The Call by Yannick Murphy: The always interesting author of
Here They Come and
Signed, Mata Hari returns with a novel that whips up a worldview from a rather quirky set of limitations: namely, the call logs that a veterinarian maintains as his son is unexpectedly put into a coma and an unforgiving economy denies him work. What emerges is a surprisingly optimistic, often funny, and very moving account on how one family uses acceptance and forgiveness as a way to atone for hard knocks. (
Bat Segundo interview with Murphy)
Birds of Paradise by Diana Abu-Jaber: Forget Franzen and Eugenides. If you're looking for a social novel that counts, Diana Abu-Jaber is the author you're looking for. Building from the free-form exploration of consciousness and identity in
Crescent and the gripping procedural structure of
Origin, Abu-Jaber's latest novel is her finest, equally fluent with gutterpunk culture and smarmy real estate men. It has been suggested by
The Washington Post's Ron Charles that you will likely gain some pounds while reading this novel. This is certainly true. Abu-Jaber's description of food is so precise that it often made me want to do more cooking. But I very much admired the way in which Abu-Jaber presents
all her characters as unwitting victims of rough capitalism, which permits them some dignity even as they perform terrible acts.
The Last of the Live Nude Girls by Sheila McClear: This memoir isn't so much about the decline of the Times Square peepshow, as it is about one young woman's efforts to pull herself up by by her bootstraps when presented with few economic options. Filled with self-introspective candor and a quiet dignity, McClear's story is one that might befall any of us in these volatile times. While McClear does get back on her feet, her book leads one contemplating the terrible fates of other young women now moving to New York and falling into deadlier vocations. (
Bat Segundo interview with McClear)
Well, that explains Keith Gessen. Well, somewhat.
For years I’ve struggled to make the point of this article, first and foremost, to my wife, who attended an elite university, whereas I attended a mediocre one. The elitist notions discussed in the essay — of the value of an Ivy League education — seem to be mostly an East Coast phenomenon. There are many fewer Ivy League graduates in, say, Chicago, where I’m from, and people give a lot less of a shit about where you went to college than they do in New York. People there value pluck and talent and still believe, perhaps unrealistically, in a true meritocracy in which one succeeds based on his/her talents, not through connections that go with having rich parents that can afford to send you to Harvard or Yale. Upon moving to New York I noticed right away that many of my peers were Ivy products, and I sensed a glass ceiling above which someone of my working-class background was not allowed to rise. I’ve since accepted that there are many people whose starting line in life was moved a lot further ahead than mine. I let this fact motivate me to work twice as hard as they in hopes I can overcome my “handicap.” Still, I sometimes feel like the subject of a recent New Yorker cartoon, who is reminded of his inferior status due to attending a public college. (View online at http://www.cartoonbank.com/item/125081.)
I was nodding my head in agreement with the author, until I came to the obligatory putdown of George W Bush. John Kerry is a smart decent man–Bush is a dope.
What the author is saying is that elite schools separate people into two categories: the elect and the un-elect. Fine as far as it goes. But he himself separates people into two categories: progressive (good) and conservative (bad–and stupid).
No wonder he can’t talk to that plumber. He’s a bloody snob.
god, every time I read something by this guy I am gobsmacked. how is it that editors keep giving him assignments?? he seems not only wrongheaded but irrelevant and dated.