On My Faithful Reading of the Sports Section

Readers of this blog may be surprised that I am a faithful reader of the Sports Section of the San Francisco Chronicle, my local newspaper. Until about a dozen years ago, I had no interest in this section, and only a very mild interest in following sports, such as those at my alma mater and those at my daughter’s alma mater. It turned out that my fair-weather fan interest in the San Francisco Giants baseball team – in other words, only when they were winning in the early 2010s – and later and more dramatically in the Golden State Warriors – when they started winning in 2014 – was what made the difference. In particular, I have become an enthusiastic fan of The Warriors, the NBA professional basketball team based in the San Francisco Bay Area. This was, initially, mostly the influence of my late husband, and we enjoyed watching games (on TV) together. I was hooked, and continue to watch quite faithfully. Of course it was exciting when they did so well, and won four championships in the past eight years. So although in the past I would pass the sports section to my husband, or if he was not there, sometimes just put it directly into the recycling pile (yes, I read the newspaper in old-fashioned print!), I now turn to it first (maybe after a quick glance at the headlines, which I return to later). I read about the Warriors in particular, but I find myself reading about other sports as well, even sports I dislike (American football!). I especially like the stories about the human interest side of sports, such as profiles of players, discussion of controversies, and columns on political and social aspects of sports. To tie this back to my general love of reading, especially novels, memoirs, and biographies: I see the same main thread of my interest in characters, plots, themes that sports stories share with fiction and memoir. They are all stories about people and life, and I never tire of those!

"By the Book" Column in The New York Times Sunday Book Review

I always thoroughly peruse The New York Times (Sunday) Book Review, and jot down titles that are reviewed there that I want to read, or at least to further investigate. One feature of the NYTBR that is always fun to read, and sometimes surprising, even provocative, is the column “By the Book,” in which an author or other prominent person (scientist, politician, actor, etc.) is interviewed about what she/he reads. Questions usually include, for example, “What books are on your nightstand?”, “What’s your favorite book no one else has heard of?”, “Which writers…working today do you admire most?” “How do you organize your books?”, and “Disappointing, overrated, just not good: What book did you feel as if you were supposed to like, and didn’t?” Naturally I tend to especially like reading the answers of authors that I like and whose work I have read. But I also enjoy pushing my own literary boundaries by reading the replies of authors whose work I have not read, or have read and not particularly liked. I also note the tone of the answers, which is sometimes enthusiastic, sometimes humorous, sometimes charming, sometimes self-deprecating, and sometimes critical and even a little cranky. No matter the tone or content, “By the Book” is consistently rewarding and entertaining.

My Increasing Allergy to Newspaper Ink

I have written here about my strong preference for print newspapers. I have subscribed to the San Francisco Chronicle for decades (and my family of origin subscribed to various newspapers during my childhood and teen years), and I love the ritual of finding it at our doorstep in the morning and reading it with my morning coffee. I also subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post online, and I skim those, but my most enjoyable newspaper habit is the in-print reading, separating out the sections, trading sections with my husband, and sometimes clipping articles for future reference. So it is unfortunate that over the past few years I have gradually been developing an increasing reaction to the ink used in printing the paper; it often makes me sneeze or sniffle. I don’t have any allergies otherwise, so it is a bit surprising to have this one. It only happens with newspaper print, not other printed matter, so I assume it is because of the fresh ink. My late father used to have “hay fever” (do people still use this term for allergies?) and this included being allergic to print papers as well as to various plants, grasses, and pollen. I remember that because of this allergy, he would hold the paper out quite far while reading, and now I find myself doing that as well. (OK, this is also partly because of my aging eyes!) But reading my morning print newspaper is too deeply ingrained, and too enjoyable, to give it up unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Of course there is also the very real danger that print newspapers are a dying breed, so maybe it will be a matter of a race to which happens first: newspapers stop print versions, or I can no longer tolerate the ink. I dread both, and will be very sad when either or both of these events happen.

Happy 125th Birthday, New York Times Book Review

The New York Times Book Review (NYTBR) is 125 years old this year. I have been reading it for decades, and it is an absolute essential in my life. Sadly, I don’t have time to read the paper version of the New York Times, although I do subscribe online and skim it, but I was excited, many years ago, to discover that one could subscribe separately to the NYTBR and have it delivered by mail. I read book reviews and stories about books and authors elsewhere as well: in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Post; in magazines such as the Atlantic, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Ms., the Nation, the Progressive, and Mother Jones; and on various online sites. (I used to subscribe to the New York Review of Books, but at a certain point I grew tired of it. I have occasionally subscribed for a year or two to the London Review of Books, the Threepenny Review, and other such publications, and enjoyed them but not enough to continue subscribing.) But the most focused, consistent source of reviews is the NYTBR. It comes weekly, and it is full of reviews as well as interesting features (e.g., “By the Book,” with its interviews of authors and others) that give booklovers an inside glimpse into the world of books and authors. When I receive my latest copy, and notice that it reviews a book by one of my favorite writers, or on a topic of interest to me, I get excited. Yes, I am a book nerd. But you knew that already. Naturally, like any periodical, the NYTBR has not gotten everything right. In a recent (2/26/21) NYT article, critic Parul Sehgal explores the archives, and finds numerous examples of racial and gender imbalance, stereotypes, and worse, especially far in the past, but even recently. For example, a survey of 2011 reviews showed that 90% of the 750 books reviewed were by White authors. Throughout the years, books by Black authors were often judged by different standards than those by White authors. Books by female authors were reviewed with condescension and double standards. There is also a history of negative reviews of books by queer authors, and/or with queer characters. These disparities and prejudices make me angry and upset. I can only take solace in the fact that more and more attention has been drawn to the disparities, not only at the NYTBR, but by publications and authors elsewhere, including in academe, and that awareness has led to change…still not enough, but tangible and increasing change that I have observed in my lifetime (and I have been observing closely and with strong feelings!). Despite everything, I treasure the NYTBR, and am grateful for all I have learned from it, and for all the enjoyment it has given me. Here’s to many many more years of reviews, features, and the ever-more-inclusive celebration of the world of books.

Please subscribe to progressive magazines!

This post is a plea to readers to support progressive magazines. Such magazines have always played an important role in providing readers with information not covered in major news sources, as well as perspectives not always well represented in those major news sources. Now we need this information and these perspectives more than ever. I have subscribed to The Nation, The Progressive, and Ms. magazines for decades, and recently (OK, immediately after the 2016 election) resubscribed – after a gap of some years – to Mother Jones. These are all invaluable resources. I also find important progressive writing in some more mainstream but still quite progressive magazines as The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Many of these magazines report strong upticks in subscriptions after the 2016 election, but they still need wider readership and wider support in order to continue to do their often groundbreaking investigative reports and other important stories. Maybe consider subscribing to one of the above magazines, or another progressive publication? And/or giving a gift subscription?

How I Read the Newspaper

In which order do you read the sections of a newspaper? I have noticed that different people read them in different orders. And over my years of faithful daily newspaper reading, I have found myself reading the paper in different orders. When I was a kid, I would go for the comics and then a cursory read of the headlines in the first section. As a teenager and young adult, I would dutifully read or at least skim the paper from front to back. (Apparently I was a nerd….) For a long time I would automatically dismiss the sports section from my reading, or at most glance at the front page of that section in years when local sports teams were doing well. Once a fellow passenger on a plane asked me for my copy of the newspaper (after I was clearly finished with it) but then his face fell with evident shock and disappointment when I told him he was welcome to it, but I had thrown away the sports section in the airport. Now that I have become an enthusiastic Golden State Warriors (basketball) fan, I actually start with the sports section (I know, I know…in the past I would have been shocked to read this sentence about myself!), then go to the Bay Area section, which has lots of local news and several excellent columns about politics and life. Then the Arts/Entertainment section, but read less thoroughly than in the past, and finally the front section, with its world and national news. Given that the front section reports on the most important news, why do I read that section last? Perhaps because the news is so often so grim? Actually the very last section I read, after the front section, is the Business section, and sometimes I put it in a pile to be read later. Of course all of this is becoming somewhat of a moot point, since fewer and fewer people read newspapers in print, and when people read online, I believe they read in a less linear fashion; I know I do, on the occasions that I read online. I still greatly prefer reading newspapers (and magazines, journals, and books, for that matter) in print; my husband and I linger a bit over the newspaper along with our morning coffee, exchanging sections as we go; it is our morning ritual. (He reads them in this order, usually: front section, sports section, Bay Area section, arts/entertainment section, and business section.) I know that this post “outs” (or confirms) me (and my husband) as old-fashioned, but I can live with that.

On Jane Austen's "Sanditon"

Regular readers of this blog will likely remember that I am a dedicated, devoted reader and admirer of Jane Austen’s fiction (along with millions of other readers, I know!). I have read and re-read (and listened and re-listened to, on tape and CD) her novels multiple times over the years; I have read some of her juvenilia (most notably “Love and Freindship” (sic); I have read other authors’ sequels and prequels of her novels; I have read many books about her, both biographies and literary criticism; I have taught her work several times in college Women’s Literature classes; and I made a pilgrimage to her beloved Chawton (where she lived and wrote for the last eight years of her life) and to Winchester Cathedral (where she was buried) about ten years ago. The novels I have read the fewest times are the unfinished ones: “Lady Susan (more or less unfinished); “The Watsons,” and “Sanditon.” These three have in general been rated as definitely worth reading but not at the same level as the six full-length novels. The current issue of The New Yorker (March 13, 2017) contains a fascinating essay by Anthony Lane in which he examines “Sanditon” in the context of its being written as Austen knew she was dying. Lane describes the novel as follows: “Although -- or precisely because – ‘Sanditon’ was composed by a dying woman, the result is robust, unsparing, and alert to all the latest fashions in human foolishness” (p. 77). He writes of her trademark puncturing of human pretensions, in this case largely about hypochondriacs; she writes, for just one example of her sharp and wonderfully worded appraisals, of “competing invalids.” But besides her depicting human frailties in her usual humorous but pointed way, in this book there is a different context: her own failing health as she was writing it. Lane calls “Sanditon” “a mortality tale,” and goes on to say that “Austen knew as well as anybody that, in the long run, hypochondriacs aren’t wrong. They’re just early. We will all die…. That certainty haunts the book, sharpens the pitch of its comedy, and sets it apart from her earlier works.” Lane’s reflections on “Sanditon” give me a new way to look at this unfinished novel, and I now feel the need to read it again. Parenthetically: Lane also reminds us that this summer will be the bicentenary of Austen’s death, on July 18th, 1817, at the age of 41. I look forward to the writings and events that will ensue.

Author Interviews on Fresh Air

On 3/2/10, I wrote about how much I love the NPR radio show, Fresh Air, with the gifted host and interviewer Terry Gross. I think it is time to write about the show’s interviews again. I enjoy the variety of interviews with politicians, journalists, scientists, musicians, artists, and others, but most of all I love the interviews with authors. Gross always chooses interesting and varied authors and books to discuss, and somehow knows exactly the right kinds of questions to ask, the kinds of questions we all have, or would have if we thought deeply about the topic. With these questions, and her follow-up questions, she unerringly elicits the most interesting answers, giving us glimpses into an author’s work as well as her/his life, experiences, and opinions. There is also a blessedly unrushed quality to these interviews. In recent months, for examples of these interviews, Gross (or occasionally her colleague Dave Davies) has interviewed authors Toni Morrison, Tessa Hadley, Gloria Steinem, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Rick Moody, Patti Smith, David Mitchell, and Elizabeth Strout, among others. I love encountering the interviews with authors whose work I know, but also enjoy those with authors who are new to me. A chance to hear these authors in person in an accessible way (because although there are live readings in bookstores, etc., which I also love, those happen much less frequently and involve much more commitment of time and scheduling) is invaluable. Fresh Air in general, and its author interviews in particular, offer truly intelligent radio, and are a joy to experience.

President Obama and Marilynne Robinson in Conversation

What an unexpected and enjoyable experience it was to read a two-part conversation in the New York Review of Books (NYR) (Nov. 5 and Nov. 19 issues) between President Obama and writer Marilynne Robinson! At first the idea of Obama and a writer sitting down for a conversation such as this one was surprising. But upon further thought, it made perfect sense. Not everybody reading this will agree with everything President Obama has said or done, and I don’t always agree with him, but I do consider him as a person and leader deeply concerned with moral issues. And Marilynne Robinson is known not only for her fine books but for their explorations of moral issues. Obama and Robinson had met before, and hit it off. At the beginning of the conversation, Obama says that he doesn’t often enough get a chance to sit down with someone he enjoys and is interested in, and “have a conversation with them about some of the broader cultural forces that shape our democracy and shape our ideas, and shape how we feel about citizenship and the direction our country should be going in.” He goes on to say how much he loves Robinson’s writings, starting with the novel “Gilead” and most recently the essay “Fear,” published in the NYR (Sept. 24, 2015), and collected in her new book of essays, “The Givenness of Things.” The conversation is wide-ranging, and includes discussion of, among other topics, Robinson’s background and values; her books and why and how she wrote them; the importance of books; faith; fear; education; government; the Midwest; Europe; the dangerous idea of “the sinister other”; and the gap between “goodness and decency and common sense on the ground, and…rigid, dogmatic, often mean-spirited politics” (Obama). It is a thoughtful conversation, and reminds us of Obama’s reflective side. For those who are interested in Robinson’s books: her best-known novels are “Housekeeping” (1980), “Gilead” (2004); “Home” (2008); and “Lila” (2014). I read and admired “Housekeeping” and thereafter seldom read Robinson because she only published nonfiction for over 20 years, but then she came out with the three other novels I just listed, which form a sort of trilogy. I posted here on “Lila” (2/23/15), which I found strikingly original and compelling, and which I highly recommend. To get back to the conversation between President Obama and Marilynne Robinson: New York magazine said it made them think that Obama’s post-presidency years were going to be very interesting, and I concur with that prediction.

Tribute to a Great Columnist: Jon Carroll

I will say this flat out: In my opinion, Jon Carroll is the best columnist writing today. He has been a San Francisco Chronicle columnist for 35 years, and I have been faithfully, enthusiastically, and joyfully reading his column all those years. The hard part is describing his column, because it is so various, and yet one always, always feels the presence of a thoughtful person behind the columns, no matter what the topic. He writes about politics, current events, literature, San Francisco, Oakland (where he lives), childhood, his family, music, theater, his cats, the small pleasures of life, and so much more. In all those years I can’t remember more than a handful of times that I haven’t found the column of interest. I am not a cat person, and used to skip the cat columns, but then I read some and enjoyed them, so after that I never skipped any of his columns, ever! There have been hundreds -- probably thousands -- of times when I have thoroughly enjoyed his column and learned from it. And among those hundreds of times, there have been dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of times that I felt the column was pure genius. Because of Carroll’s wide and deep knowledge of so many topics, his many years in journalism (he used to write for and edit several magazines, such as Rolling Stone and the Village Voice), his left-leaning but never polemical politics, his own experiences, his open-mindedness, his appreciation of life, his wisdom, his humor, his thoughtfulness, and of course his wonderful way with words, every column feels informed by all of who he is and what he knows and thinks and feels, and reading him is pure pleasure. Today, for example, he wrote about the great San Francisco Beat poet and founder of the famed City Lights bookstore, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, still going strong at age 95. Then Carroll wrote about his own love of poetry, and about poetry in general, with a few side trips along the way, ending by coming back to his tribute to Ferlinghetti; it was a rich, lovely tribute both to Ferlinghetti and to the appeal and joy of poetry. How he can consistently write so well, always with fresh and engaging and thought-provoking ideas and expressions, day after day (now four days a week, down from when he used to write five days a week) is amazing to me. In 2008, Carroll was given the prestigious Ernie Pyle Lifetime Achievement Award, an award given annually by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists. Thank you, Jon Carroll, for your wonderful columns over all these years, and may there be many, many more.

On Reading Book Reviews

I have written before about the many periodicals I read, and especially the book reviews I devour. I want to focus again here on how I relish magazines whose purpose is to write about books, and other magazines that include book reviews. In the former category, I subscribe to and read The New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books, the San Francisco Chronicle Books Section, The Women’s Review of Books, and the London Review of Books. I also read the book reviews in the New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Nation, The Progressive, Ms. Magazine, Vanity Fair, and occasionally other magazines. I thoroughly enjoy reading these. First and foremost, I learn about the newest books and get ideas about what to read next. Second, I learn about books that I don’t necessarily want to read myself, but I want to know something about. Third, I learn interesting things from the non-book-review sections of book review publications, such as the columns by authors, the debates, the bestseller lists, and other accompanying material; examples include The New York Times Book Review’s “Open Book,” “TBR: Inside the List,” “By the Book,” and “Bookends” columns. Fourth, and this is something more amorphous but important to me: Reading these publications and reviews makes me feel connected to the world of literature.

On grammar, punctuation, style, and versions of English

Readers may remember my occasionally writing about issues of grammar, punctuation, and style (see, for example, my posts of 10/16/10, 3/11/12, and 3/19/13). These are interests of mine, not only because I love to read, and read widely, but also because much of my professional/academic work is in language and linguistics. Two recent articles on related topics caught my eye. Mary Norris’s New Yorker article in the February 23 and March 2, 2015 issue, “Holy Writ,” is “personal history” about her years as copy editor for that magazine. Her first sentence, “I didn’t set out to be a comma queen,” caught my attention, and I was thoroughly drawn in by her story of her intertwined loves for New York City, The New Yorker, and grammar and style. She goes into particular detail about the role of commas, which to me is always a fascinating topic. (I am also way too fascinated by semi-colons. Am I a punctuation nerd?) The second article, a briefer one, is “Mind the Gap,” by Sophie Gilbert, in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic. This piece explores the decisions that magazines and newspapers with international editions and readerships are having to make regarding which brand of English to use: American or British. (I won't go into this now, but this dual choice begs the question of other versions of English around the world, known in my field as World Englishes.) The author starts by reminding us of various vocabulary terms that differ in these two versions of English, including some that can be embarrassing if used in contexts where others don’t understand them. One newspaper struggling with these differences is the Guardian, a (terrific, in my opinion, based on occasional reading it online, especially their literature pages) British newspaper that started an online version called Guardian US. Should editors enforce an “all British English” policy, or an “all American English” policy? Or neither? After much discussion, they chose to let American writers use American English, and British writers use British English, with exceptions for spellings of proper nouns, which must reflect the locale being written about (so, “no more Lincoln Centre or Labour Day”). The British magazine The Economist made a different decision. Although 52 percent of its circulation is American (a fact that surprised me), the magazine preserves all British spelling and usage, noting that American readers seem to enjoy that British quality in the magazine. I enjoyed hearing this latter detail, because it speaks to the existence of many American Anglophiles such as myself. (I come to my love of most things English – although I also have conflicted feelings about it because of colonial history – by way of my being born Canadian, growing up in barely postcolonial India, and reading scores of British novels over the years.) This issue of “which English” to use in international media is a perhaps small but certainly telling issue in the increasingly global world of many publications.

Women & Power & The New York Times Book Review

I felt a small jolt of joy when I saw the cover of the October 12, 2014 issue of the New York Times Book Review. An elaborate maze-style design included the titles of about 15 reviews of books authored by, and reviewed by, women. Readers would have to look carefully to see the small title at the top of the cover page, “Special Issue,” and to see that spelled out in stylized letters in the middle of the maze design were the words “Women & Power.” There are many studies, including those by the wonderful organization Vida, that show that books by women are under-reviewed, and that reviewers are more often men than women. There are also controversies about whether having special issues about women marginalizes them, especially if the rest of the time the problem continues. I am not going to address those issues now (I have addressed them in the past, and I am sure I will in the future), but now I just want to say how happy I felt to see this issue, a Christmas-morning-I-can’t-wait-to-open-the-gifts feeling. And what riches the special issue contains! My only personal regret is that most of the books reviewed are nonfiction rather than fiction. But that makes sense in an issue about “Women & Power”; although fiction also often addresses this issue, it generally does so less directly. The books reviewed include titles by Caitlin Moran, Katha Pollitt, Gail Sheehy, Lena Dunham, Kirsten Gillibrand, Rebecca Makkai (“The Hundred Year House,” which I wrote about here on 8/31/14), and the wonderful Roxanne Gay (whose book “Bad Feminist” I will post on in a few days). The one book by a male author (Jonathan Eig) is included, I assume, because his topic and title are “The Birth of the Pill.” Reviewers and columnists include Meghan Daum, Sloane Crosley, Kimberle Crenshaw (the law professor who first wrote about intersectionality), and Cheryl Strayed. It is sad that we still need special issues on women writers and women’s issues, but since we do, I always appreciate, value, enjoy, and learn from them.

Love in the New York Times Book Review

Today’s New York Times Book Review, in a delightful special Valentine’s Day issue, focuses on the topic of love. There are several reviews of books about, or highlighting, love, romance, sex, marriage and related topics. Special features include a “roundup” in which “writers share the books that taught them about love”; contributors to this roundup include Hilary Mantel, Colm Toibin, Ann Patchett, Khaled Hosseini, Charles Baxter, and Ruth Ozeki. Then there are two brief “Bookends” essays, by Francine Prose and Dana Stevens, on the question “How does literature’s classic marriage plot stand up in 2014?” All in all, this issue is a treat.

In Appreciation of Book-Related Periodicals

Although I mainly write in this blog about books, and especially novels, I have also written here about some of my favorite periodicals, and about specific stories and articles in those magazines and newspapers. Today I want to emphasize how much I rely on those publications – such as The New Yorker, The New York Times Book Review, The San Francisco Chronicle Book Review, The New York Review of Books, The Women’s Review of Books, The Atlantic, Ms., The Nation, Threepenny Review, New York, Vanity Fair, The Progressive, and more – for book reviews, for new short stories, and for articles about authors and other literary topics. Some very recent examples of such articles – the kind that I light up when I see the titles of – are as follows. First, The New York Times (3/22/13) had a very interesting story on the upcoming publication of “The Selected Letters of Willa Cather,” which will include 566 letters from various archives; this is a major event for Willa Cather scholars and readers. I have written here about my love for Cather’s novels, most especially “My Antonia,” which I have also taught several times. Second, the most recent The New York Review of Books (4/25/13) includes a review essay on two new books about Margaret Fuller. Of course I knew of Fuller’s life and work, but this essay reminded me of what a tremendous pioneer she was for women, especially literary women. She was a passionate advocate for women’s rights, including in her groundbreaking book, “Women in the Nineteenth Century”; “the leading female figure in…transcendentalism”; editor of the first avant-garde intellectual magazine in America, The Dial; and the first regular foreign correspondent, male or female, for an American newspaper. Third and fourth, This week’s New Yorker (4/15/13) includes a fascinating profile of the “writer’s writer” James Salter, speculating on why Salter is not more famous, and a detailed article about the life and important revolutionary feminist work of Shulamith Firestone, who died last year in heartbreaking circumstances (see my post of 8/30/12). Each one of these articles taught me something new and has provided me with a window into the work and lives of writers that are important to the world of literature and beyond, and to me personally.

Happy 40th, Ms. Magazine!

I have written about how important Ms. Magazine is to me (2/19/10). The current issue (Fall 2012) of Ms. celebrates 40 years of publication. The magazine has gone through various changes over the years, but from the beginning, it has been inspirational, informative, and most of all, feminist. This issue includes letters from readers who have been inspired and influenced by Ms. over the years; some feel Ms. changed their lives. I have been subscribing to and reading Ms. since the beginning, and it has meant a lot to me. I was surprisingly moved to see my name on a list of Ms. supporters published in the current issue. It made me feel part of a community of feminists who have supported not only Ms. but the causes it represents. I have been a feminist since the early days of the second wave women's liberation movement in the heady 1970s; I have woven my feminism into my life and my teaching all these years; feminism continues to be extremely important to me. I thank Ms., once again, for its influential and important part in the movement, and for being there for so many women over these 40 years.

Saving Newspapers While Away From Home

I have written more than once about how much I love reading the newspaper, the physical newspaper (online only in a pinch or for updates on urgent news). The main newspaper I read, as a San Francisco Bay Area resident, is the San Francisco Chronicle, which I have subscribed to for many, many years. My day doesn't feel complete unless I have read the Chronicle. (I also, supplementarily, intermittently read the New York Times on paper and online, and have subscribed for years to the New York Times book review.) When I travel, I always ask my husband to save the newspaper while I am gone. If we both go, I ask someone else to pick it up and save it for us, or ask the Chronicle to hold and then deliver all copies. Of course when I get back, it takes a while -- usually gradually over a period of a few days -- to work through the pile of back copies. For example, I got back from a five day conference trip to Seattle this past Monday, and only this morning finished plowing through the backlog of Chronicles. And I do skim through them faster than I would normally. I have had some friendly ribbing about this from various family members and friends, but I can't, and don't see any reason to, change this habit. (At least one of my brothers does the same...). Even if I have read local papers at the place I am visiting, or the New York Times, while I was gone, I want to catch up on state and local news, my favorite columnists, and more. I guess I am one of a diminishing tribe of addicted readers of the old-fashioned paper newspaper...and proud of it!

Hilary Mantel in The New Yorker

The New Yorker comes through again! I have said this several times over the years, but I am so grateful for the great articles in The New Yorker, especially those about writers, books, and related literary topics. In this week's (10/15/12) issue, there is a terrific profile of the author Hilary Mantel, written by Larissa MacFarquhar. Titled "The Dead are Real: The Imagination of Hilary Mantel," this 11-page article details Mantel's difficult life, her discovery of her love of historical fiction (NOT, emphatically, "historical romance"), and the intriguing contrasts between her contemporary novels and her historical novels. The former are bleak; the latter are full of life and richly reflect her love of the eighteenth century, and then of the era of Henry VIII. Her most well-known and well-received book, and the one she herself says is her best, is "Wolf Hall," about Thomas Cromwell, an advisor to King Henry VIII. "I knew from the first paragraph that this was going to be the best thing I'd ever done," she says. Personally I greatly admire her work, yet have trouble getting into it. I read a couple of her contemporary works, but they are so pessimistic, so savage, that I can't read any more of them. I also am not generally drawn to historical novels, even ones that are as highly acclaimed as "Wolf Hall," so I have not read it. Yet. After reading this article, I am tempted to read the novel. This profile of Mantel is riveting, and I am appreciative once again of the New Yorker's giving readers such well-written, compelling articles on writers and literature.

Rediscovering The New York Review of Books

Many years ago, I subscribed to The New York Review of Books. I enjoyed it, and learned from it, but the review essays were so long and dense that I would sometimes put off reading them, and the copies would pile up to a point that they felt oppressive and made me feel guilty. And I was reading so many other periodicals. So I somewhat reluctantly but realistically stopped subscribing, and have picked the periodical up only occasionally since then. Until… A couple of weeks ago in an independent bookstore, I saw the NYR for sale; something drew me to it and on a whim, I picked up a copy. A couple of days later, I started reading it and found almost every review/essay absorbing and well written. Some standouts were a poignant essay by Jerome Groopman about a boy who died partly because of his doctors’ mistakes; E. L. Doctorow’s beautiful essay about Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying,” which rekindled the feelings I had when I read this novel in college; W. S. Merwin’s “Poem for Adrienne Rich,” which brought tears to my eyes as I continue to mourn this great poet and feminist; an Anthony Grafton review of Andrew Delbanco’s “College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be”; Joyce Carol Oates on Jeanette Winterson’s new memoir; Darryl Pinckney on post-blackness; Nadine Gordimer on current South Africa; and Garry Wills on the implacable hatred between Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedy (as portrayed in Robert Caro’s fourth volume of his Johnson biography). And these were only the highlights. What a rich array of topics, well-known writers, and important books reviewed. I was reminded of how the NYR consistently commissions some of the best writers alive to write essays that are far more than simply book reviews; thus readers learn so much from the review essays, and have the added pleasure of the high-quality writing. I was bedazzled all over again! Then, serendipitously, a day later I saw in The Nation magazine an ad for a very reduced cost trial subscription to the NYR. This confluence of events seemed to be a sign; it seemed it was meant to be that I subscribe again, after all these years. And so I did.

My Towering Magazine Pile

Once again, my magazines waiting to be read have multiplied. After being away for about ten days last month for academic conferences, I returned to an alarming build-up of magazines, which I am now trying to work my way through. Below is a list of the magazines I currently subscribe to. There have been others I have subscribed to over the years, but this is the list I have winnowed my subscriptions down to. (This does not include the many academic journals to which I have subscriptions, or magazines that are sent to me because I belong to certain organizations.) I have written in this blog about several of these magazines, and about articles or essays or reviews in them. The magazines are: The Atlantic, Ms., The Nation, New York, New York Times Book Review, The New Yorker, The Progressive, San Francisco, The Threepenny Review, Vanity Fair, The Women’s Review of Books.