Reading on Wednesday

[layla]

What are you reading now?

The Memory of Running by Ron McLarty – It’s tough to talk about this one because I’ve only just started, so it’s still early to tell how much I’m going to enjoy this or, for that matter, what the plot is going to be (I don’t like to read cover copy on books; I prefer to discover it as I go along). Thus far: guy is in Maine on vacation, guy’s parents die, guy’s sister is mentally ill. It was recommended by the person who loaned it to me and the writing is good — I’m liking it so far. Not everything has to be high-concept.

What did you just finish?

The Clairvoyant Countess by Dorothy Gilman – Well, for certain values of “finished”, anyway. This is another one from the cheap-paperback pile, which I had picked up at the used bookstore because I like her Mrs. Pollifax books; they’re a bit twee, but also very charming. And straight back to the used bookstore it goes, because it’s so unbearably twee that I quit halfway through. There is no overall plot, just a series of mini-mysteries in which Madame Karitska, psychic, helps the police, usually by telling them things that are so blindingly obvious that I’d already figured out the twist a few pages ago. The police in this town can’t find the bathroom without Madame Kariska telling them where it is. Tightened up a bit and with a solid plot, I think I might have enjoyed this book a lot more, because the characters are likable, but it’s just too rambling and self-consciously precious; there’s too much of Madame Karitska being wise and darling and telling people really obvious stuff that solves all their problems.

What are you reading next?

Something else from the Cheap Paperback Pile, no doubt.

---

Crossposted to Wordpress, Livejournal and Dreamwidth. Comment wherever you like.

Comments

Mustang: The Saga of the Wild Horse in the American Wesst

[(Anonymous)]

hi Layla -
Thanks so much for taking the time to read my book and post comments. And good to know that it helped you learn about the plight of the wild horse these days.
Also, I gotta make a correction: it's not accurate to say that my book ignores the Native American point of view. The chapter called "Hoofbeats on the Prairie" is all about the Native American partnership with the horse, and includes various tribes and individuals, including Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and Black Elk - and their horses. This chapter sets the stage for the chapter about the Little Bighorn, which you discuss.
It's important to note that this chapter recounts the massacres of Indian ponies by the US govt during the Indian wars of the frontier era. In particular, I write about the Battle of the Washita, during which hundreds of horses belonging to the Cheyenne tribe were gunned down at Custer's behest.
Finally, Mustang ends, in part, at the Crazy Horse memorial in South Dakota - another Native American element of this story.
For more info on Mustang, please see www.deannestillman.com
Thanks again for your time and all best with your work.
BTW, nice artwork on your site!
- Deanne

Re: Mustang: The Saga of the Wild Horse in the American Wesst

[layla]

Hello, Deanne! Thank you very much.

I hope it came across in my post, despite the criticism, that I really enjoyed your book a lot. I learned a ton that I didn't know before, particularly about the modern-day plight of the mustang (which I didn't know about at ALL), but also the historical context. It was a very well-written, well-researched book, and once I started reading, I couldn't stop!

And it's not that you didn't address the Native American issues at all. Actually, I think one reason why certain aspects of the book felt slightly deficient to me is because you did a better job of addressing those aspects than most general-interest books on American history tend to do (that is, history books that aren't focused on Native American issues specifically). I could tell that you were working hard not to represent the Native American "players" in the book in the flat and stereotypical way that is often done when addressing that era in American history. (Also, I think yours is the first book I've read that directly related early American colonial history to the Spanish Jewish experience during the Inquisition. That was a fascinating little side glimpse of an aspect of the Spanish conquest of the Americas that hasn't been dealt with at all in the books I've read.)

Basically, you're keeping a LOT of balls in the air in this book -- American history is huge, and complicated, and controversial. No single book can hope to address every aspect of it, and I think you did better than most authors do at bringing to life the huge, complicated tapestry in a way that illuminates the bright spots without papering over the dark spots.

Ironically, like I mentioned above, I think it's the fact that you did such a good job on so much of it that highlights the deficiency which struck me in the book, namely that the major figures on the white colonist/American side are characterized as individuals in a way that isn't really done for the Native American side. We get a lot of background on Custer and his family, for example, while not getting much at all about the human side of, say, Crazy Horse or Geronimo. Having said that, it is a HUGE undertaking, you can't include everything, and there are probably more primary sources available for the former than the latter. In addition to that, Custer is probably more familiar to the presumed audience of the book (likely to be white and American) than the others. It's not that I can't understand why these decisions might have been made (though obviously I can't look into your head and know for sure *g*). It's just that there's a general pattern in American history of bypassing Native voices in favor of white sources on the same events, and I did feel as if your book fell into this trap in a place or three.

Which doesn't make it a bad book at all -- actually, it is a very good book, and I can tell it's a labor of love on a subject you feel passionately about. One thing about these little mini book reactions that I sometimes post is that they aren't in-depth reviews at all; they're just a few sentences about the aspects of the book that I reacted most strongly to (positive or negative). And that's how things happened to fall out with your book, but I did enjoy it greatly, and I'm glad to have read it. I learned a lot from it. And no author can hope to satisfy every reader in every way.

Thank you for stopping by to comment! Hopefully this makes you feel a little better about my criticisms. :)