages alone on World War II, with heavy emphasis on Nazi Germany. Mussolini appears briefly, and the problems in Basque get short shrift. But it is here that Mak’s attention to the issues of European identity begin to crystallize before dissipating again into Nazi history.
  
  The central question to Mak’s book is whether Europeans can grow beyond a history of genocide that extends from concentration camps to “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the genesis of this problem is never fully uncovered. It may be wrong to ask Mak to answer it. After all, it seems that every place has a difficult history. Each city, state or country has an “other” who becomes the focal point for all that is wrong in that society.
  
  Rather than diagnosing the problem, Mak provides a forum for acknowledgment. How present citizens contend with that history provides debate today. Some residents would like to build monuments to their challenging past, while others would prefer to close their eyes and proclaim it finished.
  
 
 One of the most memorable chapters is “Himmlerstadt,” which explores Birkenau, a concentration camp in Poland.
  
  Mak vividly describes the crumbling remains of the camp: “Swallows dip and soar above the few barracks that have been left standing, the bare red smokestacks, the groves of birch that grow on human ashes. A bird has built its nest amid the rubble of Crematorium III. Above the gate one can still see the soot from hundreds of steam locomotives that pulled in here.”
  
  Mak then moves on to historical documentation. In this case, it’s a diary of an Auschwitz camp physician. Snippets are used to illustrate what life was like then. Mak juxtaposes this with reflections on what Birkenau means now, especially to those who live in the area.
  
  For them, Birkenau is a place that draws tourists. A resident of the small Polish town says, “Everyone here knew what was going on in the camp, you could see it, or smell it at least. But no one thinks about that anymore.” She goes on to express resentment against the visitors. “You don’t hear anything from the real victims and their families. But you should see the rest of the people who come here.” She continues, “They all claim Auschwitz for themselves. They’ve never suffered for a moment themselves, but my, how they’d like to hitch a ride with the real victims! It’s enough to make you sick.”
  
  Europe has tried nearly every other form of government: socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and constitutional monarchy. But ultimately, it’s the actions of its citizens that create a country. Mak’s book reveals that Europe has come a long way, and it has a long way yet to go.

The Garden

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 

5:35 a.m.

Audience Members and the Division of Roles

Six months ago, I wrote a casual entry about a celebrated writer. Several bloggers cherry-picked two or three sentences of the essay, quoted it, and the thing became some kind of viral nightmare. For almost a week, the thing drove traffic to this site and a slew of strangers stomped on my internet doorstep. Some wanted to know how much I knew about anything they knew, and if perhaps I did know things could they then disagree with me. You get the idea.

I've never been comfortable with that kind of attention. Sure, I don't mind when "The Real Deal" gets a marathon on television. It means triple digit visitors who want nothing more than to read someone else's opinion about an episode. People like to read about something they've just read or saw or heard. It provides a forum, an illusion of a shared experience. I get that. Those people are quiet and only occasionally leave a comment. I guess there really isn't much to fight about when it comes to home improvement shows.

But regular visitors here know I'm an odd bird. Those theater folks who I haven't successfully scared away remember my deep disgruntlement over the state of theater. It went on for years. I don't look fondly on it. In hindsight, I realize that it was an act of self-destruction to remain so miserable for so long. If I come down with some funky disease in a few years, I can blame it on all the negativity that I bottled up and tried to sell from 2003-2007. Four years of boiled-over despair. Yuck.

In any event, I've been considering the separation between audience, reviewers and producers (writers). Whenever I read book blogs, I get the feeling that they're written by audience members. They enjoy a book but they can't tell you why or how it works. They view the writer as a magician, meaning they don't understand how a book is composed and lack the empathy to understand the process.

That's not their fault. It's just a different perspective, one that definitely needs to be a part of the publishing world. But it doesn't replace the other perspectives out there - reviewer and producer.

It wasn't until I started reviewing books on a regular basis that I understood the delineation of these roles. There are times, for instance, that I forget I'm reviewing a book and will become an audience member. I'll merge with the book so mercilessly that by the time I finish I'll forget that I'm supposed to say something about it.

Some people have thought that this might be a good thing. They think reviewers spend their time only partially engaged, while the other half of their brain is thinking of something witty to say.

But that's not the case. I find that when I become an audience member, my critical mind is shut off. Rather than admiring the work, it becomes a part of my present. I no longer see the work because I'm so engaged in it. It becomes a part of me, and I can no longer see it. There is no value judgement in this merging. It is experienced regardless of how good or bad it is. By the time the last page is turned, my mind is blank. I have nothing to say about it, nothing logical or coherent anyway.

Which brings me back to the viral entry, the comment that ended up making the round of the blogosphere. Those who found the comment too "new agey" or touch-feely didn't realize that I play more than one role. I'm not only an audience member; I'm also a reviewer. But even more than that, I'm a writer. I can not only tell you about the structure of the book and why it didn't work, I can also tell you that, as a fellow writer, you better back the heck off of the material and process your emotional baggage before you pick up that pen again.

Only another writer could tell you that.

I bring this up because I think it's important to understand the role that you're playing when you comment on someone's work. There's no shame in being an audience member, so there's no point in trying to pass yourself off as a reviewer or writer. (You can always tell when someone is doing that. They tend to quote other critics and writers to lend themselves credibility.)

Remember, audience members are the most cherished piece of the puzzle. Without them, reviewers have no readers and writers have no clout.