I don't know whether two of my favorite contemporary authors, Mary Doria Russell and Laurie King, are already fans of each other's work. If not, I believe they could be. I'm not quite bold enough to contact either author directly and make the suggestion, but if either or both use Google Alerts or something similar, I may get to play literary yenta.
These authors research diligently, with a great eye for the telling detail; they create or re-imagine memorable characters; and they write beautifully, with especially satisfying dialogue.
So: Ms. Russell, meet Ms. King; Ms. King, meet Ms. Russell. Happy reading!
Writing About Writing, Law, Life, and Occasionally Politics I post news and excerpts about my novels, plus miscellaneous thoughts, speculations and occasional rants about writing, publishing, current events, legal issues, philosophy, photography, and events in my life.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Book review: A Casual Vacancy by J. K. Rowling
Coming from Rowling's Harry Potter series to her first book
for adults, I had not anticipated how much it would remind me of the novels of
Jane Austen. Austen famously worked with
a small canvas, focusing on the foibles and concerns of residents of small and
insular communities. Rowling does the same. If one imagines Austen transplanted
to the present, freed from any pressure to adhere to romantic conventions, and
urged to give reign to all her darker and more cynical impulses, we might have
something like this novel.
To be sure, the Harry Potter series does showcase Rowling's
impressive ability to paint compelling and unflattering portraits. But in those
books, characters like Cornelius Fudge and the wonderfully detestable Dolores
Umbridge act as antagonists or foils for likable and admirable
characters. In A Casual Vacancy, they comprise most, if not all, of the human
landscape. One's response to almost every character is essentially: “My God, I
hope I'm not like that.”
Some reviews have stated that the only likable or admirable
character in this book is the man who dies at its beginning, and whose death
occasions the entire plot. I would qualify this statement in two ways. First,
there are a couple of other characters who do worthwhile jobs as best they can,
against discouraging odds. However, even these characters are sufficiently
flawed and foolish in various aspects of their personal lives as to prevent the
reader from wishing to identify with them. Second, this limitation extends to
some extent to the soon-departed Barry Fairbrother. While there are reasons
(starting with the character's unsubtle name) to believe that we are intended
to side with him in the dispute over Pagford's responsibility for the Fields
housing project, his view of that project and of certain of its residents could
be fairly characterized as somewhat one-sided and optimistic. It is even
clearer that his tireless advocacy leads him to neglect aspects of his family
life.
At one point, Rowling
has a character recall the W.B. Yeats line, “A pity beyond all telling/ is hid
at the heart of love.” For much of the book, one might question whether Rowling
feels that pity. In the end, I was more or less persuaded that she does. She
ultimately succeeds in making the reader care, to a varying extent, about the
fates of these deeply flawed characters. The book is thus eventually moving,
rather than merely disheartening.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Preview of Hoosier Gadfly column re Civil Obedience aka Red State Evolution
My extremely knowledgeable husband, The Hoosier Gadfly (HG),
is planning to do a blog post about the next step for those who still hope to
preserve our republic as per its constitutional framework. However, he may not
get to it for a day or three, so I am putting together this preview in the
meantime, based on some notes he threw together.
Five secession petitions, concerning five states, have
appeared on the whitehouse.gov petition website. Secession is hopeless, and
makes for lousy PR -- but there is another state-based approach that may offer
a hint of promise, if a sufficient number of states follow it.
Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires all
legislative, judicial and executive officers of the states, as well as of the
federal government, to swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution.
That Constitution includes the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated
to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
HG paraphrases this as saying: "When we talked about a federal
government of limited, enumerated powers, WE MEANT IT."
It is also worth noting, as well, the language affixed by
the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to the proposed Bill of
Rights when it was circulated to the states, including the following: "The
Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the
Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse
of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
. . . ."
Finally, we must keep in mind that at the time the
Constitution and then the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, the
citizenry as a whole was expected to be able to read and comprehend them. They
were not considered arcane and mysterious documents that only exalted judges in
robes could interpret.
Add all this together, and you have an obligation and
responsibility for state governments to uphold the Constitution as reasonably
understood, even when any or all branches of the federal government have tossed
it aside as antiquated or inconvenient.
We have seen some movement in this direction in the recent
election, where a number of states passed referenda legalizing or
decriminalizing marijuana, a drug the federal government has (with no
constitutional power as a basis) declared illegal, or proclaiming that health
insurance or health care will remain a province of state government, not
subject to federal fiat. HG suggests a more comprehensive and coordinated
campaign, which could be called "Civil Obedience," and/or "Red
State Evolution." As many states as possible should declare that they will
neither enforce nor allow the enforcement of any unconstitutional federal
statutes or regulations within their borders. Any federal agents attempting the
latter will be restrained and escorted hence. If enough states take this stand,
it will be impractical to take action against them.
If any "blue states" find this situation
intolerable -- let them talk of
secession. The states exercising Civil Obedience have no intention of leaving
the Union -- nor of letting it be further
subverted by those also sworn to defend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)