"Grimm's Complete Fairy Tales" (1993)

I'm only on page 200 of 600 but I'm just gonna go ahead and call it: After you get past the novelty of finding out the original, violent versions of the Disney fairy tales we all know, you start to come across a bunch of German folk stories that seem to have been collected from the town insane lunatic—they have no point, they go nowhere, and they read like a series of wacky, random events all crammed together into one short story. If it wasn't depressing enough that a lot of stories feature innocent people getting chopped into little bits for no reason, and evil people humiliating the good, and oftentimes end with a moral that just basically says, "Welp, the world sure is unfair," soon the stories make you remember the time you were trapped at a party and the marijuana ran out before it got passed to you. I can't believe I have 400 more pages of this. (I suppose I should caveat that even as a child I couldn't stand fantasy—"What? People can't have wars in space. Why are you making me watch this?!") One star.

"Good Behaviour" by Molly Keane (1981)

I suspect the book is better than I'm giving it credit for—it's hard for a Filipino kid who grew up in a Chicago bungalow to easily relate to the horsey goings on at an Anglo-Irish estate in shambling decline at the turn of the 20th century. But I'll say it's a very densely packed book that gives you a hell of a lot to think about. Let me attempt to explain: the bulk of the book is spent inside the head of a Michael Scott-like character, an unusually tall, unusually self-conscious, unusually put-upon misfit named Aroon St. Charles who's prone to avoiding harsh realities and desperate to feel loved. Now, marry this with the revelation in the very first chapter that she eventually ends up ruthlessly murdering her own mother. All the tension is found in between those two spaces. And it's a neat little trick that kind of lingers with you even after you've left behind the final word. Possibly four following a re-read, but for now. Three stars.

"Flyboy in the Buttermilk - Essays on Contemporary America" by Greg Tate (1992)

What's truly shocking as you go through the essays, some full of jazz-like riffs and others more baldly academic, is how little cultural criticism I've read over the years was written with a proudly Black voice (in one essay, he criticizes an Afro-centric art book for assiduously excluding white influences: "Black art historians shouldn't just talk about how the massive mandalas of a painter like the Africobra school's James Phillips draw on Coltrane's modal solos and African textile patterns, but how he proposes fresh uses for African-inspired geometry in painting when Cubism and Constructivism were thought to have exhausted them.") Though this may explain why I had never run into the work of Greg Tate before he died last year. It's hard to explain how this realization makes me feel. Kind of like I've been duped. Like I've been had. At one point he laments the lack of a cohesive Black artistic community because white corporate America is offering them enough money to work as a Creative Director and buy a suburban home. Probably an oversimplification. Then again, no mainstream outlet would ever, EVER, publish great, insightful, perspective-shifting stuff like this. Unfortunately, white people got the money. And they prefer their edges smooth. Three stars.

"Fire on the Prairie - Chicago’s Harold Washington and the Politics of Race" by Gary Rivlin (1992)

An imperfect book, only because occasionally it gets muddled telling an extremely complicated story with many ancillary characters. But for the most part it's clearly written, and not at all hagiographic towards its subject. It's a book forged from old-school, objective journalism. On a personal level, the book upset me at many, many points: it helps me understand why I so desperately hate a city that I can't help but love (Why do people from Chicago tend to have great bullshit detectors? Because, if so many people are trying to fuck you over from seemingly all sides, you learn to develop a good sense of the kinds of people you should trust. Also, no one who has ever grown up in Chicago knows what "controlling your emotions" means, for better or for worse.) Four stars.

"Flying Home and Other Stories" by Ralph Ellison (1996)

I guess most of these stories are from before "Invisible Man" and were published posthumously which might explain why most of them read like small character sketches rather than complete stories. Honestly, while reading these I couldn't help but think back to my writer's workshop classes, where even the most talented students would routinely turn in works that felt clunky and incomplete. If "two stars" would indicate flawed but not worthless, and "one star" would indicate pretty much worthless then I guess I really have no choice here. Reading this book was unpleasant. One star.

"Flowering Judas and Other Stories" by Katherine Anne Porter (1935)

It seems like every time I'm about to proclaim Katherine Anne Porter the best writer of her era, I stumble upon one of her enormous, stinking turds. Not like the stories here, among her earliest, should be stamped in gold or something, but the way she draws her characters is nothing short of exquisite—a frustrated artist, a dying woman, an Irish (County Sligo) immigrant living in Connecticut, a Mexican bride-turned-murderer, a 15-year-old Mexican girl who's never been kissed, a Mexican revolutionary's female confidant, a husband and wife who get into an enormous fight after he randomly decides to buy rope—the people and their relationships are all so finely detailed, densely woven, and true-to-life they carry you through some rather thin narratives. I'd imagine a writer, like any craftsman, who masters the basics would become eager to take bigger and bigger swings. And here her big swing is a huge whiff, a convoluted, overcrowded story about Russian filmmakers from California working in Mexico that pretty much bored me to tears (for the record, her later enormous swings in "Pale Horse, Pale Rider" knock it out clear of the park.) I guess I can't in good faith say you should all run out and read this book, unless you happen to want to study the characterization techniques of someone who probably did it better than anyone. So, yes, that’s right, most of the stories here feel like little more than character sketches but, I gotta say, they're pretty god damn great sketches. Three stars.

"Fifty-Two Stories" by Anton Chekhov, Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2021)

I think of all the fiction I've absorbed over my life—books, TV, movies—and I find it stunning that I can read Chekhov and think that I've never seen humanity depicted so accurately before. The all-confused whole of humanity is so acutely depicted, in classes grand and wanting, I actually find it difficult to explain to you just what he did (in one story, Chekhov repeatedly mocks a novelist for writing stories about people that could never happen in reality.) What does that say about us now? That a guy in 19th-century Russia could look at another person and see a wealth of contradictory motivations, whims, desires, behaviors, and inner thoughts and we just look at people and attach to them the comfort of familiar archetypes and little much else? It's really quite remarkable what he did, simply and economically. And it's also quite remarkable if you consider where we all eventually ended up. I really hope you get to read "The Name Day Party" some day. Five stars.

"Fiction and the Figures of Life" by William H. Gass (1971)

I suppose if you have no interest in how literature is created, there's no reason for you to read this book, a collection of essays and book reviews straddling literature and philosophy. But there's something so thrilling about his writing style, to me, it's a bit of a shame if people don't experience it at least once. The best, most succinct way I can describe it is: it doesn't ever feel cheap, or chintzy or mass produced or even triple-gilded, overadorned, and when you run into writing that doesn't feel cheap your awareness of the sheer amount of cheap writing that surrounds our lives actually begins to feel overwhelming, in a somewhat suffocating way. And! If you happen to already have an interest in how literature is created, what you'll find are a number of stunning insights, too many to list, often philosophically spiked, that avoids aphorism, grandiloquence, inspirational cant, or even equivocation—you really get the impression of a person who's very thoroughly thought through something in an attempt to get as close as possible to the heart of the heart of his subject (he's basically what David Foster Wallace would be if David Foster Wallace were actually as intelligent as he taught himself to sound.) And if that seems somewhat trite—praising someone for actually thinking deeply about something before writing it down—again, you come out of the book feeling like that kind of approach, for whatever reason, isn't actually valued by anyone with a pen. After all, putting on a cheap show, as we've all seen by now, is a fairly easy thing for anyone and their mother to do. Five stars.

"Everything That Rises Must Converge" by Flannery O’Connor (1965)

Flannery O'Connor said she was intimidated by William Faulkner, a Southern contemporary, but I honestly think if she hadn't been dying of lupus in the process of writing, this book could have been one of the all-time greats. She's better than Chekhov. She's better than Hemingway's god damn baby shoes schtick. Her short stories are better than any of the stories Faulkner tried to write, and I've read most of them. However, if you've read her earlier, much more famous stuff then you might just label her a God-tooting moralist—“Wow, a good man really is hard to find!” But here, you come out of these stories feeling mostly confused: (1) Why would the guy who got a huge tattoo of Jesus Christ on his back end up crying against a tree? (2) Why would someone who's merely trying to behave as virtuously as she possibly could, only going by what she's been taught through sheer circumstance, still get ruthlessly punished by God? (3) Why would an author who uses the n-word liberally end another story by depicting a woman who hallucinates a bunch of n-words entering heaven before she did? It's a cycle of nine stories that illustrates the title, that each of us, race-gender-class-location-citycountrywhathaveyou, will have to meet and confront each other if we both intend to climb any further than we already have, and that (except for one story) doesn't necessarily portray faith as something that elevates: Jesus-loving woman believes she's saved by following Sunday school theology to a tee for all her life, but hates LITERALLY every other human being alive = Jesus-mocking tattooed man somehow finding the lure of God literally inescapable = seemingly kind woman finds stray bull teasing her herd, tries to raise children: fails, tries to run farm: fails, tries to steamroll over other people: fails, tries to be a strong woman: fails, yet when she gets gored by that stray bull you're kind of glad it happened to her. Flannery O'Connor makes it look easy. But what she tried to achieve with her stories was really hard, and must have taken an inordinate amount of thought. And a lot of mystery. And they almost get to "classic level," they really almost get there. What is it that I think that stops them? There are a few times throughout the book where your view doesn't feel expansive, but instead feels restrictive and plain—in other words “bad simple.” As if she was too tired to think about it all. Considering how successfully the rest of the book hides enormous complexities within simple-seeming frames, this feels like a sin. Four stars.

"El Filibusterismo" by José Rizal, Translated by Harold Augenbraum (1891, 2011)

You know when someone accomplished in non-literary fields, someone very intelligent, says they're going to write a novel? And the descriptions are fine, and the dialogue is fine, and the characters are fine, and the ideas are fine, and the cliffhangers are fine, and maybe there's a liberal heaping of esoterica, in this case many many Latin phrases, and maybe it follows that escalating plot curve thing to a tee, and maybe Chekov's gun ends up going off, and at first glance it all appears to be fairly competently put together? And even the writing itself as a whole seems perfectly fine, everything except for the sense of joy experienced by the reader, which falls jaw-droppingly flat? This book does that. The joy part, it turns out, is screamingly difficult to engineer. One star.

"Dancing in the Streets - A History of Collective Joy" by Barbara Ehrenreich (2006)

I suppose all books like this bend the truth, it's only a matter of degree ("The Dawn of Everything" apparently bends the truth quite a bit in service of its ultimate point.) So, was public celebration really discouraged by the rise of Protestant discipline-fed capitalism? Was ritualistic dancing really seen as a threat to public order? Do we really live according to the dictates of a culture that sees benefits in our separation, that celebrates individualism and identity both as a triumph of selfhood and as a method of organization (if you identify as "gay" then I know what to sell you,) that peddles products to alleviate the dismay that the culture itself causes? Is what we're experiencing now the result of centuries of human repression at the service of power, control, and money? Beats me—most of the relevant information I know comes only from personal experience and this very book. Once again, Ehrenreich starts by examining something simple, in this case "joy", and spins it out into all sorts of enormous threads—Why do we, as humans, relentlessly seek out so much pointless joy? And why do people seem to find this so threatening? I can't tell you if she's onto something for certain. But it's something to think about, for sure. Four stars.

"Dinner with Friends" by Donald Margulies (1998)

There are only four characters, two couples, and the plot hinges on a simple infidelity. But each small revelation somehow gets you to question your own moral compass, and gets you to ponder why people could treat each other so violently when they're also being so myopic. No heroes, no villains. Three stars.

"Don Quixote" by Miguel de Cervantes, Translated by Edith Grossman (1615, 2003)

There's really a lot you can say about this book, a lot of truly deep things too, about human nature and comedy and what constitutes a great story and philosophy and religion and eternal life and modern literature and pratfalls and all of that—you really can go on for quite a while (even if you exclude all the drearily facile takes concerning the power of imagination and just who's the crazy one here.) So I'll attempt to summarize everything I feel by saying this: Don Quixote is the most perfect, most wildly imperfect book I have ever read, and probably ever will. What a great ride. Five stars.

"Creating Fiction - Instruction and Insights from Teachers of the Associated Writing Programs" Edited by Julie Checkoway (1999)

Imagine my delight upon seeing someone's recommended list of writing books and discovering that I had already owned five of seven—a validation of my instinctive ability to sniff out quality writing advice! That included this and the benefit of this book over others as far as writing instruction goes is you get a variety of teaching styles in one sitting—you don't just get one person's theory, you get about thirty of them! Some very insightful and high quality, some of them asinine: the advantage of confidently declaring yourself an "expert" in a field like creative writing, a field that very few people actually understand, a field highly susceptible to wistful, windswept sentimentality, is that the chances an impressionable young hopeful will listen to you with unquestioning, shining adoration are very, very, very high, which is an attitude that’s remarkably easy to exploit. Some of these writers seem guilty of that. But, because of the book’s scattershot nature, the chances you'll run into unusually considered and highly worthwhile wrinkles of narrative craft are also very high. So, on the whole, I think it's rather good. At the same time, I've read this book before, as an unquestioning, shining, young idolator. And I think I wrongly took away lessons from the more flashy, inspirational teachers than from the ones who preached classical, grinding restraint in a minor key. Now that I look back, I think it's their fault. Three stars.

"Contagious - Why Things Catch On" by Jonah Berger (2013)

It's written in that extremely annoying "This American Life"-inspired conversational style which was in vogue during the (awful, just purely awful) 2010s. Plus, it's directed towards people who work in marketing and advertising. Nevertheless, the ordinary person gets a breezy, Wharton-kissed explainer about six major ways people try to manipulate your behavior. For instance, "Stories thus give people an easy way to talk about products and ideas. ... They provide a sort of psychological cover that allows people to talk about a product or idea without seeming like an advertisement." Read it, and maybe you'll be able to see through a lot things that typically slip past your bullshit detector. Now, if you happen to be an evil person, (1) you've likely already read this book; and (2) I'd think a person who had committed themselves to evil would be able to handle much more sophisticated reading material. Three stars.

"Commodify Your Dissent - Salvos from The Baffler" Edited by Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland (1997)

Its attacks on 90s pop culture—from Details Magazine to Donna Tartt to Henry Rollins to Quentin Tarantino to Wired Magazine to alternative rock (geez, how the hell did they set up Q101 just six months after Nirvana "suddenly shocked the world"?)—are still pretty thrilling, at least perhaps to me, someone who lived through it all as an impressionable teen, some of it I ate up, some of it not. The attacks on everything else are kind of boring, as if the pop culture stuff were the things the writers were most familiar with. Some of it seems dated, some of it seems hyperbolic, but mostly a lot of it just seems like precursors to issues we still deal with (there is an advertising executive here who preaches "disruption".) Most strikingly, they call out how we spend money on things that feel liberating or purposeful or rebellious or even meaningful to our identities when, all along, we're doing exactly what a bunch of people in a board room had planned and budgeted for. It may sound a little simplistic, but are our movie theaters filled with comic book blockbusters because that's what we as an audience demanded? Or did a corporation steer us towards a product that was highly addictive and, thus, easier to predict and reproduce? Three stars.

"Collected Stories" by William Faulkner (1950)

I'm only 200 pages into a 900-page book but I feel I have enough: If you're interested in reading stories that were sort of shat out whenever Faulkner was strapped for cash and oftentimes very much read like it, then this door stop is for you. Also, don't be fooled by the 1951 National Book Award for Fiction—he probably won it more for the earlier series of extraordinary novels everyone ignored at the time; in fact, many of these stories feel like a writer working out his ideas more than one who dearly cared for the craft of the short form. One star.

"Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, Fourth Edition" by Edward P.J. Corbett and Robert J. Connors (1999)

It's a 500-page book about classical rhetoric, so I'll try to keep this brief. Maybe it's too late for you to become a stronger writer, but in the event your child shows a knack for words it might be a good idea to get this book on their radar. For some reason, I went through most of my life never once hearing about it, until it was referenced in an academic paper I was reading about advertising. Which means either the state of the humanities had been in decline for much longer than we thought, or narrow-minded parents were desperately dissuading their children away from writing as a career. I've found, if you dissuade a talented, budding writer away from a writing career, you're pretty much sentencing your peculiar, creative child to a long, sad, unfulfilled life (an unusually large number of these children grow up to be financially secure, emotionally damaged Asians.) So if you want to spare those kids a future, decades-long SSRI/Xanax dependency, just know this might actually be the best book on the nuts-and-bolts craft of writing I've ever read. (Sidenote: I can now recognize, thanks to this book, the advertising agency Fallon McElligott, in their heyday, more than anyone else, made use of classical rhetoric precepts in their work.) Five stars.