The Bookish Tag

8.21.2016

Saw this over at Kristin's blog Wool and Wheel...it's been a while since I did one of these, so I thought it would be a fun interlude to reviews.  Feel free to fill this out on your own blog, or in the comments - would love to read your answers!

1. What book is currently on your nightstand?  Right now, there's The Heart of the Antarctic (Ernest Shackleton), the Bible, my Nook, and my tablet.

From my 2014 Powell's trip.  On the left is Albanov's In the Land of White Death,
an excellent polar (north) memoir which I haven't reviewed but highly recommend.

Heart is turning out to be a lovely read so far - more informal and relaxed in tone than South.  Maybe it's the pre-War zeitgeist, or Shackleton's personal optimism at this earlier point in his experience.  His excitement over the ponies is rather sobering...considering he didn't bring them on the Endurance, I can only imagine how badly things will go on the Nimrod.  (But, I digress.)

2. What was the last truly great book that you read?  An Artist of the Floating World by Kazuo Ishiguro.  I'd recommend it to nearly anyone; it was that great.  The Japan he wrote about may be somewhat fanciful, but it's his poignant portrayal of humans and their relationships that is really timeless.  It's also a masterful example of how social attitudes (e.g. classism, patriarchy, and political correctness) can change in just one generation.

3. If you could meet any writer, dead or alive, who would it be? And what would you want to know?  Well, of course, I'd like to meet T. E. Lawrence.  I wouldn't have any questions planned, just hopefully have an organic conversation about books, music, maybe politics (maybe not).

4. What books might someone be surprised to find on your shelves?  I have an antique, one-volume William Shakespeare: Complete Works.  I don't love Shakespeare, but a relative gifted it to me and I treasure it as a beautiful edition of Hamlet and other stories I might enjoy if I tried more of them.  ;)


5. How do you organize your personal library?  I got a new bookshelf recently, smaller than the old one, and everything fits nicely.  Top-left corner is "to read" books.  Then, from left to right and on to the second shelf, my fiction is roughly sorted by era, with some non-fic history books at the very end.  I used to sort by author, but there is something aesthetically delightful about Bronte next to Pushkin, Verne next to Doyle, and T. E. Lawrence next to Fitzgerald.  Most of these are paperbacks, since I prefer soft to hardcover.

On the lower shelves, I have a number of other books that don't fit in the classic paperbacks category - some Mass Media, Trixie Beldens, large hardcovers (complete Sherlock Holmes !!!), notebooks, and mega textbooks that I'll probably never open again.  I also keep my scraps of writing on my bookshelf, which includes most of the handwritten draft of an adventure-romance novel that needs some TLC at some point...

6. What book have you always meant to read and haven’t gotten around to yet? Anything you feel embarrassed never to have read?   I've been meaning to read The Scarlet Letter for ages - I love Hawthorne, have read most of his other works, but still haven't got to this one. There's several I'm a little embarrassed never to have read (yet)...The Odyssey, 1984, Shakespeare in general...  But these days I'm very selective about what I spend time on reading, so I prioritize books that sound the most promising.

7. Disappointing, overrated, just not good: what book did you feel you were supposed to like but didn't? Do you remember the last book you put down without finishing?  The last book I abandoned to the "to-finish" list was On the Nature of Things by Lucretius. I hadn't expected to like it, though, based on reviews.  The last book I expected to like was The Republic by Plato.  That one got sent to the "not-finishing" list...an exaggeration, since I'll no doubt attempt a different translation.  But the beginning at least wasn't the work of genius I was expecting.
Vilhelm Hammershøi - The Collector of Coins

8. What kinds of stories are you drawn to? Any you stay clear of?  I'm drawn to stories of stamina, psychology, philosophy, and human behavior - especially where these things intersect.  I have a soft spot for stories about loners, people alone in their perspective or beliefs compared to the majority surrounding them.  The characters that really get to me are the ones who have personal issues and are struggling to find healing or closure. I fall for books that are about people doing something extraordinary, something out of the norm, something bigger than themselves (or is it? that is always the question...).  Most of my favorite books, fic and non-fic, remind me of the Christian life in some way.

I stay clear of the inverse of the above.  ;)

9. If you could require the president to read one book, what would it be?  I honestly don't know.  Currently, I recommend The Metamorphosis (Kafka) and Magellania (Verne) to anyone who's interested.

10. What do you plan to read next?  Probably Peter-Pan (Barrie), or The Secret Agent (Conrad), and thus finishing out the Read London challenge.

"...he might be understood; but not today."

8.06.2016

Ukebl. Hjemmet Red - no-nb digifoto 20160202 00147 NB NS 000625D
T. E. Lawrence (1888–1935)

If you've been following me on Goodreads, you'll understand I have been reading books this year, while blogging at a record low.  Far from a lack of interest in blogging, my motivation was the need to take a break...I still consider myself on break as I write this.  However, I wanted to say a few thoughts on my longest read of the year (thus far) before removing all my markers in it and packing it off back to the library.

 A Prince of Our Disorder: The Life of T. E. Lawrence was written by psychiatrist John E. Mack, published in 1976, and came highly rated (based on my internet research).  Let me take a moment to dissect that sentence: 
  • First off, I felt uncomfortable with the title.  The quote is not by Lawrence, and while it's provocative, I had no idea going into the book what the "disorder" refers to.  What a great and awful title for a biography.
  • The author is not a historian by profession, but a different type of social scientist, a psychiatrist.  Interesting.  What compels a psychiatrist to write a chunky (400+ p.) biography on a war hero?  And what kind of research would that look like?
  • Finally, what further excited me about this book was the publication date.  I have a stubborn mistrust of historical books written long after the events, and this is in part stems from my negative reading experiences.  One thing that can soften my bias is the timing.  If the author, like Mack, has access to eye witnesses, then it obviously hasn't been written "long after" - maybe the timing is just right.
Fast-forward two months to the day I finished the book.  I can easily say it is the best biography I have ever read, and I've read quite a few of those (many more than are listed on my "read" list).  It's ridiculous - I feel as if I know T. E. better than I know most real-life acquaintances.  I start to believe again that a non-historian could research and write brilliant history books, too.

If there is a recurrent fault in the book, it is that Mack assumes you have some surface knowledge of T. E already.  He probably assumes you've watched Lawrence of Arabia, and/or read encyclopedia articles.  Occasionally he will throw out names and places that require that cursory knowledge to appreciate his references.  I think it helps to have first read Seven Pillars of Wisdom - Lawrence's literary war memoir.  If you're looking for a detailed historical account of the Arab Revolt, you would do well to start there (or even Wikipedia).  Mack follows Lawrence's life, but does not attempt to spell out each of his movements in detail.

Lawrence brothers 1910
The Lawrence brothers in 1910.
From left to right: T. E. Lawrence (Ned), Frank,
Arnold, Bob and Will.

What you get instead - and what is more valuable in the long run - is an in-depth analysis of Lawrence the human being.  Starting with his father's background, and infidelity, the story moves at a rapid pace through Thomas Edward Lawrence's development. It homes in specifically on the influences, choices, and consequences that led him one step nearer to becoming the person that he became, both in his fame and in his hidden life.  I call it a "story" because it reads like one.  Mack writes with refreshing simplicity, covers sensational aspects with clinical calm, and in the end paints a Dickensian-like saga of a very complicated individual.  He's actually respectful of the subject, and I love that.  Yet, like a doctor, he is unafraid of examining unbeautiful truths.
'...I'm always afraid of being hurt: and to me, while I live, the force of that night will lie in the agony which broke me, and made me surrender.  It's the individual view.  You can't share it.' (p. 419)
Mack contrasts the many sides of T. E. Lawrence, which are as varied as the man's real-world pseudonyms.  He draws on Lawrence's memoirs, letters, and living acquaintances as the bulk of his supporting evidence for his theme: that Lawrence's personal life had significant bearing upon his political life, and that through this twist, he became a uniquely 20th-century hero - perhaps the first.

Lawrence of Arabia Brough Superior gif
Lawrence on his Brough Superior

The phrase "a prince of our disorder" originates from Irving Howe, a literary and social critic.  This "disorder" relates to the conflict of interest that Lawrence epitomized, both as an exemplary British officer and as a proponent for Arab autonomy.  Mack explores the idea that Lawrence changed Western culture's conception of a hero.  No longer was a heroic figure simply a war machine and conqueror who was "always right" - a dubious Zeus if you will, or the knights and Crusaders which fascinated Lawrence in his youth.  Rather, a modern hero evolved, through Lawrence and WWI, into a moral hero.
Lawrence, though a soldier and a hero of war, is also a hero of nonwar.  By the assumption of exaggerated personal responsibility for what war really is, he has demonstrated war's unsuitability as material for heroism according to the twentieth-century consciousness he helped to create...He asks us to expect more of our heroes as he expected more of himself, and we are influenced thereby to be more self-critical and to demand more of our leaders. (p. 219)
The movie is still, in my opinion, an incredible one; it shows something of this battle between legend versus reality.  And yet, you get less than half the picture when you just see "Lawrence the Legend."  The legend doesn't tell you he buried himself in the Middle East after being rejected by Janet Laurie.  It doesn't tell you he got, in the Revolt, what he'd long dreamed for, and it just about killed him.  It doesn't tell you he worked himself to misery in the Paris peace talks, and it ignores or glosses over his post-War trauma.  Finally, the legend doesn't even give a hint of the penitence and charitable works he sought in the late '20s and early '30s.
 
T.E. Lawrence; David George Hogarth; unknown man
Lt-Col Thomas Edward Lawrence, D.G. Hogarth,
and Lt-Col Dawnay, at the Arab Bureau of Britain's
Foreign Office, Cairo, May 1918.
Above all, T. E. should be remembered as very human and very conflicted.  He seemed to spend the first part of his life trying to atone for his illegitimacy and striving towards heroic deeds.  In a societal sense, he achieved the first goal through his WWI victories, becoming a hero in the public's eye, to people of all ages and varying nationalities.  But despite his success against Ottoman Turkey, it seemed to him that he had failed in that second goal, the heroism - a concept which had, in his own estimation perhaps, altered in meaning since his boyhood and over the course of the War...or, if not altered, become a thing unattainable in the morass of politics that followed.  Lawrence spent the remainder of his life trying to redeem himself from those physical and mental atrocities, as one of the Lost Generation who had been destined to survive.

His friend and ally, Faisal, summed this up well: "...a genius, of course, but not for this age...  A hundred years hence, perhaps two hundred years hence, he might be understood; but not today." (p. 204)