Year: 2012

  • César Aira: The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira

    César Aira: The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira

    The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira
    by César Aira (Curas milagrosas del Doctor Aira, 1998)
    translated from the Spanish by Katherine Silver (2012)
    New Directions (2012)
    88 pp

    It’s today, that day when a new Aira hits the shelves! In their ongoing committment to publish one or two Airas each year, New Directions has now provided us with one I’ve been looking forward to for some time: The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira. I first heard about this one when I had lunch with New Directions’ Barbara Epler and Laurie Callahan. Laurie said it was one of her favorites.

    But, as much as I loved it, I don’t think The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira is a good jumping-off point for someone new to Aira. All of Aira’s short books are loads of fun, but sometimes that fun is had because you see how Aira is playing games that relate to books he’s already written. I think that’s the case here. If you love Aira, you’ll appreciate the fun going on here; if you don’t know him, you may actually be turned off, so strange is the meta-dialogue, and that would be a real shame. Then again, I say that as a devoted fan who doesn’t know how this book would read if I didn’t know Aira. Anyway, if you don’t know Aira, you owe it to yourself to read him, wherever you start.

    I think in each of the reviews I’ve written about Aira, I’ve mentioned his writing technique. I’ll briefly mention it here again. Aira sits down everyday in one of the local cafés and writes a page and a half. When he’s done, he leaves, and his project the next day is to write another page and a half while attempting to find his way out of any problems he created for himself the day before. He claims he never revises. Also, and this is extremely interesting to me, he will place in his writing things that are going on around him in the café. For example, he tells of one instance when a bird flew in, and that bird found its way into his story: “Even if a priori it doesn’t relate to anything, a posteriori I make it relate.” What we get, then, is a book that can go anywhere. Fortunately, Aira sets himself up the task of making things fit and relate, so this isn’t just a random assortment from a mad mind. Aira trusts us as readers to go along on these experiments with him, and it pays off, so we trust him too.

    All that said, The Miracle Cures of Dr. Aira is, for me, one of his simpler books in terms of plot. We meet Dr. Aira when he finds himself waking up on an uknown street. He suffers from somnambulism, so this isn’t unheard of, as disorienting as it continues to be. He continues walking, reflecting on his blunders and the fear of future blunders.

    Time lifted him out of the shame of the past . . . It had already done so; it had already carried him into the present. Such blunders were cessations of time, where everything coagulated. They were mere memories, stored away in the most impregnable of safe boxes, one no stranger could open.

    He is highly cautious. He doesn’t like making these blunders. Unfortunately for him, he has a nemesis named Actyn whose sole purpose in life is to expose Dr. Aira, a miracle worker, as a fraud. Actyn goes to all ends to do this. He’ll hire a large staff of actors, enact an elaborate death scene, all to get Dr. Aira to fail on camera. Dr. Aira is, consequently, suspicious of anyone’s request for a miracle cure, going so far as to walk away at the patient’s last breath when all physical signs say that person really is dying and then dead. He feels a mixture of shame and vindication when the dead person whispers “jackass” to him as he walks away.

    To avoid getting caught by Actyn, Dr. Aira performs no miracle cures. In fact, he has never done one. It’s all theory, and he guards it so closely nothing can prove it wrong. Here is an example of how he reconciles this in his mind:

    What he imagined was the existence of a unique pair of truly “magic gloves,” made out of thick red leather with angora fur lining — hence very thick — that would have the property of giving the hands that wore them (but only while they were wearing them) the sublime piano-playing virtuosity of an Arrau or an Argerich . . . but they would be useless because one obviously cannot play the piano wearing gloves, and less so with such uncomfortable polar gloves. Hence, their miraculous charm would never coincide with any proof, and the underlying theory would be left untouched. Only by dint of useless miracles could one prevent a theory from degenerating into a dogma.

    I love Aira.

    The middle part of the novel is a rather extensive explanation of how Dr. Aira performs (or would perform) his miracle cures. In essence he creates miracles “indirectly indirectly, through negation, by excluding from the world everything that was incongruent with it occurring. If one wanted a dog to fly, all one had to do was separate out each and every fact, without exception, that was incompatible with a flying dog.” In the final part of the novel Dr. Aira finally agrees to perform a miracle, and it results in both success and disaster.

    It’s very clever and a lot of fun, just on a surface level. But where it really starts paying of is when, as I mentioned above, we see how this relates to his other works and to the aesthetic theories he performs in each book. Dr. Aira is Aira; the miracle theories relate to Aira’s aesthetic theories. Obviously, the miracles themselves are Aira’s books.

  • Callan Wink: “Breatharians”

    Callan Wink: “Breatharians”

    "Breatharians"
    by Callan Wink
    Originally published in the October 22, 2012 issue of The New Yorker.

    I really enjoyed Callan Wink’s The New Yorker debut last year, and am excited to see where this University of Wyoming MFA student (who calls himself a “fly fishing guide in real life”) goes. If this story is any indication, it’s going to get dark.

    “Breatharians” is a tightly structured, complex story, impressive for so young a writer. Here’s how it begins:

    There were cats in the barn. Litters begetting litters begetting litters — some thin or misshapen with the afflictions of blood too many times remixed.

    “Get rid of the damn things,” August’s father said. “The haymow smells like piss. Take a tire iron or a shovel or whatever tool suits you. You’ve been after me for school money? I’ll give you a dollar a tail. You have your jackknife sharp? You take their tails and pound them to a board, and then after a few days we’ll have a settling up. Small tales worth as much as large tails, it’s all the same.”

    August goes out to find his tool and dreams of the possibilities: “He could earn fifty dollars at least, maybe seventy-five, possibly even a hundred if he was able to track down the newborn litters.” I found this highly — refreshingly — disturbing. It all made me suitably uncomfortable.

    Of course, after killing three cats quickly, the others shy well away from August. He realizes the job is going to be more difficult than he thought. This line of the narrative moves to the background as we learn more about August’s family. His mother tells him he can say no to his father: “That’s the kind of work you stand a chance of bringing home with you, if you know what I mean.” But his mother doesn’t put up that much of a fuss. She’s distanced herself, figuratively and literally. One night, after a fight with his father, she moved back to the old house on the property. His father lives in the new, and staying longer and longer, is the young woman who’s come to work at the farm. There was a time, not too long ago, when things were different. August’s parents lived together in the new house, and August’s dog — given to him as a puppy when August was born — was still alive. Only recently August “realized, for the first time, that all of his life up to this very point existed only in the past, which meant that it didn’t exist at all, not really.”

    August’s parents will never get back together. We know this. His father is sleeping with the young girl; more and more she’s moving in. His mom, though she grew up on the farm in that old house, wants more for her son. She is a bit strange, proclaiming early in the story that she has successfully become a breatharian, “an inediate,” “an air eater,” a “sky swallower” or “ether ingestor.” She says, “You can attune your mind and your body, Augie. Perfectly attune them by healthy living and meditation, so that you completely lose the food requirement. [. . .] I’m talking about getting to the point where all you have to do is breathe the air and you’re satisfied.” But none of these characters, other than, perhaps, the cats (who are certainly not breatharians), is satisfied, and each has forces pulling him or her in opposite directions.

    There are many threads to follow in this story, not the least of which is the food. These characters, other than the mother, eat often. The dog died because it ingested antifreeze, and just how are so many cats surviving in the barn? And how does this come back around to the family? And then to the cat massacre? Much to consider.

    One thing I might mention: before I posted my thoughts on this story, I received a number of emails from people excited about Callan Wink, wondering if I had any way of reaching out to him to tell him they appreciate his work. I don’t and haven’t looked into it. I am happy to know, though, that there are several out there who are excited about this young author and look forward to more of his work.

    Not all are fans, though, which is fine, but in this case their reasoning is way off. I notice that others who have posted their thoughts on other blogs are getting a few comments from people horrified that this story features the murder of cats. There is much more to this story and in no way does this story — or its proponents — suggest there is joy to be had in killing innocent animals. What a knee-jerk reaction. What narrow vision. If I and other bloggers are getting emails and comments about how awful this story is, I’m sure Mr. Wink is too. I hope he doesn’t pay their criticisms any heed and continues to put out challenging, disturbing work.

  • 2012 Nobel Prize Winner

    2012 Nobel Prize Winner

    This morning it was announced that Chinese author Mo Yan won the 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature. He is the first Chinese author to win. Here is the citation:

    Through a mixture of fantasy and reality, historical and social perspectives, Mo Yan has created a world reminiscent in its complexity of those in the writings of William Faulkner and Gabriel García Márquez, at the same time finding a departure point in old Chinese literature and in oral tradition.

    I myself have never read any of his work, but it does sound interesting.

    For more information, I suggest following M.A. Orthofer’s coverage at The Complete Review. He will be updating this post throughout the day.

  • 2012 National Book Award Finalists

    2012 National Book Award Finalists

    They announced the finalists this morning. The winner will be announced on Wednesday, November 14.

    Fiction:

    • This Is How You Lose Her, by Junot Díaz
    • A Hologram for the King, by Dave Eggers
    • The Round House, by Louise Erdrich
    • Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain
    • The Yellow Birds, by Kevin Powers

    Nonfiction:

    • Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944 – 1956, by Anne Applebaum
    • Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in Mumbai Undercity, by Katherine Boo
    • The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon B. Johnson, Vol. 4, by Robert A. Caro
    • The Boy Kings of Texas, by Domingo Martinez
    • House of Stone: A Memoir of Home, Family, and a Lost Middle East, by Anthony Shadid

    Poetry:

    • Bewilderment: New Poems and Translations, by David Ferry
    • Heavenly Bodies, by Cynthia Huntington
    • Fast Animal, by Tim Seibles
    • Night of the Republic, by Alan Shapiro
    • Meme, by Susan Wheeler

    Young People’s Literature:

    • Goblin Secrets, by William Alexander
    • Out of Reach, by Carrie Arcos
    • Never Fall Down, by Patricia McCormick
    • Endangered, by Eliot Schrefer
    • Bomb: The Race to Build — and Steal — the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin
  • George Saunders: “The Semplica-Girl Diaries”

    George Saunders: “The Semplica-Girl Diaries”

    "The Semplica-Girl Diaries"
    by George Saunders
    Originally published in the October 15, 2012 issue of The New Yorker.

    I haven’t been as impressed with George Saunders the last few years as I used to be, but I still get a bit excited when I see he has a new story out. Sadly, this one only served to strengthen my view that this short story writer is all style (and that’s getting old) and no substance.

    Take a look at the first few sentences, which place us firmly on ground Saunders has mapped out time and time again. His style: to be quirky, to cut out subjects and articles, to show a type of precision about character by having that character write with a lack of precision.

    Having just turned forty, have resolved to embark on grand project of writing every day in this new black book just got at OfficeMax. Exciting to think how in one year, at rate of one page/day, will have written three hundred and sixty-five pages, and what a picture of life and times then available for kids & grandkids, even greatgrandkids, whoever, all are welcome (!) to see how life really was/is now. Because what do we know of other times really?

    I was already annoyed by this point, but I believe I managed to sit back, to stop allowing my response to some of his other stories cloud my response to this one. So, I quickly learned that our narrator/writer is a man who has just turned forty. He has a wife (Pam), two daughters (Lilly and Eva), and a son (Thomas). They are not that well off, at least compared to others. They drive an old Park Avenue (“Note to future generations: Park Avenue = type of car. Ours not new. Our oldish. Bit rusty”), and in the second journal entry we learn its bumper fell off. Worse, the next day they go to a “very depressing” birthday party for Leslie Torrini, Lilly’s friend. The Torrinis are very wealthy and their home showcases a kind of rampant materialism Saunders often takes apart. Naturally, the narrator and his family feel outclassed, particularly when they see the wondrous SG arrangement in the beautiful yard:

    In front of house, on sweeping lawn, largest SG arrangement ever seen, all in white, white smocks blowing in breeze, and Lilly says, Can we go closer?

    Leslie Torrini: We can but we don’t, usually.

    Leslie’s mother, dressed in Indonesian sarong: We don’t, as we already have, many times, dear, but you perhaps would like to? Perhaps this is all very new and exciting to you?

    Lilly, shyly: It is, yes.

    Leslie’s mom: Please, go, enjoy.

    Lilly races away.

    Leslie’s mom, to Eva: And you, dear?

    Eva stands timidly against my leg, shakes head no.

    We’ll get into the SG arrangement momentarily. The next part of the story doesn’t deal with them but rather with the narrator’s parental guilt. It’s Lilly’s birthday in two weeks, and they are maxed out on all of their credit cards. How can they get her anything? Particularly the things she wants most, which are around $200 or $300? Honestly, this section again felt like a retread on very familiar ground without a single new hill or hole to explore. Here is a relatively poor man in financial straits trying not to let that destroy his children, their sense of self-worth, and what a warped world we live in where that sense of self-worth is so connected to materialism. It completely lacks nuance that this subject deserves.

    Their troubles appear to be washed away, though. The narrator wins the lottery! With the new $10,000 he can buy Leslie the birthday present she wants and also make improvements on the yard so they can throw her a proper party (“Do not need to even write down, as will never forget this awesome day! But will record for future generations. Nice for them to know that good luck and happiness real and possible! In America of my time, want them to know, anything possible!”). Part of the yard improvement, their own arrangement of SGs.

    So what are these SGs? They are the Semplica Girls. A Mr. Semplica developed a method where you can drill a hole in the sides of someone’s head and insert “microline” — then hang them up.

    SGs up now, approx. three feet off ground, smiling, swaying in slight breeze. Order, left to right: Tami (Laos), Gwen (Moldova), Lisa (Somalia), Betty (Philipines). Effect amazing. Having so often seen similar configuration in yards of others more affluent makes own yard seem suddenly affluent, you feel different about self, as if at last in step with peers and time in which living.

    Obviously, this culture is blinded by the horror. Obviously they excuse this by saying that the girls were worse off at home and that it was their own choice. Obviously not quite everyone buys this (Eva, for example), but they are looked at as radicals who don’t know what’s good for these girls. The concept of stringing up living girls with a rope through their head is original, but everything that Saunders is saying here otherwise is frustratingly clichéd.

    It’s sad because often Saunders has been able to mix some bizarre concept with something completely familiar and then come up with a new, original perspective. It seems that quirkiness is the goal now, however, and that any examination of our society is going to be rote.

    But this isn’t his goal. In his interview with Deborah Treisman (here), Treisman says, “I hat to be so black-and-white about your work, but it’s easy to read the SGs as a metaphor for all the underprivileged immigrants and refugees who come to this country and work menial jobs in order to survive and support families back home. Was that at least part of what you wanted to explore here?” Well, it is black-and-white, and Saunders isn’t so much exploring it as just banging us on the heads with it. But here’s his answer (a portion of it, anyway; he gets very long-winded in these interviews):

    Sure, yes, I think anybody would have that interpretation of it. The minute I woke up [he dreamt about the SGs], I knew that the women in the yard were symbols for, you know, “the oppressed,” and that the whole story, as I was imagining it at that moment, would be “about” the way that people of means use and abuse people without. So that was the danger — that the story might turn out to be (merely) about that. In which case, who needs it, you know? If the only thing the story did was say, “Hey, it’s really wrong to hang up living women in your backyards, you capitalist-pig oppressors,” that wasn’t going to be enough. We kind of know that already. It had to be about that plus something else.

    His answer goes on to tell us what else this story is about, and . . . sure . . . it isn’t just about these girls. We have materialism and parental guilt, we have Eva’s sympathy toward the SGs, we have the idea that society is blind to horror if everyone else is doing it. But, well, “we kind of know that already.” Adding together a bunch of things we already know, using cardboard characters whose main difference from every other character of this type is that they don’t write in complete sentences, does not magically make something new. Maybe it’s a phase I’m going through since, as different as the works are, I have many of the same criticisms of Alix Ohlin’s Inside, which I just reviewed here last week.

    At any rate, it’s nice to know from the interview that Saunders is aware that a quirky (I can no longer say “clever”) concept plus unnuanced social commentary is not enough, but he didn’t succeed to doing anything more here.

  • Alix Ohlin: Inside

    Alix Ohlin: Inside

    Inside
    by Alix Ohlin (2012)
    Knopf (2012)
    258 pp

    Over the past month, Kevin, Kim, and Alison, my fellow Shadow Giller jurors, have been going through the books nominated for this year’s Giller Prize, and I was waiting for the shortlist announcement that came on Monday. It’s finally time I start digging into the Giller Prize shortlist! I do so by reading the only shortlistee that is currently available in the United States, Alix Ohlin’s already-much-talked-about (notoriously) Inside.

    I’ll cut to the chase: this is not my kind of book. It looked like it could have been. After all, a review in The Globe and Mail brought up Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman (here), two of my favorite auteurs whose movies I watch several times a year, but when reading Inside I saw none of that (I mean, not a bit). I started to actively dislike this book early on, so read this review with a grain of salt. Many others really liked it (though, as is well known, not everyone (here)). For example, The Boston Globe has almost the exact opposite view of its characters from me: “keenly observed [. . .] characters so idiosyncratic, ambivalent, and contradictory they could be your family, your neighbors, people you work with” (here). And it is the only Canadian book to find itself on the Giller Prize shortlist and on the Writers’ Trust shortlist. For me, Inside started out well enough but quickly descended into one of those loosely structured montages of people in pain, and we’ve already seen these people and that structure many many times over the years. Inside adds nothing new.

    The book opens in Montreal in 1996. Grace Tomlinson is out cross-country skiing one evening when she literally runs into a man who has just tried to hang himself. “Everything will be alright,” she says after she’s called for help. Up to this point he’s been unresponsive, but at that moment he sighs. Grace accompanies the man to the hospital. He doesn’t like her intervention, though he uses her to get out of further questioning from the doctors: “We were skiing together and I told her I was going to kill myself and went off in a different direction. I said I had the rope with me and was going to do it immediately. I took her nine minutes to decide to come after me. Nine minutes! Can you believe that? I timed her.” His name is John Tugwell, and he goes by Tug. By this time we’ve learned that Grace is a therapist, and, going along with his ruse, she can’t leave Tug alone until she’s sure he won’t try to kill himself again. Grace and Tug occupy one thread of the story.

    The second thread is only slightly attached to the first. One of Grace’s patients in 1996 is Annie, a young girl who has no sense of self-worth and who cuts herself. In a novel about what’s “inside,” I was surprised that Grace’s first thoughts while she talked to Annie were nevertheless focused on Annie’s potential beauty outside.

    The girl wasn’t beautiful yet, but she was going to be. She hadn’t grown into herself or into her body. Her features loomed too large on her face, and blue veins showed through her translucent skin at her temples and chin. Her dirty-blond hair hung thin and lank to her shoulders, and her forehead was covered with small red pimples. In a few years, Grace could imagine, when Annie was taller and learned to sit up straight, when her body grew curves to match her face, she would look like the movie star she so desperately wanted to be.

    Now, to be fair, Grace also mentions other reasons Annie might feel better about herself; Annie “got good grades, participated in extracurricular activities, had friends and family who cared for her.” And, when we next meet Annie, it is 2002 in New York, and she’s become that beautiful girl, an aspiring actress who ran away from home and is now trying to make a living without being a cliché (too late!). I understand that on some level the point here is that Annie (or, Anne, as she becomes known when she leaves home) sees her beauty as her main tool rather than any interior qualities she may possess, and that then gets exploited by television, but that all gets a bit muddied as the book goes on and other threads develop in their various directions and to their various points where “inside” means many different things.

    In the third thread we are in 2006, and we officially meet Mitch, Grace’s ex-husband, and a fellow therapist. Their marriage began to fall apart when she caught him masturbating to a porn magazine. In that passage we get the first of a long series of unnatural yet still somehow clichéd quips where it seems Ohlin is speaking and not the character: Mitch retorts, “No. The most disturbing part is that I feel more emotionally connected to the girls in those pictures than I do to you.” It’s a therapist’s line, but is it really what Mitch would say? Furthermore, the Mitch we come to know doesn’t seem suited to say such a line, even if it were true. He’s not that in to analyzing himself, see, and he’s constantly avoiding situations where his self-loathing might get the better of him. In 2006, it’s been over a decade since the divorce, and Mitch and we see many more reasons why Mitch despises himself. Avoidance being his main game, he has just run away from a relatively good relationship with Martine under the pretext of going to help the Inuit people in Iqaluit, above the Arctic Circle: “They don’t have enough health care up there to serve the native population,” he said. “They need help. They need me.” This avoidance strategy leads to another of the many tragedies in the book when one of his young patients commits suicide.

    I have read this before, many many times, done both better and worse: Grace, the therapist who seemingly has it altogether in the chair but whose private life is a mess (and here we get a bonus: Mitch, a second cliché therapist); Anne, the aspiring actress with the shaky past who distances herself from others and uses beauty to survive; Tug, the man with a hard surface but, as we see thanks to Grace’s perseverance, it turns out he became that way due to the atrocities he witnessed in Rwanda; oh, and Tug calls Grace “Florence Nightingale” — since there’s a syndrome named just that we know where this is going. These characters have been through it all, and — consequently? — sound like many other characters we encounter in “poignant” contemporary fiction.

    Besides the re-wrapped characters, the need to be “poignant” — or, at least, the way Inside goes about it — really began to irk me. The book throws a lot at us — death (multiple), rape (multiple), suicide (multiple), teenage pregnancy (multiple), car wreck (multiple) — but it seems to me that the book assumes the mere presence of these genuinely horrific realities of human existence is enough to prop this book up as an important piece of collective introspection; just put this in the book and you’ve successfully incorporated pain and suffering by reference. In contrast, look at Alice Munro, who most often deals with a significant “event” in one sentence and then manages to deal — with language and structure — with what’s really going on inside, complete with nuance and enough poignancy to make the reader sit in silence for the rest of the day. In Inside, the event itself is meant to signify importance. Now, it’s not that these events are not important, significant, poignant in real life or that they shouldn’t be examined in literature. On the contrary. But to me, when fiction presents them as stand-alone evidence of importance I sniff exploitation and manipulation. I know that’s not the intent here, but when this is the technique it is hard to avoid. It got worse when it felt to me like the characters started serving the loose plot, which became more and more deliberate in its attempts to make the reader gasp (I can think of no other reason Anne’s thread was kept in the final draft). Fiction must do more.

    Of course, Inside attempts to do more. The message is meaningful, if again a well worn: “Life is painful — and beautiful.” It goes about this by presenting the painful moments people keep secretly locked inside of them. Sadly, so pleased is it by its artificial poignancy, so reliant is it on its stock characters, it fails to get past the surface.

  • Richard Beard: Lazarus Is Dead

    Richard Beard: Lazarus Is Dead

    Lazarus Is Dead
    by Richard Beard (2011)
    Europa Editions (2012)
    272 pp

    Late last year I saw a review for Richard Beard’s Lazarus Is Dead on John Self’s blog. John was surprised to find this book quickly become one of his favorites of the year. Knowing only what is recorded in the book of John, I was curious about a book focused on Lazarus, however it portrayed him. Consequently, I was thrilled to see Europa Editions publish the book here in the United States.

    And I’ll second John (the blogger John, in this instance): this is a surprising book, and one of my favorites of the year. I think I expected some kind of spoof or anti-religious statement (“Lazarus is dead.”), and that’s absolutely not what this is (rather, I found it completely respectful of its biblical source, and I say that as a religious person). Or perhaps, if not a spoof, I expected some kind of interrogation into the life and death and life of Lazarus, and that’s only partially what this is. Mixed here are fiction, biography, scripture, art and literary history, peppered with humor — all coming together to form an interrogation on the nature of story-telling and authority. For me it is all of these things and an interesting story in and of itself.

    A fan of the Oulipo (a group of authors who set up structural constrictions — sometimes simple, like retelling a simple event 99 times in a variety of styles, as Raymond Queneau did in Elements of Style; sometimes elaborate, like writing a whole book without ever using the letter “e,” as Georges Perec did in A Void— and then create a literary work within that frame), Richard Beard has set up his own structure here. The first section is “7,” and it contains seven subsections; the next is 6, with six subsections, and so on, each section representing one of Jesus’ seven miracles recounted in the Gospel of John (and bringing Lazarus visibly closer to death), until we get to 0 and begin counting back up to seven, bringing the book closer to Jesus’ own death and resurrection.

    In the first half of the book, as we circle closer and closer to death, we learn about the past Jesus and Lazarus share. Beard posits, and presents as narrative fact (though fully aware that his standing is just as firm as any of a number of other guesses), that Jesus and Lazarus were friends from birth. Both were born in Bethlehem, under that star. When Joseph learned of Herod’s plot to kill all of the male children, Joseph told Lazarus’s father, so both families escaped to Egypt and eventually came back to settle in Nazareth (so, as surely as we have Jesus of Nazareth, we also have Lazarus of Nazareth). But then, what was once a firm friendship between Jesus and Lazarus begins to crumble, and Lazarus, wanting to get away from the small-town life, moved away to Bethany, a village just outside of Jerusalem, to sell sacrificial lambs to patrons of the Temple.

    Well, now Jesus is back in his life, though they don’t visit one another. Lazarus hears that Jesus has turned water into wine at some wedding in Cana, and Lazarus begins to get sick. It’s a minor miracle, and most don’t believe it anyway; nevertheless, it has caught the attention of both the Sanhedrin and the Romans. A Messiah is most inconvenient. Lazarus feels it too: besides getting more and more sick with each miracle Jesus performs, his livelihood is threatened when people seek Jesus for healing rather than going the more traditional route of purchasing a pure lamb and sacrificing it at the Temple. It’s an annoyance in the life of someone who has deliberately moved away from Jesus: “His life is ordered, successful, unusual; he doesn’t need enlightenment.”

    Beard presents such an interesting tone as Lazarus sinks to near decay. It’s most human. Lazarus’s sister Mary implores him to go to Jesus. Lazarus doesn’t want to go to Jesus, who didn’t seem all that special and who offended him greatly once in their youth; plus, what would this say to his business associates, let alone to the elders in Jerusalem who can make or break him. No. Lazarus will not listen to Mary. Martha, always more pragmatic, sees both points of view, but she’s also annoyed that Lazarus is suffering so while Jesus is off healing others, even bringing a few back from the dead. Beard intersperses these snippets of fiction with looks at scripture and even tidbits of the Lazarus tradition as shown through art and literature, going on to analyze these artifacts and either use them or discard them as he sees fit. It is important to note that while Beard creates this pseudo-biography, the book is set up in such a way that we question the foundation of the very story we’re reading. Lazarus Is Dead questions the story’s sources, from as far back as the Gospel of John itself to more recent “accounts” such as Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ, José Saramago’s The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, and even Michael Moorcock’s Behold the Man and Philip Pullman’s The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ; then the book proceeds to rely on those very sources. Even assertions are sometimes doubted soon after they’re made; for example, the opening of the book:

    Lazarus is dead.

    There is no room for doubt. He died, he came back to life, but then he died again. If he were alive today, we would know. I think.

    And questioning is an important aspect of the story. Lazarus, unsure why he has to die, wonders why Jesus is using him so. Mary trusts Jesus’ motives, but Lazarus and Martha are less sure. The questions don’t go away when we get to the second half of the book and Lazarus is back from the dead after four days in the tomb. If anything, the questions get even harder.

    When Lazarus comes back from the dead, he is amazed. He knows he died and he knows Jesus brought him back to life. He may have stepped out of the tomb tentatively (as the stick figure does in the U.S. edition’s cover), but he wants to help. Then Martha makes him think:

    ‘I died and came back to life.’

    ‘Yes,’ Martha said. ‘But what for?’

    Yes, Lazarus is back, but now what? Jesus has already left for Jerusalem (and Beard shows how humorous this book can be when, as he walks out to find Jesus, Lazarus hears a few women drawing water from the well complaining about a stolen donkey). Jesus left without a word, and even Jesus’ disciples seem to mistrust Lazarus. Worse, now the Sanhedrin is after his life — again; after all, it’s not much of a miracle if the person raised from the dead is, well, dead. And the Romans have their own ideas about how they can use Lazarus to quell any inconvenient religious uprisings. The story gets thicker

    The second half of the novel shines as a friendship once lost begins to be rekindled, but with so many questions that never get answered. The book ends with Beard coming out and questioning it all again: “Lazarus may never have died.” This at once questions the legends concerning Lazarus’s second life and his second death, or his death in the middle of the book, or the title and the book’s opening lines: “Lazarus is dead. [. . .] If he were alive today, we would know. I think.”

  • Lara Vapnyar: “Fischer vs. Spassky”

    Lara Vapnyar: “Fischer vs. Spassky”

    "Fischer vs. Spassky"
    by Lara Vapnyar
    Originally published in the October 8, 2012 issue of The New Yorker.

    I’m running behind on my New Yorker reading, even though I’m genuinely interested in the last two stories I’ve neglected. And I’m genuinely interested in this one, too, so I need to kick it up.

  • 2012 Giller Prize Shortlist

    2012 Giller Prize Shortlist

    Today the Giller Prize shortlist was announced.

    • 419, by Will Ferguson
    • Inside, by Alix Ohlin
    • The Imposter Bride, Nancy Richler
    • Ru, Kim Thúy
    • Whirl Away, Russell Wangersky

    Because the Shadow Giller was very unsure about which titles would be on the shortlist, I’ve simply held off reading any up to this point, but now my work begins. The only one I have right now is Inside, so I’ll start there.

    I may be a bit off here, but I don’t think these are the titles most of the rest of Shadow Giller would have chosen, and they left off one or two we’ve really enjoyed, like Katrina Onstad’s Everybody Has Everything. Well, soon enough my reviews will start popping up here.

  • Alison Moore: The Lighthouse

    Alison Moore: The Lighthouse

    The Lighthouse
    by Alison Moore (2012)
    Salt Publishing (2012)
    184 pp

    If you like “walking” novels and heard there was a good one on the Booker longlist, you were probably hearing about The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry (my review here). Despite the qualities that book had, I didn’t like it and didn’t consider it a suitable representative of the “walking” novel genre, whatever that is. I wasn’t sad when Harold Fry didn’t make the Booker shortlist. Fortunately, the “walking” genre didn’t lose out and is in fact represented on the shortlist by a superb debut novel, The Lighthouse.

    Futh, our protagonist, is crossing the North Sea on a ferry, on his way to go for a days’-long walk in Germany. Much is introduced in this opening. Standing on the ferry deck, Futh thinks back to years earlier when he sat with his father in a movie theater. In this memory, his father proceeds to tell Futh a story of when he met Futh’s mother in a movie theater (she was handing out the popcorn, and Futh’s father had gone to the movies with someone else), and we get a sense that Moore is going to be nesting story within story, and that she’s going to pull it off. Also, while Futh thinks back to sitting in that theater with his father, we get an uncomfortable sense of how repulsive and sudden human contact can, at times, be:

    Futh felt the warm pressure of his father’s thigh against his own, felt the tickle of his father’s arm hairs on his own bare forearm, the heat of his father’s beery breath in his ear hole, his father’s hand reaching into his lap, taking popcorn.

    I admit I jumped a bit when Futh’s father reached into his lap, before I realized he was just reaching for some popcorn, and I’m sure Moore wanted us to be wary going forward. Not only has the past been tragic, but this is an ominous trip.

    We also learn in this opening that long ago Futh’s mother abandoned him and his father (something else that relates to Harold Fry). “‘Do you know,’ Futher heard his mother say, ‘how much you bore me?’”, and Futh knows that she’d rather have some excitement in her life than spend even a day longer with his father, and losing Futh is not that big a deal. We also learn that Futh himself has just lost his wife, possibly because she also thinks he’s incredibly boring.

    So this trip to Germany is an attempt to grapple with his past and present demons, to hopefully restore some balance in his life. Futh’s first stop along the way is at Helhaus (German for “lighthouse”), a nice bed-and-breakfast, where the hostess Ester is dealing with her own marital problems. In fact, from here on out, the book will alternate chapters — one for Futh, one for Ester — until Futh’s journey comes full circle and he plans to stop at Helhaus once more before hopping on the ferry for home.

    As Futh’s journey progresses, the story’s complexity reveals itself both in narrative ties and symbolic ties. We’ve already seen that both Futh and his father were abandoned by unhappy spouses, and, in fact, both spouses were named Angela (though Futh’s wife repeatedly told him “I am not your mother”). Maternal abandonment leaves Futh sexually confused at a young age:

    ‘We can do without her,’ his father said as they walked on. But Futh knew that every woman his father brought into the hotel room was a substitute for her. Some of them even looked like her. And Futh, seeing the women going into the bathroom, watching them in the mirror in the middle of the night, desired them himself.

    This confusion is brought out again when Futh’s father remarries to their neighbor, Gloria. For some time, Futh had been friends with Gloria’s son, Kenny, but that’s not to last, particularly when one evening Futh falls asleep watching a movie with Gloria, Gloria puts him in bed with Kenny. Kenny is livid the next morning, and their shaky friendship doesn’t survive. Sexual confusion continues when one day Futh walks in to find Gloria bathing. She asks him to scrub her back, saying that usually Kenny does this for her. Naturally, this brought Ingmar Bergman’s The Silence to mind, and I now cannot think of any movie that better matches the tone of these murky moments of heightened reality, again showing how something can be an aphrodisiac at one moment and repulsive the next.

    Besides abandonment and sexual confusion, but related to them, infidelity is strung in with all of the narrative threads. While at Helhaus Ester and her husband, Bernard, are still together, she’s been unfaithful for years (“She remembers her first infidelity, but she does not remember them all”), at times hoping that jealousy will make Bernard hold on to her harder. Ester and Bernard themselves come from some infidelity; Ester was originally engaged to Bernard’s brother, Conrad. We wonder if Futh’s father ever hit on Futh’s wife, and we wonder if Futh’s wife ever had an affair with Kenny. Actually, we never get much of this resolved, and that’s okay. The moments that suggest something may have happened come into the narrative in a single sentence and drift away as quickly (if we’re not paying attention, we’ll never see them), and the questions raised linger and the potential answers disturb us all the more as the book proceeds to a conclusion we are dreading.

    Besides the narrative connections, there are any recurring symbols: venus fly traps, moths, lighthouses, etc. If anything, this is the spot where I can see some weakness in Moore’s works. Sometimes she prods us with her clever symbols: what a character says about a real venus fly trap, for example, will become relevant to how a character acts later in a chapter entitled Venus Fly Trap. It’s not always nice to get the writer prodding us on in this way, but in The Lighthouse this didn’t become a big issue for me. Rather than detract from the story, these symbols, however overt, kept me right on track and served to emphasize just how many narrative connections the story has.

    So, back to the walking aspect. As Futh walks, his memories return, sometimes in fragments, sometimes clearly, and often are repeated. We hear Futh’s mother ask his father “Do you know how much you bore me?” several times, and we see how this unwanted memory insists on being present everyday that Futh walks. As mentioned earlier, he’s more adept at suppressing memories about which he’s less certain, like the ones with his wife and his father and Kenny. Less insistent, those memories drift in and drift away, and Futh walks on, doomed.

    I would be very happy if this book won this year’s Booker prize.