Mary Roach writes excellent nonfiction books. I loved Stiff, which was about cadavers, and Spook, which was a scientific study of the afterlife. Bonk, about sex, was just as great as the others.
The footnotes are the best part. You must read them. Roach just makes little comments, or expands on studies mentioned. Like how "Nasal congestion is an erection inside your nose.” There are far funnier ones than that. You must read this book.
There are SO MANY funny things. Like a doctor who specializes in erectile dysfunction (“ED”) who makes metaphors about everything. The penis is a “like a tire! Flat!”. “Now he’s ready to make home run. Like a baseball bat!” He performs a surgery in which the veins of the penis are essentially tied together to help prevent blood from leaving the penis. Roach asked, "How would it feel without anesthesia?" He replied, “Like the way to treat a spy”
Also, a lot of the historical references are interesting. A medical “journal” in the 1700s declared that masturbation could cause blindness, impotency, clammy hand, acne, insanity, obesity, heart trouble and fuzzy tongues. Another stated that sex with “ugly” women decreased a man’s sperm count.
Also, the patents on some of the drugs, devices, etc. for sex-related shtuff are hilarious. They try to avoid using “sex” of “masturbation” in the titles, so they end up with things like “Device to Aid in the Pleasure of Physiological Activities”. The same goes for research projects. The names get creative.
Roach had to volunteer to be a test subject in many cases, in order to be able to understand and view (I mean... sort of) the studies. Her poor husband! The studies are typically very, um, invasive. Imagine having sex on a hospital bed while doctors on either side of you apply ultrasound wands to your back, instructing you on how to move. Awkward. Yeah. For many of the studies, the researchers will recruit porn stars, as they are obviously more comfortable in front of other people. They also recruit porn directors/producers, because they know how to film sex properly. It must be an interesting job. Imagine requesting a receipt at a sex shop because buying erotica falls under "business expenses".
In addition to being funny, it was also extremely informative. Did you know that when women orgasm, their earlobes swell slightly? Or that wearing polyester underwear/pants decreases your libido? Cotton is better. Also, dead men can have erections and people who are paralyzed can still have orgasms.
Many studies were mentioned throughout the book, and many publications as well. I'm tempted to go to the library and pick up some of her sources, like Homosexuality in Perspective, which was published in 1979. The first half is about sexual functioning in gay, straight, and lesbian couples. The other half is a gay-to-straight conversion manual. Thus, it the book was ridiculed by the public. But, the first half sounds really interesting. I think I'm too nervous to pick up a stack of books about gay sex from the library though. I might get some weird looks.
Someone asked me if the book was... practical. It's certainly not a how-to manual, and a lot of the chapters are about dysfunction. No, I don't think that the sections on ED will ever be particularly useful to me. The book was written to instruct; It was written to inform and entertain.
READ IT.
Oh, and I also reread the Fountainhead. Just to study for the test and to make sure I didn't miss anything.
Total Book Count: 70
Total NonFic: 23 (32.86%)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
"Oh, And One Other Thing: Don't Get Too Excited About The Fountainhead"
^That's a John Green quote. In case you were wondering.
So I typically value John's opinion quite a bit. I think he gives excellent advice, and I am one to take excellent advice.
But, on the subject of The Fountainhead, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disobey John's wishes. I am very excited by The Fountainhead. Though, I suppose, I have not entirely rejected John's advice. Though I love the book's message, I am not solely excited about the idea of selfishness, or individuality, or independence. I am excited by the quality of writing of this book.
I always forget how much I love good books. I have read far too many mediocre young adult novels when I could have been reading true works of fiction; true works of art. The Fountainhead is just that. It is complex and detailed and long. The characters are rich and varied, though highly unbelievable and unreal. Still, it's sometimes nice to just read about extreme, impossible characters. Though, I argue, Rand does not write entirely in black and white.
Austen Heller, Kent Lansing, Mike Donnigan, Roger Enright... They're all fairly normal characters. They don't have excessively lofty ideals, nor are they ignorant or cruel. Heller is a journalist who appreciates individuality, but does not live for it. He writes, partially, to please his readers (the public), yet also maintains his integrity. Kent Lansing fights for the Aquitania Hotel, but yet also lives and functions in the real world, understanding that all people are not good or intelligent. Mike is just a good 'ol guy. He's probably the most thoroughly normal character. When Roark first meets him, he's working on whatever big building project comes up, meshing with society and adapting for each job. Yet, he recognizes that some architects are truly great, such as Roark and Cameron. He then has the strength and integrity to support the. Roger, too, is normal. He simply likes Roark's designs. Not because they're original, but because he likes them.
I like that the book isn't all extremes. Guy Francon, John Erik Snyte and a few other characters who are not necessarily protagonists, are also normal. I just want to highlight this. One of the only criticisms that Rand gets for her books is that the characters are sometimes too fantastical. They aren't really, though.
Also, in terms of the architecture, which I know is just the... medium (or something) used to present the idea of individuality, I sort of find myself not loving Roark's architecture. I mean, I like practicality, but I also like uselessness. I like narrow, dark halls and oddly shaped corners and asymmetry. When I was living in Arizona, I stayed in a very Roark-like house. It was big, open, practical, attractive and unlike any form of classical architecture. But it was too perfect and light. I used to sit inside my closet just to have a small, dark space that was less perfect. Yes, I am weird as hell. Also, I like some classical architecture stuff. I like old buildings, and I like fake-old buildings as well (though not as much).
I know the architecture itself is not very important, but I just thought I'd mention that.
Roark. How come he can rape someone and no one cares? Though, fun fact, if the average person lists their top 5 sexual fantasies, a rape situation, on average, falls at number 2 or 3. This includes situations in which the fantasizer is the rapist, the rapee, or (for gay men particularly; I find this very funny) the "organizer" in a gang rape situation. Yay fun facts about sex! (See my next post, haha.)
But anyway. I think it's funny that Roark is so perfect that no one even seems to care that he's a rapist. Nope, that's cool. Whatever.
Yet, Roark is, at the same time, really attractive. God, I couldn't imagine dating someone like that, but he's such a perfect pedestal-crush. Until the pedestal gets crushed. Hopefully it's not Doric. (Heh. Heh. I managed to make 2 bad jokes about that. This is bad.)
Also, I don't dislike Peter. Or Toohey. I feel like you're supposed to, but I don't. I mean, Peter's a wimp and Toohey's a jerk, but their actions are understandable.
Yeah. This is REALLY all over the place. More so than usual.
This was a summer reading book, so I had to write a few essays/make a few charts for it. Whee. My "informal" essay on Objectivism is actually kind of funny. It's not very good, but I used a lot of vocab that I learned in my philosophy class. Though I had to take out my description of Roark's epistemological and ontological processes. I was a little disappointed about that.
*abrupt ending*
Total Book Count: 68
NonFic: 22 (32.35%)
So I typically value John's opinion quite a bit. I think he gives excellent advice, and I am one to take excellent advice.
But, on the subject of The Fountainhead, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disobey John's wishes. I am very excited by The Fountainhead. Though, I suppose, I have not entirely rejected John's advice. Though I love the book's message, I am not solely excited about the idea of selfishness, or individuality, or independence. I am excited by the quality of writing of this book.
I always forget how much I love good books. I have read far too many mediocre young adult novels when I could have been reading true works of fiction; true works of art. The Fountainhead is just that. It is complex and detailed and long. The characters are rich and varied, though highly unbelievable and unreal. Still, it's sometimes nice to just read about extreme, impossible characters. Though, I argue, Rand does not write entirely in black and white.
Austen Heller, Kent Lansing, Mike Donnigan, Roger Enright... They're all fairly normal characters. They don't have excessively lofty ideals, nor are they ignorant or cruel. Heller is a journalist who appreciates individuality, but does not live for it. He writes, partially, to please his readers (the public), yet also maintains his integrity. Kent Lansing fights for the Aquitania Hotel, but yet also lives and functions in the real world, understanding that all people are not good or intelligent. Mike is just a good 'ol guy. He's probably the most thoroughly normal character. When Roark first meets him, he's working on whatever big building project comes up, meshing with society and adapting for each job. Yet, he recognizes that some architects are truly great, such as Roark and Cameron. He then has the strength and integrity to support the. Roger, too, is normal. He simply likes Roark's designs. Not because they're original, but because he likes them.
I like that the book isn't all extremes. Guy Francon, John Erik Snyte and a few other characters who are not necessarily protagonists, are also normal. I just want to highlight this. One of the only criticisms that Rand gets for her books is that the characters are sometimes too fantastical. They aren't really, though.
Also, in terms of the architecture, which I know is just the... medium (or something) used to present the idea of individuality, I sort of find myself not loving Roark's architecture. I mean, I like practicality, but I also like uselessness. I like narrow, dark halls and oddly shaped corners and asymmetry. When I was living in Arizona, I stayed in a very Roark-like house. It was big, open, practical, attractive and unlike any form of classical architecture. But it was too perfect and light. I used to sit inside my closet just to have a small, dark space that was less perfect. Yes, I am weird as hell. Also, I like some classical architecture stuff. I like old buildings, and I like fake-old buildings as well (though not as much).
I know the architecture itself is not very important, but I just thought I'd mention that.
Roark. How come he can rape someone and no one cares? Though, fun fact, if the average person lists their top 5 sexual fantasies, a rape situation, on average, falls at number 2 or 3. This includes situations in which the fantasizer is the rapist, the rapee, or (for gay men particularly; I find this very funny) the "organizer" in a gang rape situation. Yay fun facts about sex! (See my next post, haha.)
But anyway. I think it's funny that Roark is so perfect that no one even seems to care that he's a rapist. Nope, that's cool. Whatever.
Yet, Roark is, at the same time, really attractive. God, I couldn't imagine dating someone like that, but he's such a perfect pedestal-crush. Until the pedestal gets crushed. Hopefully it's not Doric. (Heh. Heh. I managed to make 2 bad jokes about that. This is bad.)
Also, I don't dislike Peter. Or Toohey. I feel like you're supposed to, but I don't. I mean, Peter's a wimp and Toohey's a jerk, but their actions are understandable.
Yeah. This is REALLY all over the place. More so than usual.
This was a summer reading book, so I had to write a few essays/make a few charts for it. Whee. My "informal" essay on Objectivism is actually kind of funny. It's not very good, but I used a lot of vocab that I learned in my philosophy class. Though I had to take out my description of Roark's epistemological and ontological processes. I was a little disappointed about that.
*abrupt ending*
Total Book Count: 68
NonFic: 22 (32.35%)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Chicken Soup (Finally) and MORE of the Awakening
I read 2 books today! I haven't done that in ages! (Or, upon checking my chart, since June 9th, which was still a while ago, if not "ages".) And I guess technically I didn't read 2 books today. I just finished 2 books today. I started one of them last night and the other... a month ago. Stop laughing at me.
I finally got around to reading some Chicken Soup, Paper Towns by John Green. It was a nice break. Or at least the beginning was. Or really everything but the last chapter when you realize that Margo is not at all a manic-pixie-dream-girl, but rather just a slightly selfish brat.
I also realized, upon reading it more closely, how much Qs parents emphasize the books themes in their discussions. They basically state the themes. And in a hilarious, therapisty way. Somehow I didn't realize this the first time I read it.
Oh, also, I like Lacey more. She's cute. Ben still annoys me though.
The other book was Bloom's Notes for Kate Chopin's 'The Awakening'. It was a 1970s version of sparknotes (a much better version, I might add), plus a dozen essays on the novel. Sorry though, I'm not writing anything more about it.
Total Book Count: 67
Total NonFic: 22 (32.8%)
I finally got around to reading some Chicken Soup, Paper Towns by John Green. It was a nice break. Or at least the beginning was. Or really everything but the last chapter when you realize that Margo is not at all a manic-pixie-dream-girl, but rather just a slightly selfish brat.
I also realized, upon reading it more closely, how much Qs parents emphasize the books themes in their discussions. They basically state the themes. And in a hilarious, therapisty way. Somehow I didn't realize this the first time I read it.
Oh, also, I like Lacey more. She's cute. Ben still annoys me though.
The other book was Bloom's Notes for Kate Chopin's 'The Awakening'. It was a 1970s version of sparknotes (a much better version, I might add), plus a dozen essays on the novel. Sorry though, I'm not writing anything more about it.
Total Book Count: 67
Total NonFic: 22 (32.8%)
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Awakening Revisited
I know, I know, that last post was a bit intense. I'm sorry, imaginary complaining person.
I reread The Awakening yesterday because I wanted to check over some things for summer reading. I still really dislike that book, but I apologize for my first post. Sorry Kate Chopin, I know Edna just "made a mess of things".
Edna was confused. Edna was a product of her circumstances. So were the other women in Grand Isle. So was Kate Chopin. I respect the book a bit more now though. It is well written, has an interesting message, and develops the characters reasonably well (and any lack of development seems purposeful). The themes are strong (if not pleasant) and the language is solid. I just don't think that The Awakening is a great book for me right now. I have no idea what is. I need some cold neuro books or some fun, worthless, non-chicklit books. I need some chicken soup reads.
Total Book Count: 65
NonFic Count: 21 (32.3%)
I reread The Awakening yesterday because I wanted to check over some things for summer reading. I still really dislike that book, but I apologize for my first post. Sorry Kate Chopin, I know Edna just "made a mess of things".
Edna was confused. Edna was a product of her circumstances. So were the other women in Grand Isle. So was Kate Chopin. I respect the book a bit more now though. It is well written, has an interesting message, and develops the characters reasonably well (and any lack of development seems purposeful). The themes are strong (if not pleasant) and the language is solid. I just don't think that The Awakening is a great book for me right now. I have no idea what is. I need some cold neuro books or some fun, worthless, non-chicklit books. I need some chicken soup reads.
Total Book Count: 65
NonFic Count: 21 (32.3%)
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Awakening by Kate Chopin: A "Yeah" Post
The Awakening by Kate Chopin is a required summer reading book for my English class this coming year. I've had the audio book in my iTunes since my May hospital stay, but hadn't gotten around to listening to it. I originally intended to maybe just stick one of my summer reading essays into this post; Thought I'd take the easy way out. But this will not work for several reasons.
1. Despite the fact that I finished this book on July 27th (yeah, yeah, I put off writing this blog post), I have yet to completely finish an essay. My drive has been about 0 lately.
2. I have thoughts about this book that aren't covered in any of the assigned essays.
3. I hate everything formal I’ve written lately.
So. Here goes.
I want to talk to you (and by you I mean basically no one, since the only person known to have consistently read this blog is no longer going to read it) about sexuality and perceptions. I've expressed my opinions on sex before in this blog (see my Brave New World post) but I want to discuss it further and how it relates to this novel. I'm not talking about the act itself; I'm talking about the societal views on sexuality, the emotions attached to it, the double standards, the negative connotations, etc.
So. Yeah. Here it goes. For real this time.
In the beginning of The Awakening the reader sees Edna Pontellier in a domestic situation. She is with the other "mother-women" of Grand Isle, talking to them as her husband goes away to his club and her children play with the nanny. The mother-women are the... motherly type. They are caring, kind and fulfill all of the roles that domesticity puts upon them. They have “protective wings” unlike Edna’s developing wings of freedom or ultimate broken wings.
I hate them, the mother-women. I hate their flatness and I hate their subservience.
Yet I love them. I love their simplicity and I love their lack of real cares. Wouldn’t it be nice to have no feelings but duty and no role but to perform the duties given to you?
Edna Pontellier, comparatively, is a whore. Or at least that's what she turns herself into. She cannot be a "mother-women" because she awakens to her sexuality, her sensuality and her passionate desire for independence. She falls for Robert, then for Arobin. She cannot find a medium between pure, sacred, domestic Madonna and a dirty, flighty, lusty whore.
I hate her, Edna Pontellier. I hate her flatness and I hate her objectification.
I love her. I love her drive and her… her spunk.
...
Obviously, I'm a little conflicted here. I wish that in society, everyone could accept complex people. I wish that people didn't need to have labels. I wish, as John Green would say, that someone could look into the eyes of another and see their brown-ness and their person-ness; that someone could see all of person- the good, the bad, the Madonna, the Whore, the ego, the subconscious, the id- at the same time. That these parts could be seen to form a homogenous mixture instead of a heterogeneous one. That they could be seen as ingredients that blend to make a person, not entirely separate facets of a personality (or worse, entirely different people). But it's difficult. And I worry about it.
…
I know, when I think about it, that people can do this. I can do this. It’s hard for me sometimes, but I can do this. I hate pedestals- they are my biggest personal fear of a personal flaw. Yet I do the thing I fear sometimes. I put people on pedestals. And when those pedestals crumble, there are problems.
…
I really didn’t like this book. It made me think (which is good), but I really didn’t like this book.
…
The main point of this post was supposed to be sexuality and how society views it so negatively. But I guess it wasn't really. But still: I hate the word “dirty”, I've said this before. I hate sweeping generalizations and the concept of having the Madonna for a wife and the Whore for a mistress. I hate Freud for ever thinking of this complex, even though it would have existed anyway without a name. But maybe if he hadn’t named it, people wouldn’t use the word whore. Because I don’t like that. People are complex. No one’s a whore unless it’s a job title, but it’s rarely used that way.
…
This post is a bit all over the place. I could edit it and refine my ideas a bit. But no one reads this. So yeah. Not going to bother.
1. Despite the fact that I finished this book on July 27th (yeah, yeah, I put off writing this blog post), I have yet to completely finish an essay. My drive has been about 0 lately.
2. I have thoughts about this book that aren't covered in any of the assigned essays.
3. I hate everything formal I’ve written lately.
So. Here goes.
I want to talk to you (and by you I mean basically no one, since the only person known to have consistently read this blog is no longer going to read it) about sexuality and perceptions. I've expressed my opinions on sex before in this blog (see my Brave New World post) but I want to discuss it further and how it relates to this novel. I'm not talking about the act itself; I'm talking about the societal views on sexuality, the emotions attached to it, the double standards, the negative connotations, etc.
So. Yeah. Here it goes. For real this time.
In the beginning of The Awakening the reader sees Edna Pontellier in a domestic situation. She is with the other "mother-women" of Grand Isle, talking to them as her husband goes away to his club and her children play with the nanny. The mother-women are the... motherly type. They are caring, kind and fulfill all of the roles that domesticity puts upon them. They have “protective wings” unlike Edna’s developing wings of freedom or ultimate broken wings.
I hate them, the mother-women. I hate their flatness and I hate their subservience.
Yet I love them. I love their simplicity and I love their lack of real cares. Wouldn’t it be nice to have no feelings but duty and no role but to perform the duties given to you?
Edna Pontellier, comparatively, is a whore. Or at least that's what she turns herself into. She cannot be a "mother-women" because she awakens to her sexuality, her sensuality and her passionate desire for independence. She falls for Robert, then for Arobin. She cannot find a medium between pure, sacred, domestic Madonna and a dirty, flighty, lusty whore.
I hate her, Edna Pontellier. I hate her flatness and I hate her objectification.
I love her. I love her drive and her… her spunk.
...
Obviously, I'm a little conflicted here. I wish that in society, everyone could accept complex people. I wish that people didn't need to have labels. I wish, as John Green would say, that someone could look into the eyes of another and see their brown-ness and their person-ness; that someone could see all of person- the good, the bad, the Madonna, the Whore, the ego, the subconscious, the id- at the same time. That these parts could be seen to form a homogenous mixture instead of a heterogeneous one. That they could be seen as ingredients that blend to make a person, not entirely separate facets of a personality (or worse, entirely different people). But it's difficult. And I worry about it.
…
I know, when I think about it, that people can do this. I can do this. It’s hard for me sometimes, but I can do this. I hate pedestals- they are my biggest personal fear of a personal flaw. Yet I do the thing I fear sometimes. I put people on pedestals. And when those pedestals crumble, there are problems.
…
I really didn’t like this book. It made me think (which is good), but I really didn’t like this book.
…
The main point of this post was supposed to be sexuality and how society views it so negatively. But I guess it wasn't really. But still: I hate the word “dirty”, I've said this before. I hate sweeping generalizations and the concept of having the Madonna for a wife and the Whore for a mistress. I hate Freud for ever thinking of this complex, even though it would have existed anyway without a name. But maybe if he hadn’t named it, people wouldn’t use the word whore. Because I don’t like that. People are complex. No one’s a whore unless it’s a job title, but it’s rarely used that way.
…
This post is a bit all over the place. I could edit it and refine my ideas a bit. But no one reads this. So yeah. Not going to bother.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
3 Books Belatedly Out of Order
I read What's the Difference? once again by mental_floss! I love these books. They are so funny and clever. I will most certainly have to order more of them (I just got another $25 gift card to Amazon. I love hospital surveys that you can get free stuff for. Though, I suppose, after shelling out $1,200 a day for months, it's not all that much trouble to send me a small gift card.)
WtD explained the differences between similar things (like Manet & Monet, Pool & Snooker, Plato & Aristotle, Idiot & Moron, Lager & Ale, Samurai & Ninja, etc.) and gave a little bit of a back-story to each word/concept in addition to a "quick trip" for remembering the difference. Oh, and "People You Can Impress" with each piece of information. So yeah. It was funny and educational. Read it.
Three Willows by Ann Brashares. Ugh. I gave this book to my mom for her birthday. I am a terrible daughter. She enjoyed the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants series (written by the same author), so I picked this up at Barnes & Noble (which might be sold. wah.) for her. It was completely aimed at a middle school audience though, and not an intelligent middle school audience either. It tells the story of three thirteen-year-olds the summer before they enter High School. They live in the same town as the now legendary sisterhood, but they themselves, although they were once friends, are no longer close. The story shifts perspective between the three girls throughout the stories (reminding me far too much of the "Full House: Stephanie and Michelle" books that I read in 1st grade).
Girl 1: Ama, the stereotypical smart girl goes to a wilderness enrichment camp (although she'd much rather go to science camp... or something) and then has to deal with feeling incompetent, not being allowed to keep her hair products, and having to share a tent with a slut. Oh, and she has a crush on a guy, but is far too shy to talk to him. But she, ya know, eventually overcomes all of her fears, rappels down a mountain and texts the cute boy. Yay for her.
Girl 2: Polly is an awkward girl with a mother who never pays attention to her and a father whom she doesn't know. She decides to be a model, develops a very brief and very stereotypical eating disorder, but then starts eating again because she sucks at modeling and wants her life and her stomach to be "full" again. (I'm dead serious. Almost all of her parts in the book try far too hard to make the diet a metaphor for life. It's just overly clichéd, overly stressed, and overly forced. It's awful.)
Girl 3: The only one I was even remotely interested in reading about. Jo was basically a complete slut [she made out with a guy on a bus before she spoke to him, which I guess is cool... if you're into that (note: if the guy/girl is sufficiently attractive, I'm not saying this is awful of anything... )]. Anyway, she makes out with this guy all summer, hangs out with cool older kids (because she's 13 and snogging a high schooler) and completely ditches her true friends. But then the guy has a girlfriend, there's drama including broken wine glasses and Jo decides that her relationship with her divorcing parents and her relationships with Ama and Polly are the really important things in life.
Shoot me.
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking was extremely interesting. But, even though it was written for an audience of lay people, I was still slightly confused at times. I found it really valuable and interesting (Gawd... I have to stop using the words "really" and "interesting" in these blog posts. This is getting excessive). I was planning on rereading it (which I may still do), but then I found a great book on Hawking written in comic form. I started reading that, and it makes things so much easier. I think just hearing the theories a second time helps. I don’t have much more to say in this post. Read it if you like physics and want to be educated on time and space and shtuff.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
