Recent reading and listening

[luzula]

Matriarch, by Karen Traviss (#4 in the Wess'Har series)

Hmm. I loved the first book in this series (SF with an environmental focus), but I'm not entirely sold on it now. I don't know why? Maybe because its ethics lie closer to the animals rights movement than to the environmental movement? And there's an interesting vee-relationship with two humans and an alien, but there's a bit too much "what is this alien poly thing, humans couldn't possibly do it on their own, it's against our monogamous instincts!" And I dunno, I get the feeling that things are too black and white in the story, but OTOH people are always making hard choices and mulling over their ethics. Maybe it's that I don't get the feeling of there being a society behind it all with collective interaction? I can't put my finger on it. Anyway, the books are clearly making me think, at least, and I've already got the last two in the series, so I'll finish it.

The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck (audiobook read by Dylan Baker)

Wow, I loved this. ♥ I actually picked it up because Ursula K. Le Guin said in a blog post: If somebody came up to me in a dark alley with a sharp knife and said, "Name The Great American Novel or die!" — I would gasp forth, squeakily, "The Grapes of Wrath!" What surprised me about this book is how very much to the left it is, politically. I mean, this is a book that American kids read for school assignments, right? And it's not like the US doesn't have a strong tradition of politics to the left, I know, but the whole current political scale of Republicans and Democrats is shifted so far to the right that the Democrats are like the Swedish right-wing parties. I just didn't expect it. Anyway, back to the book itself. Lovely lovely writing, nnngh. I loved the alternating structure with every other chapter giving a wider view and putting it all into context (talk about getting a sense of a whole society surrounding the main characters!) And the audiobook really worked, too--this was one of those readers who can create distinct character voices for tons of different people.

Fic-wise, I have really enjoyed sineala's long Eagle fic Chosen Man. Deliciously drawn-out UST and relationship-building, and it's an AU, so you can go ahead and read it even if you're not in the fandom.

Comments

[sineala]

Aww, thanks for reccing me.

I have vague memories of liking The Grapes of Wrath in high school, but it's been a while.

[luzula]

That reminds me, I should leave a more coherent comment on it than the one I already gave you!

I imagine it's the kind of book you get more out of if you read it later in life? I'm pretty sure I appreciate it more now than I would've in high school.

[seascribble]

We didn't read The Grapes of Wrath, but my school did have us read East of Eden and Of Mice and Men, both of which I really enjoyed, although I can barely remember any of East of Eden now; I really should read it again. I bet I'd appreciate it a lot more now.

[luzula]

Yeah, I'm definitely going to check out some of Steinbeck's other work, since I liked The Grapes of Wrath so much!

[ainsley]

Ooh, thank you for what you said about The Grapes of Wrath; I'd been hesitating to read it because of concern about its politics, but now I'm fully enthusiastic about it.

[luzula]

I was pleasantly surprised! I really liked how it emphasized local self-organization and unionizing. Another thing it's concerned with is ownership of the land, and how large banks force small farmers out of business, and injustices such as crops from big farms being destroyed because of market fluctuations, when people are starving at the same time. It's quite an anti-capitalist book.

[fresne.livejournal.com]

I think in part that "Grapes of Wrath" sneaks by because it's been part of the landscape so long that there is a lack of realization by certain parties that Steinbeck was *very* liberal. That and there is a cultural memory of that mass migration from the mid-west to California. GoW standing as the voice of that memory.

And if you feel like you want to explore other Steinbeck for the sheer beauty of his writing, try the short story collection, "The Long Valley". They deftness of what he writes without writing it is simply amazing

[luzula]

Ack, the use of the word "liberal" is always so confusing to me as a European. To me, a liberal is someone who is to the right, as in, someone who believes in the free movement of capital and fewer restrictions on corporations and the market. As I'd understood it, "liberal" in the US refers to being for the rights of women, for gay marriage, for the right to have an abortion, against racism, and other similar issues. But how much is the word associated with the more traditional economical left-hand issues such as "who owns the means of production"? Because Steinbeck seems to me to be very concerned with those kinds of issues, especially when it comes to ownership of the land itself.

Thanks for the book rec! I'll check it out. : )

A VERY shorthand, overgeneralized, and off-the-cuff comment on US politics

[desireearmfeldt]

...from a US-ian who doesn't pay as much attention as I should.

In the US "liberal" as a political persuasion is a portmanteau of a position on social issues like the one you describe, plus a position on economic issues that is more leftist than the one you describe, i.e. in support of government spending on social welfare programs and environmental regulations and that sort of thing. Not so far to the left as to be socialist, but it's our "conservatives" who are in favor of free market capitalism and deregulation and so forth -- and also against gay marriage etc. (Broad stereotypical brushstrokes here: but it's what people generally mean when they throw the terms "liberal" and "conservative" around.)

It's my understanding that the Libertarian movement is a reaction to the apparent contradiction of the choice between on the one hand, "liberals" who want economic regulation and social freedom, and on the other hand, "conservatives" who want economic freedom and social regulation. So the "libertarians" want free market capitalism and stay-out-of-my-bedroom social policies: i.e. freedom/deregulation in both spheres. I can't think of an equivalent regulate-everything US political stance: I suppose it's how we stereotypically think of Communism.

Re: A VERY shorthand, overgeneralized, and off-the-cuff comment on US politics

[desireearmfeldt]

...so, getting back to your original question, in the US someone who wants the workers to control the means of production is probably a "socialist" if not a "communist" -- but "liberal" is the next position on the spectrum, with "conservative" being farther away from wanting the workers to own the means of production.

Re: A VERY shorthand, overgeneralized, and off-the-cuff comment on US politics

[luzula]

Thanks for clarifying how the terms are used in the US! : )

plus a position on economic issues that is more leftist than the one you describe, i.e. in support of government spending on social welfare programs and environmental regulations and that sort of thing

Hmm, well, having a large state is not the only way of being to the left, though. You also have the organize-from-the-bottom methods of anarchist and syndicalist labor unions (think Emma Goldman, for example), and I think that's pretty obviously what Steinbeck is going for in The Grapes of Wrath rather than state socialism.

Re: A VERY shorthand, overgeneralized, and off-the-cuff comment on US politics

[desireearmfeldt]

Sure. And "liberal" can mean both a direction along a spectrum, and also a particular point on the spectrum/constellation of beliefs. What I was describing was mostly the latter: if I, in the US, say someone is "a liberal," that's probably what I mean. If I say "they're more liberal than some other thing I'm comparing to" (which is approximately what the original commenter said), it's fuzzier what I mean by that. :)

But...(and again, paying attention to politics is not my area of expertise, to my embarrassment), I don't think the organize-from-the-bottom school of thought gets a lot of play in mainstream US discourse at the moment. Though there have been some attempts to get it more on the radar/into the news/out there for discussion lately, e.g. Organize Wall Street.

Of course, this has not always been the case -- and Steinbeck was writing in a different era. Also, writers often espouse views that don't necessarily get a lot of play in mainstream discourse.

But your initial point is a good one, and it would be interesting to know 1) how much GoW is on reading lists these days, and 2) what teachers say about it. (Remembering that the US has nothing like a standardized curriculum, current movements in that direction notwithstanding.)

[eve_n_furter]

Gratulerer med dagen! \o/

[luzula]

Tack så mycket! : )