The Time Travellers Wife

I loved this book.

With that I shall start by saying, before I picked up Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveller's Wife, I knew I would either hate it or love it. Everyone I've meet who has read it has the strongest of feelings about it. But lucky me, I was head over heels, unabashedly in love with everything about it. For seven short days I stopped reading it only to sleep (and then I would dream about it) and sometimes to eat. For those of you who are living in a different world, or maybe a different time and have not heard about the book. It is the love story of Henry DeTamble and his once and future wife Claire Abshire. Henry time travels (uncontrollably) backwards and forwards through time. The book opens with Henry in his late 30's and 40's visiting young Claire as a small child, where she first falls in love with him. When Claire is grown and meets Henry in "real" time, he has no idea who she is--because hes too young--and so the love story blooms again but in a more sophisticated and tangible manner.

It gets better though, the book has a third (and arguably my favorite) major character, Chicago. If one gets nothing else out of this gem of a book its Niffenegger's love for this wonderful city. Her visual of the buildings and streets and venues are worked into every page. She relives concerts, (Violet Femme's early 90's appearance at the Arragon--of which I know of at least one other person who was there). She gives you the ins and outs of her favorite records stores, restaurants and all other things perfect about Chicago. It's an intimate and quotidian tour in your very hands.

I love love loved it.

Disclaimer: This is the first novel I was able to read in months. And as you all know by now, I live and breath for the moments in which I can curl up with a novel. So, it is possible that Niffenegger book may not have struck me so intensely had it just been one of many I was in the middle of. So, on that note, if you know you enjoy the same kinds of books as me...what the hell are you still doing here?!? Go get it...NOW! But if you generally find my likings disagreeable then please by all means stay the hell away (from the book, not me.)

p.s. the paper quality of the book is also amazing.
p.p.s if you aren't into reading, it will soon be a film.

English Major? Part II

Stanley Fish is back in the Times, defending his article that the study of Humanities serves no purpose. He clarifies his point (it's not that works of literature and art do nothing, it's that studying them in a classroom does nothing) and he reestablishes his point (real world understanding and academic understanding are independent).

"All of this should not be taken to mean, as it was by some, that I am attacking the humanities or denigrating them or declaring them worthless. I am saying that the value of the humanities cannot be validated by some measure external to the obsessions that lead some (like me) to devote their working lives to them– measures like increased economic productivity, or the fashioning of an informed citizenry, or the sharpening of moral perceptions, or the lessening of prejudice and discrimination."

Well, Stanley. You've made your point pretty clear. And reluctantly, I might have to agree with parts of it. ("What benefit do literary studies hold out to those asked to support them? Not much of anything except the (parochial) excitement experienced by those caught up in arcane discussions of the mirror stage, the trace, the subaltern and the performative." Half the time, I bore my wife and friends with my discussions of 16th century religious discourse surrounding Lancelot Andrews' influence on drama. If the wife can't listen, what hope is there?) And yet. I do think studying literature, not just reading it but breaking it down in the classroom can "sharpen moral perceptions" and "lessen prejudice and discrimination." So.

English Major? What good will that do you?

Stanley Fish has an Op-Ed in the NYTimes today on the what value can be found in studying the humanities. (answer: "none whatsoever")

" Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no...Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them."

All this time I thought I was "do"ing something that had an effect on the world. Oh well, Fish, you've always been the reader-response man. Short-sighted, in my opinion.