"W-3" by Bette Howland (1974)

I've never seen someone with such rich observations and such rich material (observing the characters around her in a Chicago psychiatric ward following a suicide attempt) keep repeatedly tripping over their own writing. It's almost heartbreaking because the book is crazy interesting, if only you can get past a writer who can pull a pretty good (if often ill-timed) turn of phrase but who also appears to constantly, seemingly inadvertently, confuse you. Two stars.

"The Sellout" by Paul Beatty (2015)

Reads like a mainstream movie. One with a personality-less protagonist, satire that alternates between sharp and sloppy, jokes that tend to hit you over the head like a hammer, and one that grows more tiring as you approach the climax. If I hadn't already read Black No More (1931), which treads similar waters, I probably wouldn't demand more than the one laugh-out-loud moment it gave me. And if I hadn't just finished a Faulkner novel, I probably would find the metaphors and analogies here completely serviceable. Two stars.

"The Golden Apples" by Eudora Welty (1949)

There's a reason this novel/short story cycle is largely forgotten, and I think it's due to its avant garde nature—Ever hear of the Russian Formalists? One of their theories was that art should make the familiar, unfamiliar, so you can look at the familiar again with fresh, naive eyes. Welty does this CONSTANTLY: off-center metaphors, angular clauses, time shifts, prismatic perspectives, flights of fancy, a flood of characters, description that teeters into the bizarre—presumably to make this story of one generation of neighbors in a small southern town seem grand, even as nothing extraordinary ever really happens. Now don't get me wrong, I think Welty is a remarkably skilled writer, and she pulls off the avant garde quite well, in the technical sense. It's just fucking irritating: even as I found some of the characters very affecting (the best relationship is between a piano teacher and her student) I simply couldn't wait to finish this god damn book; in fact, that it's all somewhat difficult to process made that speedy desire all the more frustrating. That all that is at service to a story, seemingly, about people who feel a desperate need to go somewhere but can't figure out for the life of them where that is, unfortunately, in the end, feels naggingly unsatisfying. To say the book doesn't wield a unique sort of magic would be a lie. To say that Welty knows how to use the avant garde in a Faulkner-esque way that intrigues more than it frustrates would also be a lie. Two stars.

"The Company She Keeps" by Mary McCarthy (1942)

Early on, I was thrilled: I've never read a novel—nor even seen a story—about a professional woman navigating 1930s New York City alone before. And it opens on an intimate look at a woman who's cheating on her husband. “Cruel and Barbarous Treatment” is surprisingly frank, surprisingly honest (this woman seems to really enjoy “the spectacle”, the show of it all, because it puts her in the director's seat) and is the story that turned me onto the novel. It contains no dialogue, which is actually really refreshing. Refreshing, that is, until you realize most of the rest of the book is written the exact same way. As the vignettes move onto less and less interesting subjects (notably ones that don't focus on our Margaret Sargent), most of which involve the 1930s socialist intellectual scene, the steady drumbeat of exposition told in the exact same sharply-written style grows rather tiresome, like that funny person you meet at a party who excites at first, but can't seem to ever go beyond one tiring note. Of the six vignettes, only two of them are worth reading (and one of them is about a 1930s Trumpian schemer.) But “Cruel and Barbarous Treatment” is such a great story, and the novel's subject matter: an intelligent woman who restlessly, compulsively?, moves from one affair to another without much shame is so unique (all the socialism stuff?; meh) it salvages the book. Two stars.

"The Seagull - A Comedy in Four Acts" by Anton Chekhov, Translated by Peter Carson (1896, 2004)

Here's where Chekhov's obtuse idea of theater actually starts to cohere, nearly ten years after "Ivanov". Still, I left this with largely the same feeling I had when I read it the first time, with much less exposure to Chekhov's "I hate everything that came before me" sensibility. And that feeling is: What the fuck is this?—the exposition is laid out much too plainly as exposition to be accidental, everybody's hopelessly in love with everyone else, the play parodies plays, the writer character wants to create new and different forms of theater (in a piece that bucks traditional form,) the seagull symbolism is recognized by the characters themselves as a symbol they find difficult to understand, I mean, what the fuck? I'm gonna try to watch the play. I'll say it definitely reads better than Ivanov, but for now, gosh, I'm nonplussed! Two stars.

Found a 1975 PBS staging. It works, and the play makes a little more sense, but I can't explain to you how it works and how it makes sense. I really really can't. I don't know where to begin. It's kinda good, but I don't know why. Gosh, I'm nonplussed! It's hard to believe Frank Langella hadn't been born an old man! Three stars.

"The Art of the Novel - Critical Prefaces" by Henry James (1934)

It's one thing to read Henry James' dizzying writing style in a piece of fiction—you work at it because you trust he's leading you somewhere. It's another thing when he's speaking as himself, reflecting on his own work, the sentence structures splintering into a winding, sprawling train consisting of his own lightly tethered thoughts. Don't get me wrong: he's brilliant. And unlike most accomplished writers, he's not coy. In fact, he's very generous about the process of creating and crafting fiction. But he's also an overthinker. And reading this book has been difficult for me because the result is akin to one person directly injecting their craziness into my brain. (Strangely, though, you leave the book with the impression "American literature's biggest snob" might actually have been, deep down, a really nice guy.) Two stars.

"Storm" by George R. Stewart (1941)

The main character of this novel is an unusually large storm named Maria. The narrative winds through the lives of meteorologists, flood control officials, highway plow managers, air traffic controllers, streamliner staff, and a couple wild animals over the course of the storm's 12 days moving over the Pacific towards California. The depiction of people who surround engineering fields feels fairly accurate—they tend to be more matter-of-fact than melodramatic. And the writing is really quite good; there's a lot of (seemingly) accurate descriptions of winds and fronts and barometric pressure and such that's rendered in an entertaining way. And the conflict of man and their machines vs. the whims of nature is well drawn. But, despite its achievements, it's really hard to connect to a novel where the human characters are secondary: it just never became something I eagerly looked forward to. However, if you're one of those animal-loving types who actively avoids considering the lives of other people, you might really enjoy this. Two stars.

"Speedboat" by Renata Adler (1976)

It's one of them fancy postmodern collage novels, made up of hundreds of well polished, sundered fragments, scenes, observations, and episodes, told from the point of view of a well bred, well salaried journalist living in 1970s New York City. It's a little intriguing, at first, wondering how this might come together, watching it build a unique, half-lidded tension between coyness and overexposure, at times feeling seduced and at times feeling repulsed by the rhythmic, metered style, annoyed and excited by its nagging, neurotic inscrutabilities, often in the same beat. And then some time around page 100 something snapped and I just started reading the rest of it as fast as I could, just so I could get it over with, having grown deathly tired of whatever game this book is playing, almost solely just to spite the distant, somewhat patrician way it's speaking to me, toying with me. Is this more style than substance, you begin to wonder? Not that there isn't any substance—the disparate images, altogether, give you some insight into what cavorting around town as a privileged, well educated, highly observant white woman must feel like—but is there enough substance here to justify any concentration, any focused investment? Call me ignorant, but I just don't get the sense, that no, there is enough.* Two stars.

*Rachel Cusk would do pretty much the same thing but much more effectively in her Outline trilogy nearly 40 years later. Honestly, if I hadn't read Outline first I probably would have admired this one more.

"Pale Horse, Pale Rider" by Katherine Anne Porter (1939)

It's three short novels (Porter hated the term "novella" and, much like the kinds of people who are particular about these sorts of things, was apparently a huge jerk in real life) give or take 40 pages each. The first was this fascinating indictment/celebration of storytelling itself, about how stories, which in current times tend to be hailed and exalted as some sort of magical enlightenment elixir, are in reality very very very very effective tools of delusion and deceit, in its cloaking way almost a celebration of decay, even as we can't help but rely on the lies stories feed us as a means of managing to continue trudging through life day by heavy plodding heavy plodding day. The second was an unheralded classic, such a richly woven, complex exploration of morality, responsibility, sin, laziness, and all their inherent confusions, contradictions, blessings, benedictions, and rationalizations, and about the almost inherently fatalistic way us human beings, having been granted limited intelligence, believe we can possibly, reasonably cogitate our ways through all this, because on some level we all—every last one of us!—believe our existence on Earth must (MUST!) be linked to some sort of intrinsic, universal good, even while we all secretly suspect we may actually be nothing more than spiritual orphans, abandoned, leftovers, to our own mercurial wiles, that it's a marvel the whole thing manages to hold together so extraordinarily well. These two stories, "Old Mortality" and "Noon Wine", explored enormously complex things you NEVER saw writers of this time explore in short, 40-page works, and did it in a way that was richly compelling and unsettlingly rewarding. And then the final story lands like this enormous, overwrought, sentimental, adolescent butt-turd. You'd think it wouldn't, because it's the title story, because it's an early story about a single female urban professional, because it's about the 1918 pandemic, considering what we all just went through. But it's sooooooooo boring (there are numerous dream sequences) it kills what could have been an extraordinary collection of work. I suppose the overall effect is akin to watching all three Godfather movies in one sitting. It's a god damn shame. Apparently, her entire career is just like this: wildly, frustratingly uneven. Sadly, kind of like how life is. Two stars.

"Nickel and Dimed - On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich (2001)

Something irked me about the book back when it was prominently displayed in all the Borders, and I never picked it up. But over the course of 20 years I became a bit of a fan (her take on breast cancer was the kicker) and after she died I figured, sure, why not read her most popular book. Well, I find it irksome. I won't bore you with the obvious reasons why it's irksome, and in fact I won't even mention them. I'll just say that, given the subject matter of the book, of all the lives I've come across in these pages the one I least care to be around all the time is hers. Two stars.

"Ivanov - A Drama in Four Acts" by Anton Chekhov, Translated by Peter Carson (1887, 2004)

The very first thing you see is someone pointing a gun at Ivanov's face. The very last thing you see (hear, actually) is Ivanov shooting himself. It's "Chekhov's Act I gun" in plain sight. But the rest of the play is kind of bad. Like it's overstuffed and rushed at the same time. Maybe it's okay if you see it in action, but I doubt it—his plays tend to assume obtuse forms, and this feels like an embryonic version of what he'd later refine. It's just funny that the epitome of his famous mantra, its literal manifestation, espoused as sacred gospel by generations of writing teachers, guarded as untouchable formula by generations of writing students, really kind of stinks. Two stars.

"It's Not Easy Bein' Me" by Rodney Dangerfield (2004)

If you didn't have a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation before you started this book, you will have one afterwards. It's jarringly odd to hear him talk about bouts of severe depression. Oddly, the most I laughed out loud was the chapter he talked about his best friend, the funniest guy he knew, a non-comedian named Joe Ancis. Two stars.

"Chekhov Becomes Chekhov" by Bob Blaisdell (2022)

It focuses on two years of Anton Chekhov's life at the beginning of his literary stardom in Russia, 1886 and 1887. At the time, Chekhov was 26 years old, a bachelor, a practicing doctor, and in constant debt because he had assumed the role of breadwinner for his immediate family. He wrote for the newspapers, which means he wrote his stories quickly, prolifically, and on deadline, mostly for the money. The book premises that, together with his extensively collected letters, you can piece together how his fiction was inspired by his life. This turns out to be more tedious than it sounds—it would be one thing if his seven stories or so-a-month pace produced one masterpiece after another, but this is more like if Lorne Michaels sat you down and explained the origins and production of every SNL sketch aired from 1976 to 1978: after a certain point you just don't care. I will grant the tightened focus gives you a much more nuanced picture of the overworked, tuberculosis-hiding human being than you tend to get elsewhere. And there's some insight into how he could keep the quality of his writing high despite publishing at least 176 pieces in those two years.* And Blaisdell often folds in fun, quippy, "excitable lit teacher" interjections (which I personally found irritating) to break up his lengthy story summaries. But, in total, it just all feels like empty speculation: did he write a story about a murder-suicide just because he happened to be depressed that week?; did the dog Kashtanka leave the circus and return to her abusive owner because, like Chekhov, she disliked fame? Maybe. And, also, so what? Chekhov is an extraordinary writer because of how perceptively he captures the nuances of human behavior—in comparison, everything else seems cartoonish—and you see that demonstrated here in excerpt after excerpt. But for a book that explicitly aims to shine a light on that sensitivity, you end everything feeling somewhat unsatisfied—How did Chekhov become so perceptive, you ask? Well, apparently, it was because he was really, really good at noticing things. Two stars.

*"Chekhov determinedly resisted writing fine quotable sentences. Wit and wisdom were to be suppressed in the service of description, so that only the description left its impression."

"A Curtain of Green and Other Stories" by Eudora Welty (1941)

Welty is one of those writers where every story I've seen of hers, in collegiate fiction anthologies, came from this, her first book. And while those excerpted stories are great, you can also already see why her literary standing would sort of peter out. Unlike other older writers I've read recently, the bulk of this feels very much of its time, it doesn't quite transcend it. Maybe it's the tendency towards overwrought description, maybe it's the "young writer" character choices: old people, deaf mutes, freaks, slow people, hitchhikers, traveling salesmen, and adolescents, all similarly "flat"; maybe it's the overreliance on narrative obliqueness, an overreliance on simile—honestly, I can't pinpoint why it all feels so dusty to me. Stories that feel more like character sketches? That end with unexplained deaths? Too many sensitive characters who have unusually vivid daydreams? Comedy that's a tad too broad and drama that's a tad too serious? Pulp irony that might be nothing more than actual pulp? Before TV, there used to be a divide between "pop short stories" and "serious literature," and this kind of feels like it's trying to bridge that divide—it's not "Criminal Minds" and it's not "The Wire", it's more like "NYPD Blue". And who wants to watch NYPD Blue over the other two? The "complete trash" show and the "prestige serial" show are both great. Two stars.