What is Your Title?

I'm a little over halfway through Native Son right now, and it's fantastic. Right now, it would be in my top five books from the list. But while I've been reading it, I keep finding myself thinking back to my last book, Their Eyes Were Watching God. What I keep thinking back to though, is on line I read, on the 160th of 193 pages; specifically, the line "They seemed to be staring at the dark, but their eyes were watching God."

Whenever I read the title of a book, in the book, I can't help but think of the "Family Guy" episode where Peter says he "usually only gets this excited when they say the title of the movie, in the movie." We then see Peter watching "Clear and Present Danger," "As Good as it Gets," and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." I must admit it does excite me in some small way as well.

Reading the title of the book in the book this time, started me thinking of what other books from the list have had this happen. However, unlike references to other books on the list, I haven't been keeping track of every instance, so I'm forced to go by memory.

#33 - "The Day of the Locust" by Nathanael West

The 33rd book of The List has been read; one third finished, two thirds to go.  It was 18 months ago I started reading these 100 novels and I'm a little behind my desired pace, so I currently should be finishing around April of 2014.  I actually finished my latest book a few days ago, but was out of town and unable to find the time to write anything about it.

The quarter pole book, er...third pole, was The Day of the Locust by Nathanael West, which ended up being so because I was hoping to squeeze in a quick read before going away, thus I wouldn't have to pack more than two books for my trip.  Of course, despite being only 127 pages and the second shortest on the list so far (ahead of only The Bridge of San Luis Rey) I wasn't able to finish it until about halfway through my flight; about two hours too late.

The book is set in Hollywood in the 1930's, and centers around a few fringe players in the movie industry.  Included are Tod Hackett, a wannabe artist who works painting backgrounds for movie sets, and the woman he's after, Faye Greener, an aspiring starlet.  As the story moves along, the two run into many obstacles to ever getting together, meaning Faye has other suitors who are getting in Tod's way.  Most notably is Homer Simpsons (see my previous post), a hapless businessman who Faye uses for money, clothing and shelter, and Erle Shoop, another Hollywood wannabe whose Texan roots lend well to being an extra playing cowboys in the movies.

Of course the book isn't just a novelization of a rom-com, where the a love triangle develops and hilarity ensues.  Rather it is the story of Hollywood and the people who try and fail to make it big in the movies.  Which in reality of course, is almost everybody.  Nearly every character has moved to Southern California, with the hopes of becoming the next big thing, and most of them will stop at nothing to see this dream become a reality.  Faye Greener even goes so far as to say that if she doesn't become a big star, she'll kill herself.  I shudder to think how many people actually lived out this scene.

When I finished reading this book, I had a hard time putting my finger on it.  But it suddenly dawned on me, that my having trouble writing about it, was because I didn't really like it.  It isn't that it was poorly written, but the story wasn't terribly interesting, and the characters, for the most part, weren't that memorable.  In fact, when I look back at it, the only thing that jumps out about it in my mind, was the fact that one of the characters was named Homer Simpson.  I'm sure if Fitzgerald's book was called The Great Simpson, I'd have been able to get over it, and I doubt Homer would be the only thing I remember.

Not only was in not that interesting, it was also slightly depressing and didn't really have any closure at the end.  Now an unhappy ending can be done to great effect, (see Gatsby again) but here it only led me to often lose interest in what was happening.  As for the conclusion, the book just seemed to end for no reason other than West ran out of ink.  Had it not been for the fact that there were only a few pages left, I wouldn't have had any clue I was nearing the end.

But then I begin to wonder, as I always do when I don't really care for a book from The List, did I miss something?  Maybe there is some deeper meaning to this novel, and I'm not savvy enough to pick up on it.  Or maybe I read the important parts when I was sleepy and kind of glossed over them.  But then again, maybe it just wasn't that good of a book.

Having been written in 1939, The Day of the Locust was one of the first books to try and tackle the movie industry.  So perhaps it was a little more cutting edge at the time, exploring such a  glamorous and exciting business.  But today, when the topic has been discussed ad naseum, when there are magazines, books, TV shows, movies, blogs, and facebook groups dedicated to the same thing, perhaps it's impact isn't as profound.



You can read TIME magazine's original review from June 19, 1939 right here.  It's interesting to note that TIME didn't think much of this book in 1939.

Notes: There is an odd line in this novel, which goes as follows: "...from a flood in Medicine Hat, Wyoming, to an angry policeman in Moose Factory, Ontario."  Besides being two of the funnier place names around, anybody from Alberta (as I am) can tell you Medicine Hat is here, not in Wyoming.  I have been unable to find any trace of a Medicine Hat, Wyoming, so I'm guessing West must have liked 'Medicine Hat', but thought Alberta was a little too obscure in 1939.  'Moose Factory', by the way, does exist, and is home to former NHL'er Jonathan Cheechoo.

The main character's name is spelt 'Tod', so I didn't misspell it in this post.  However, the edition of this book I read did, having spelt it 'Todd' once, like a normal person would.

As I mentioned, I actually finished this book last Sunday, so I'm already over halfway through number thirty-four, The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles.

#30 - "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" by Thornton Wilder

The 30th book from The List is finished already, but that should come as no surprise, as The Bridge of San Luis Rey  has taken the title of shortest book so far, with only 107 pages.  The title was previously held by  The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which weighed in at a meaty 171 pages.  But while this may have been quite a few pages shorter, I couldn't read it quite as quickly.  I'm guessing that's because it's a little deeper, I hadn't read it before, and there weren't any illustrations.  Of course that's only this edition, when the book was first published, it actually did contain illustrations, no less than eleven in fact.  The reason was, the publisher felt it needed more, for lack of a better word, girth, to warrant it's price of $2.50  In addition to the illustrations it was also printed on very heavy stock with "grotesquely wide margins."  I thought when I did this to my essays in University, I was the only one.

The book opens by telling the reader that "on Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke..." taking with it five people.  The book follows each of the five in the days or even years leading up that fateful day and how they ended up crossing the bridge at that exact moment.  In a way, the non-linear narrative used reminded me of "Reservoir Dogs," since the bridge collapses in the first line of the book and the rest of the novel explains how it all happened.  It's also reminiscent of an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Trilogy of Error," which features three separate story lines that all meet in the end.  Much like that, each character in this book's story culminates in the same event at the end.

I feel it made for an interesting reading experience; knowing what would happen, but unsure exactly how it would happen.  It was also interesting to learn how these different characters, each from different backgrounds, meet at the same place at the same time, seemingly for no reason.  Or, was it part of God's plan?  This is the question posed by Brother Juniper, a wandering man of the cloth who witnessed the event.  He investigates why this happened to these five people by researching their backgrounds.  His goal is to determine why God would have chosen these people to perish in this accident.  But when his conclusions question God's intention, his work is declared heresy and the book and its author are burned at the stake.  It was because of this slightly negative commentary on the Church, that the book received its' few scathing reviews, from newspapers in Catholic strongholds like Ireland.

For me, it was a well written book with a good story, interesting characters and a unique linear flow.  Add this to the pile of books I didn't know anything about but have enjoyed thoroughly, which as I've said before, shouldn't be any surprise; they're all books from a list of great books.

Read Time's original review from December 5, 1927 right here.

My next book will be The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers.  Another one I know nothing about.  Go figure.  For those keeping track, I know I had said I would read Gone with the Wind 30th, but it has been put off indefinitely.  I simply don't have the time to read another 1,000 page behemoth right now.  I"ll try to get it in before I hit 50, but I make no promises.

#29 - "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov

I think everybody knows what Lolita is about, or at least has a vague idea.  The term 'Lolita' has entered the modern lexicon to refer to 'sexually procarious' young girls, so it's no surprise to learn this novel is the story of a man and his affair with his 12-year old step daughter.

Self-named 'Humbert Humbert' narrates his story from prison, where he awaits trial for murder, the story of his life as a pedophile and his courtship of the 12 year old Dolores Haze, whom he refers to as Lolita.  Humbert first marries the girl's mother, in an effort to remain close to his true love, and it isn't until her untimely (or for Humbert, timely) death that the 'dirty old man' is able to make his move and prey on his Lolita. The two travel across the country, going from motel room to motel room, taking part in acts indescribable even by the narrator, the man who committed them.

As you can well imagine, the book caused a bit of a stir when it was first published in France in 1955.  It was ordered to be seized and destroyed in the UK until 1957, and wasn't published in America until 1958 (it is interesting to note that an American firm offered to publish it in 1955 if Nabokov changed the Lolita character into a young boy).  Of course that isn't much of a surprise, the subject matter remains controversial even today.

While the subject is so controversial and continues to be morally wrong in our society, Nabokov is able to weave it into a story without attempting to condemn or even comment on it.  The author states in the afterword that "there is no moral to the story" and never at any point was he trying to deliver a message.  He was simply telling a good story.  And this is exactly why I enjoyed this book so much.  It wasn't the controversial subject matter, or the shock value of the it, but rather the excellent writing, the wit, and the characters.

Lolita is very well written, almost like poetry, with the words flowing from one page to another so beautifully, the reader gets lost in the descriptions and the narrator's inner-monologue, instead of the dark underbelly of pedophilia.  Looking back, I find it difficult to describe the feelings I experienced while reading Lolita.  When Humbert's wife, Lolita's mother, discovers his true feelings by reading his diary, she runs out of the house with the intention of telling the world what kind of monster he really is.  At this point, I found myself worried he would be exposed, instead of being relieved at the prospect.  When she runs into the street and is struck by a bus moments later, Nabokov creates a sense of ease, leaving me relieved at Humbert's sudden liberation.  It is hard to explain why I would feel relief that a pedophile's accuser has been killed, leaving him free to rape a 12-year old girl, but oddly, that is what I felt.

But this isn't to say Nabokov handles this subject as light-hearted or funny, nor do his descriptions ever suggest what Humbert is doing isn't wrong.  Quite the opposite in fact, even Humbert realizes what he is doing and why it is wrong, he simply feels that he can't help himself.  But despite the nature of the subject, Nabokov is able to inject a lot of humour into the story; often from Humbert's descriptions of the things around him, like his distaste for Lolita's obsessions with American pop culture and his distaste for what he sees as short comings of that society.  And the inner battle Humbert often has with himself was also quite funny, but become less and less so as he slowly comes to grips with what a monster he had become.

It is Humbert's descent into this realization, his descent into his own personal hell, that the books takes a more serious turn.  In the beginning I was curious as to what was going to happen, wondering how an affair would ever begin between a 12 year old and a grown man.  In the end I had to keep reading to see how that affair would reach it's inevitable end and who would be left standing when it did.

You can read Time magazine's original review from September 1, 1958 right here.



Next up I plan on reading The Bridge of San Luis Rey by Thornton Wilder.  I haven't read a book from the 20's for a while, To the Lighthouse was the last, and it doesn't look too lengthy.  Again I find myself worried about the length of the books I read.  In an effort to make up for time lost to Infinite Jest, I want to read some shorter books, but at the same time don't want to leave myself with only the really long ones at the end.

Notes: I returned Lolita three days late, and incurred $1.40 in fines.  That puts my total at around twenty bucks.