I read two books over the holidays, plus a fair amount of various other material. Both were enjoyable; both didn't make too many demands, fortunate due to family, illness, travel, yummy food, and presents.
Bill Maher's New Rules (which I hear is taken from a bit he does on his show), was a clever series of small things that he would change about our society. One example is that presidents must stop referring to "Washington insiders" - since they have become, by virtue of their job, the ultimate insider. There were other funnier ones (and ones I disagreed with too) but at this point I can't remember them well enough to report. Never mind. They are a great idea as a recurring part of his show - probably more enjoyable than Letterman's Top 10 lists - and since I don't have cable and I go to bed early, reading a compilation of them now and then works for me.
(Another point about Bill Maher that makes me feel good about myself. One problem with the political climate in this country is that people who care about politics tend to reinforce their beliefs by reading authors who share their views. I am totally guilty of this, and when I do read "the other side," I tend to choose those who I can essentially discount. Bill Maher, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, is a little complicated, and therefore challenges me a little more.)
The other reading choice was Salman Rushdie's Shalimar the Clown. My favorite thing about this book was that one major storyline occurred in LA in the early '90s. And not just LA, but practically my neighborhood. The day I finished the book, Michael and I, driving to Westwood, were able to pinpoint the block on which India Ophuls lived. And Rushdie likes nothing like filling his novels with scads of popular references and details. I felt right at home. (Michael has said he finds this obnoxious, which I guess I can see and why I liked the alternate plot which was...) Kashmir in the decades following partition. Identities shift from being Kashmiri to Muslim or Hindu (and back) - and violence, of course, must follow. It's a good history. The wars over Kashmir and the Israeli-Arab wars during the Cold War era are strange to me - I know they happened, but because I know so little of them, and they were so far away, and they didn't lead to nuclear holocaust, they seem a bit unreal.
So the broad strokes and the little details were good. What I didn't like was the love story. Which might have been my fault. Turns out there wasn't really a love story (the closest thing was between India and her father). Some tales of lust, but the ruling emotion was hatred. There was a LOT of hatred. That's hard to read, even if it is faithful to the tragedy of Kashmir. I could have used a little hope.
Now I'm caught up enough for a fresh start in 2006. I should be posting weekly, so hold me to it if I start flaking.
A final thought: I haven't reviewed them as a whole, but newspapers are good, guys, even when they're imperfect. Keep reading them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment