• About Sasha
  • Books Read By Year
    • 2010 Reads
    • 2011 Reads
    • 2012 Reads
  • Classics Project 2011

Sasha & The Silverfish

~ a reading journal

Tag Archives: Erotica

Two ends of the erotica spectrum

09 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Sasha in Digressions, Marginalia

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Classics, Erotica, Fiction - Novel, John Cleland, Melissa Panarello, Translation

He is now in bed with me the first time, and in broad day; but when thrusting up his own shirt and my shift he laid his naked glowing body to mine . . . Oh! insupportable delight! Oh! superhuman rapture! What pain could stand before a pleasure so transporting? I felt no more the smart of my wounds below; but, curling round him like the tendril of a vine, as if I fear’d any part of him should be untouch’d or unpress’d by me, I return’d his strenuous embraces and kisses with a fervour and gusto only known to true love, and which mere lust could never rise to.

Oh, that Fanny Hill, never a dull moment, never a plain word.

John Cleland’s Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure—one of the pioneers of the erotic novel, I am told—is fantastical. The words above, though effectively warming my purple-prose-deficient heart, are just that: violently verbose language that brings you the increasingly unreal logic of Fanny Hill’s world. It was fun, yes—I loved drowning in the language, giggling notwithstanding—but, essentially, there is nothing realistic to be pegged on the recollections of our heroine.

These are sexual fantasies, its characters based on archetypes. An innocent, orphaned country lass travels to London, only to fall prey to—egad!—the raptures of prostitution, thanks to a parade of sparks and colleagues and benevolent Madams. Sure, our Fanny meets unscrupulous characters, but they always disappear in the nick of time, and she’s saved by really, really nice people. There is nothing gritty about this. In Cleland’s version of seedy London, prostitutes are basically elusive goddesses. There’s even little to no comparison of Fanny’s station to other, less fortunate women in the same trade. There’s nothing here that will make you fear for Fanny’s life. At most, you fear that she’ll end up destitute, or, well, abandoned and unloved.

There’s just a lot of sex, sex, sex—sex that, mind you, never comes out and says that it’s sex. I don’t think there’s even mention of bodily organs. To Fanny Hill, everything is a metaphor. Is this a sign of the times? Or was Cleland having too much fun circumventing the actual naming? Either way, Fanny rocks it. Hysterically to this modern reader, but she freaking rocks the whole wide-eyed, oops-prostitution! vibe.

[Illustration for the book, captioned “Fanny Emboldens William,” by Édouard-Henri Avril. Edited for, um, modesty—click the photo to embiggen.]

Her rocking it is strange, even to me. Because a dominant facet of Fanny Hill’s character is her passivity. Hella, yes, is she passive. Things happen to her, things that she initially meets with bewilderment. And perhaps it’s the language’s power, but I did not mind. It only feels as though our Fanny’s just biding her time, waiting to realize the enormity of her capabilities to give and receive pleasure. Or that she’s naturally shy. I dunno. Greater credit can be attributed to the fact that when Fanny acts, she shines.

One of the best parts of the novel, in my opinion, was when Fanny seduces the well-endowed errand boy of the man who’s been keeping her mistress. Fanny once caught Mr. Man in flagrante delicto with her maid. So, she seeks revenge. But it soon becomes more than revenge. By seducing—and not just merely being an object of the seduction—Fanny gains power over herself, she’s become aware of what she can do with the body so many men and women want as their plaything and bedmate.

Which is a terrible contrast to the main character of Melissa Panarello’s much-hooplahed One Hundred Strokes of the Brush before Bed. This book’s narrator is 14 to Fanny Hill’s 15. Both books are confessional, Panarello’s in diary form while Cleland’s is epistolary. Queasiness for your average reader aside and regardless of the time period, both are documentations of a very young woman’s sexual awakening. The similarities, however, stop there.

Mostly because Panarello’s narrator is an out-and-out idiot. [Come on, Main Characters, remember that little talk we had about me needing to respect you?] The shorthand description for this ghastly book: Misery porn, but without the redemption, only a lot of nonsensical suffering and pretentious, call-your-vagina-“Secret”-repeatedly sexual encounters.

Our narrator—I shudder to call her a heroine—becomes aware of her lust, the need to assuage a need within her. And so what does she do? She goes on a series of asinine and preposterous hook-ups, where she’s basically treated like dirt; she’s molested every which way, there’s a repeated demolition of her body and her self—and what does she do? She writes in her dear diary, lamenting her sad fate, only to jump willy-nilly back into the craziness again! And she’s going, Oh, but I feel so wretched and abused, and I am crying golden tears, and my Secret is too, but ooh, when he calls me again, I’ll be sure to meet him sans panties! Use your noggin’, honey, please.

It’s not morality I’m pointing out here. It’s self-respect, it’s common sense. There’s no other explanation for her tendency to indulge in sex that holds no pleasure for her—except that she’s stupid. She refuses to preserve any shred of dignity for herself. And then she curses her fate, and then she proceeds to annihilate herself once again. I am not titillated, I am not enchanted, I am not even aghast that someone so young embarks on so much sex.

I was laughing, okay? Testament to my black heart, I was laughing whenever you referred to your Secret, whenever you went home covered in god-knows-what to brush your hair a hundred times before bed. Okay, so I grimaced when you went on one of your moronically desperate attempts to keep having sex, but, Narrator, I was laughing when you cried.

Better to fall “victim” than to go out looking for ways to fuck yourself up, in this case. Ugh. Hello, Schadenfreude.

ETA: This will be my last grumpy post, for now. Heh. Have been reading a lot of really good books lately. So, I guess I just wanted to get the ranty Sasha out of the way. :)

“The churn of a secret life.”

06 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by Sasha in Marginalia

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Erotica, Fiction - Novel, HarperPerennial, Nikki Gemmell

Our unnamed diarist in her happy-enough marriage with the Dependable Husband. Sure, he’s flawed, but these aren’t shattering imperfections. They’ve dealt with it—she has, she loves him, she knows she does. Why wouldn’t she otherwise? She’s not really unhappy. But. You know. Being not unhappy yet happy-enough doesn’t guarantee your being happy. Being not unhappy yet happy-enough doesn’t guarantee you won’t think about what life would be if, say, it were just a little bit more complicated, a little messier—if life made you breathless every once in a while. But she can’t say that, nope. People would think her unhappy. And this makes her—anyone, I suppose—just a little bit more reckless.

No one, though, has any idea of the churn of a secret life. Your desire to catch catastrophe into your world is like a tugging at your skirt. But only sometimes, then it’s gone. With the offer of a bath, or a cup of tea, or the dishes done.

But a little nudge here and there, and dissatisfaction rears its ugly head. And gives way to an awakening, too: The Bride Stripped Bare by Nikki Gemmell is a defiant confession of a slow, sexual awakening that begins with this unnamed young wife. She has fantasies of other lives, other beds to wake up in, other faces to glance against. And she lets herself acknowledge that she wants something else, that she’s been putting up with things she doesn’t even like for the longest time.

I hereby decree every woman to write her own sensual/sexual history, because, more than anything else, Gemmell’s book—although whole in the limitations it sets for itself, although a good book—most importantly stirs and incites the reader, reminds one of pains and frustrations thought best left unacknowledged.

It’s almost a knee-jerk reaction: Read of this young wife saying, “. . .you wonder why some people have a compulsion to allow chaos in their lives,” and you start to nod, thinking, yeah, I’ve had those times, I should write them down, paying careful attention to the myriad chaos-in-plural.

You know, those times—say, when you enter the home you’ve lived in for quite a long time now (with this other, necessary person) and you realize that, “An emptiness rules at its core, a rottenness, a silence when one of you retires to bed without saying good night, when you eat together without conversation, when the phone’s passed wordlessly to the other. An emptiness when every night you lie in the double bed, restlessly awake, astounded at how closely hate can nudge against love, can wind around it simultaneously like a cat. An emptiness when you realize that the loneliest you’ve ever been is within a marriage, as a wife.” Nothing-spectacular language aside, variations thereof are allowable, even expected.

It’s the affected reader allowing those variations that likewise compels her to realize she must have a chronicle of her own, that everyone must. This book speaks certain truths, but it isn’t universal enough—it can’t be the book for everyone.

And even then, even with one reader nodding every couple of pages or so, that reader will, sooner or later, realize that this book isn’t hers as much as she wants it to be. That this isn’t truly the book she would have written.

Well, you know, of course not.

* * *

Damn those variations! Or, in more heated moments, this reader screaming at the page: You’re wrong; that’s not how it is. I don’t agree with everything Gemmell wrote. This is personal history as well as a less emotionally invested witness.

Note that it’s Gemmell I’m now referring to as author, and not our unnamed diarist. Because, see, Gemmell’s politics is palpable here. She’s all yip-de-doo regarding the sanctity of monogamy. Of course, in an interview included in the book, Gemmell states, “There is a moral code to The Bride Stripped Bare. My protagonist respects the sanctity of monogamy.”

But I have the benefit of having extra features in my book, okay? See, as I neared the end, I started to scowl, seeing how things began to veer off. I was horrified with the authorial hand’s determination to let our unnamed diarist play the good wife, after such an enriching digression, as though it were just that—a phase in an otherwise okay-enough life.

Or, as Gemmell insists, that’s just part of a much bigger picture. Naturally. It’s the marriage, you see, with all its “compromises inherent within that particular relationship, all the mess. Nothing is clean, nothing straightforward, but there can be a ferocious love nonetheless.” Sure. But what about this anonymous woman’s adventures? What about her finding her desires, as well as the will to act upon them?

It’s annoying, it’s frustrating, and it’s goddamned disrespectful to that unnamed diarist. [I reject Gemmell’s attempts to situate this diary as though it were an actual, physical thing—that is, that some mysterious woman left this record behind when she disappeared from her near-perfect life for good. Cheap shot, cheap.]

Oh well. I’ll go for a little walk now, and convince myself of certain things.

On Delta of Venus by Anaïs Nin

27 Friday May 2011

Posted by Sasha in Marginalia

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Anaïs Nin, Erotica, Excerpts

Notes made while reading Delta of Venus by Anaïs Nin:

• I guess it’s only natural that after I’ve read ten [mostly] kitschy erotic romance novellas in quick yet listless succession, I’d go for the tried-and-tested kind. Still. This is just my first encounter with Nin—she scares me. Or, well, I’m scared that she’ll disappoint me. I don’t want my reaction to her ending up similar to Kate Chopin or Charlotte Perkins Gilman who were awesome literary movers and shakers in their own right, but ultimately left me dry with their barely disguised proto-feminist propaganda stifling the art in their works. I’ve found that I am not averse to politics. But, please, don’t stuff it down my throat. However. This is my first encounter with Nin, but I am very much certain it won’t be my last.

• The preface to the short stories—hell, I didn’t even know these were short stories!—details how the erotica-writing all began for her: Money. Some Mysterious Person commissioned them for a dollar of a page of erotica—and if anyone wants me to do that, I will most likely not say no. Aherm. Soon enough, Nin and her merry band are admonished* by SMP to “leave out the poetry and descriptions of anything but sex. Concentrate on sex.” And what most tickles me: “Less poetry, be specific.”

*Nin wrote the collector (SMP) a really awesome letter in response, which daintily and artfully states, “Go to hell, dude.” If anything, that letter can serve as an erotica writer’s manifesto on any and all allegations that it’s nothing but porn. Hear, hear!

• Erotica, at that point, had also been part of the man’s realm. Of course. Nin: “I had a feeling that Pandora’s box contained the mysteries of women’s sensuality, so different from man’s and for which man’s language was inadequate. The language of sex had yet to be invented. The language of the senses was yet to be explored.” Challenge accepted, said Nin—I got quite giddy when she verbalized her decision to publish erotica “because it shows the beginning efforts of a woman in a world that had been the domain of men.” [Ah, subversion through art itself. See? You don’t have to choke me with it!]

• That wearying, age-old debate [and all its follow-up questions], the resolution to which must, in my opinion, be borne out of common sense, as well as openness to visceral reactions: erotica vs. pornography? is it a visceral judgment? must erotica seduce? doesn’t pornography? does the difference lies in just style and language and delivery? content? or is judgment based on what you feel after reading? And while we’re here, a reader in one of the stories who reads a cache of erotica for the first time:

There are things one reads that make you aware that you have lived nothing, felt nothing, experienced nothing up to that time.

• Nin’s stories so far are like fables and parables and fairytales with no conceivable happy endings. Forced seduction to rape [yes, sigh, rape]. Ambush sex. Oh, character, don’t fail me now—the prose is so beautiful, the language capturing the quietest moods of even the most tumultuous sexual reactions. I wonder about the collector (that SMP)—how could this titillate hardened purveyors of pornography? How can I applaud Nin’s description, thus, “her sex was like a giant hothouse flower,” and nod thoughtfully afterwards? Perhaps it’s the time? That this was profane during the 1940s and far from the poetry I consider it now?

• Here, even the seducers and champions of the triumph of the erotic don’t “triumph” in the end. Not necessarily. And yes, take that innuendo for what it’s worth. Also know that penises get chopped off in this book.

• So many voyeurs, so many exhibitionists! So many at a loss as to what to do with their desires, “perverted” or otherwise. Cripes, I love this book. [TMIredacted—] Do not read this in a public place. Holy pandas, I feel—no other word for it—I feel dissolved. Restless? Puddle-y? Dissolved. That liminal place.

I wanted to be possessed and know blinding joys.

• It must be said: Chick’s got a penguin on her butt cheek.

PSA: Delta of Venus by Anaïs Nin was a long-in-coming yet very rewarding impulse buy from NBS-Katipunan.

Stuff I’ve Been Reading While I Disappeared from the Glittery World of the Intarwebz

25 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by Sasha in Marginalia

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Anna Campbell, Arthur Conan Doyle, Biography, David Small, Erotica, Fiction – Novel, Fiction – Short Stories, Gloria Vanderbilt, John Green, Memoir, Oxford World’s Classics, Rebecca Skloot, Romance Novel, Sarah Shun-lien Bynum, Science, Steve Martin, The Classics Project 2011

It’s definitely an improvement: I’m guilty about abandoning this blog for fewer hours in a day. The usual excuses: Work’s been crazier than ever, I like sleeping, I like reading, I am lazy, blah and blah. Still, though, I owe it to my O.C. tendencies to kick-start this blog with a moratorium of the books I shouldn’t ignore. So. For posterity’s sake, and in the glorious spirit of lazy book-talk, here’s some of what I’ve been reading:


With The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, I was, not strangely, a little late to the party—the blogosphere was all a-flutter who wants. But it took a while for me to develop this current inclination for science-y books, especially science-y books that concern people—real, complex people. And this one’s one of the best, even one of my favorite books.

I mean, a book that has you keening in outrage every couple of pages or so—that’s got to be a favorite, right? A book that makes you wish you could go back in time and change opinions, even social structures. Or, at least, slap some sense—or a modicum of decency—into the people in this book. Oh, some are pure evil, yes—but, sadly, most are just working within a given, with no reason for them to be incite change, or even think about whether something’s wrong with the status quo.

Again, impotent outrage. The most annoying thing, too, is knowing that however grr I am reading all this now, I might not have batted an eye years and years and years ago, if I were there. But that’s all, still, the self-righteous side of me.

* * *

From the introduction to The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, by Arthur Conan Doyle: The story of Holmes and Watson is one of developing closeness between two men. “This has led to some interpretations of the stories as portraying a homosexual relationship. But these overlook the fact that closeness and love, in a non-sexual form, can demonstrably exist between two men.” And so, just so we’re clear: Yes, I come here for the bromance.

In Memoirs, our Holmes is jarringly fallible—a sharp contrast to the previous stories I read. The mistakes we makes based on the erroneous assumptions he makes stem from his inability to understand human folly. [It’s not strange that a lot of the stories here revolve around lurve and its various, glorious messes.] At a story’s close, Holmes quite pensive:

‘What is the meaning of it, Watson?’ said Holmes, solemnly, as he laid down the paper. ‘What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must lend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable. But what end? There is a great standing perennial problem to which human reason is far from an answer as ever.’

And by “human reason,” he means, himself. Haha. Aherm. This is a Holmes who isn’t always right. Is it safe to assume that Holmes, in his trouble understanding human motive (it’s ineffable emotions and impulses), is at his most human yet?<

This is also a Holmes who can be beaten. Here, in Memoirs, Holmes comes face to face with the fabled Dr. Moriarty—the Napoleon of crime . . . the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undirected in this great city. He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the center of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. I am tempted to go all dorky with this story, with dissecting Moriarty, with trying to understand why I like this despite the fact that it is a poorly constructed story. Bah.

* * *

Anna Campbell is one of my favorite writers. As I write this, I’ve only read three of her novels, but I’m hella sure. [The first novel of hers I read was Captive of Sin.] This is what I wrote in my notebook [after I wept] after I read Untouched:

  • A romance that truly delivers and more, one that exceeds expectations. This is a HEA well-deserved. This is love passionate, angsty, overwrought. So freaking awesome.
  • Vulnerability and angst give plenty of room for the growth of the leads, both individually and with their relationship. We have two damaged but infuisisiedly [I cannot read my own handwriting, okay?] strong leads here—Matthew, consigned to madness by a greedy uncle, and Grace, a widow who once suffered through her impetuousness and has since pretty much lived the past decade in guilt and misery. Both very very strong characters.
  • Campbell! Your sex scenes! These should be in a primer on how to write sex scenes that further both plot and romance and character development. They were so necessary, so exquisitely done. For the reader, it was an easing of the good-lord-heavy tension the author set up. For the leads, well, even though the lovemaking only fueled their passion, you get the feeling that these people can breathe again, my goodness. Particularly, the tenuousness of their imprisonment (their circumstances!) but their roles within the act. Here, they fumble. There is room for awkwardness, for mistakes. I am crying.
  • The language is spot-on, the mood right—so dark and angst-ridden without being overbearing: just compelling. This is poignant. Quite difficult to read at times because of the pain [gahk], but you soldier on: you believe in the narrative power, in the inevitability of that happy ending—there’s got to be a happy ending!
  • This is good storytelling, no doubt. Oh my goodness, is it so typical of me to love the angst so much because it allows for so much poignancy, so much tenderness?

Excuse my breathlessness, haha. After that, I read her Tempt the Devil—the inebriation must account for the fact that I can’t find my notes on that one. Still, I liked it. I know I did. I also remember that it wasn’t as Sasha-shattering as Untouched was, but I so very much appreciated the risks Campbell took in adopting a courtesan-heroine and a cold, cold, yummy widower (and occasional jerk) as hero.

I have one last Campbell in my shelves—My Reckless Surrender—and I am saving that for a rainy day. [Dear bookstores, please indulge me, please, and restock her books, please?]

* * *

Yes, that is dirt on the spine of the primed-canvas-white An Object of Beauty [Steve Martin]. I removed the as-white dust jacket; sacrifices still had to be made. Ya know, this one’s actually one of the most pretty books I’ve ever held—its lay-out, its structure, the colored plates snuggled inside the text. Yeah, I’ve already heard the pun of this book being, literally, an object of beauty, blah blah. Aherm. From paltry notes:

  • Lacey Yeager, its heroine, is just so damned fascinating. Impressive and so hateable. But you can’t pin her down: You cheer for her, and yet her slyness disgusts you. This novel is, essentially, the ascent (and downfall) of Lacey. It’s a familiar trajectory, one that’s almost trope. Like Victorian-era, proto-feminist heroines. Or, like Emma Bovary. And, well, like Sidney Sheldon’s, too, while we’re here.
  • This art world talk is all so chillingly familiar. The boredom, the repetitions, the pretentiousness, the naïveté, the posturing, the occasional glimmer of truth and wonder. Even the people are familiar. I, um, enjoyed it?
  • I like this book a lot. Hell, the content naturally interests me, and the only time the author makes himself known is when the reader deliberately draws back to think, “Okay, wow, how’d you figure all this out?” Seriously, between the simple heartbreak of Shopgirl and this insider-y, darker-motivations kind of novel, Steve Martin really scares me.

* * *

This month seems to have me taking a second taste of previously-loved authors. This is just my second John Green (what is wrong with me?), and, no, An Abundance of Katherines is not as good as Looking for Alaska, but it’s one fun, affective book.

I mean, Colin Singleton has been dumped for the 19th time by a girl named Katherine. That’s always fun to read about. Sigh. Reading John Green has the uncanny ability to make me feel really, really young and just a little bit dorky. It also makes me go all giggly and squeal-y, and occasionally groan-y because of the mathematics. I love you, John Green, in a non-creep way.

I was reading this in the company of a friend, and I told her, “Ya know, reading John Green, you wish you were one of the people he wrote about. That you’re life’s all good, if a little better, when you find yourself a character in a John Green novel.”

* * *

For some comic relief: Obsession, by Gloria Vanderbilt. Architect extraordinaire dies, leaving his wife grief-stricken. And she comes across a stash of letters that reveal, ooh, a double life.

Oh my gawd, this was so bad. So very bad it was cringe-y comedic gold. So very pretentious and absurd—if this is how the upper echelons of society get their erotic juju on, hahahahahaha. Smarmy-breathless earnest dirty talk that sounds so affected—ZOMG it’s la Judith Krantz at her high-roller kitschiest. But at least Krantz makes me feel that she’s self-awarely campy, compared to this one. This one was just so bad, and not in an ironic way. Oh, lordy, it’s like reading mud with glitter thrown over it

* * *

Stitches, by David Small. I read this while waiting for my ride to work. I picked it idly, although I’ve heard so much praise about it already. Mostly from my housemates, who’d angle their heads toward the shelf, and demand that I read it, that I read it immediately.

I got around to it, obviously. Stitches is a memoir in, um, graphic/illustrationz form[?], which is an awesome way to tell a story. I read it in one, tension-filled hour of the simplest art, of outrage-inspiring revelations, of poignancy. Also, more outrage. I mean, the story Small tells is deceptively simple. That is, yes, it’s hellish, but it’s presented without fanfare. Augh, this was so goddamned devastating, okay? Good fucking morning to you, too, Sasha.<

he purity of the author’s remembering shocks me. Even makes me apprehensive for his welfare right about this minute. Stitches, though, reminds me, that you must tell the story that matters most to you in the best way you can—in the medium you can call your own, in the medium that will allow you to do so.

* * *

Ms. Hempel Chronicles, by Sarah Shun-lien Bynum. How I loved this book, and how I adore Ms. Hempel. She’s so affective and real and strange and lovely and normal and more than a little awkward. I love her so much, it’s creepy.

Also, I’m impressed with Bnum’s ease with the form: the individual stories, how they each reveal a truth about Ms. Hempel, her past, her future, the people around her—her students, her co-faculty, her family. But, also, Bynum’s awareness to establish a grand narrative of Ms. Hempel’s life, if in patches: the stories aren’t conventional neat episodes. Instead, they read like necessary revelations: like you’ve stepped into a precise moment of Ms. Hempel’s life, equal parts mundane and life-defining. This one is, as Jonathan Franzen himself writes, pure pleasure.


And that’s about it. I’ve still got a lot of backlog to go through. But at the moment, this will do nicely. I’ll see you again soon, Oh Puir Neglected Blog, once I surface from the paperwork and the stationery and the housework and—ew—life.

Quick thoughts on Kung, Ishiguro, and Fish

15 Tuesday Feb 2011

Posted by Sasha in Marginalia

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Abandoned / Skimmed, Erotica, Fiction - Novel, Kazuo Ishiguro, Reference, Stanley Fish, Tor Kung

It happens. Every once in a while, I read a book or two—or maybe four in sequence—that inspires in me reaction that’s zilch at worst and feeble at best. I began it with the tired rant of One Day—although, because I am dorktastic, the feedback I got and the Much Loved Status of the book has me thinking whether I could more sensibly “justify” my reaction. We’ll see. Anyhoo, here’s a batch, read a couple of days ago, that, in all, barely filled the notes of my reading notebook—for different reasons, yes, but here they are:

#25 of 2011 • My Mother Taught Me by Tor Kung. – I underestimated this one, although it came with high recommendations—basically, a friend gleefully pushing the book into my unsuspecting hands. It’s powerful, the “right” mix of sensuality—lyrical sensuality—and in-your-face crudity. An orphan adopted by a gleefully incestuous family, always disturbing, but my rare prudishness aside, goodness, the language is perfect. Jarringly so. And, oh yeah, poet-extraordinaire Jack Gilbert wrote this one.

#26 of 2011 • Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. – I found myself strangely unmoved by this book. I’d probably be going on and one by this book’s careful plotting and world-building, and all those moral observations and conclusions and decisions the reader has to make; the narrative, too, the revelations, and how Ishiguro all unfolds it, and blah and blah and blah. But I don’t want to. I don’t care. Guh. I kept on reading the book because, well, I was curious. I wanted to know what the fuck was going on. Oh well.

#27 of 2011 • How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One by Stanley Fish. – I admit, the marketing got to me. Then again, I am always on the look-out for these kinds of On Literature / On Reading / On Writing books. Well, basically, it’s about reading a sentence, knowing what is, what it’s made of, what it can do, how to write it. It’s self-indulgently dorky. Dorkily self-indulgent? A professor belaboring a sentence. I loved that. I mean, I know how it feels to love sentences so much that when a book fails, I usually just scan and skim, spelunking for sentences, haha. Then again, I do wish Fish focused more on the literary side of things. So. The verdict? It’s not bad. I’m not head over heels about it, but it’s going to be on my shelf for books on craft. [For an awesome review of this book, go to Kelly Coyle at The Millions.]

Aherm. Well. That was liberating. Off to get my Diligent Blogger pantz on. Augh.

My friend Petra M. lent me My Mother Taught Me. I bought Never Let Me Go (PhP549) and How to Write a Sentence (PhP795) from the Katipunan branch of NBS, the latter just verra recently.

♣ The Twittering Blog

  • For book synopses, I'm allowed to hang it and just throw you to the wolves over at Wikipedia, aren't I? #lazy ~ 2 weeks ago
  • RT @FSG_Books: (Saving our McLovin jokes for an official announcement) RT @PublishersWkly 'Superbad' Director May Adapt Marriage Plot ht ... ~ 2 weeks ago
Follow @sashasilverfysh

♣ JUNE’S A-COMING!

♣ Categories

  • Book Dump
  • Currently Reading
  • Digressions
  • Elsewhere
  • Marginalia
  • Monthly Wrap-Up
  • Postscript
  • Sunday Salon

♣ Preoccupations

Abandoned / Skimmed Alain de Botton Art & Illustrations Arthur Conan Doyle Books About Books Charlotte Brontë Classics Classics Circuit Depression Elizabeth Hardwick Erotica Essays Excerpts Fiction - Novel Fiction - Novella Fiction - Short Stories Harold Brodkey HarperPerennial History Irène Némirovsky Lorrie Moore Lydia Davis Memoir Metakritiko NYRB Classics Oxford World's Classics Paul Auster Peirene Press Philippine Literature Philosophy Poetry Raymond Carver ReadHard Book Reference Rereading Richard Yates Roland Barthes Romance Novel Science Short Story Month 2010 Short Story Month 2011 Siri Hustvedt The Classics Project 2011 The NYRB Classics Project Translation

♣

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 779 other followers

♣ Subscribe to RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

RSS Feed RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.