Daily Candy's A Somewhat-Long List of Short Stories

America's collective attention span is dwindling as technology encroaches on every aspect of our lives. Below, The Daily Candy lists some fabulous short story collections. These will work for attention spans of all shapes and sizes!
 

http://www.dailycandy.com/everywhere/flipbook/147567/Best-Short-Stories

The Wall Street Journal's American Writers Museum: A Bookish Proposal

Library Love

Happy Birthday Edward Gorey!

Check out my previous post about visiting Gorey's house!

Poet Richard Blanco at the Inauguration!

Read this article before you head into DC for the Inauguration! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/books/richard-blanco-2013-inaugural-poet.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=1&

Kris Kringle Likes to Read!

5 Great Books for The Writers in your Life

Looking for some holiday gifts for a writer? Try this website!

  http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/13309.aspx#

STORY STRUCTURES

The 7 Traits Of Great Writers

Check it out!  Click HERE to learn the traits of a great writer! 

I know, I know. It's been A WHILE since I've posted. I'll make it up to you! Take a look at this great virtual  poetry tour: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/gallery/walking-tours/dc/index

Author Typewriters!

The Little Ghost

The Little Ghost by Edna St. Vincent Millay is delightfully charming yet eerie. The ghost in this poem is not haunting or spooky. She is mysteriously graceful and demure. The line “She smiled and smiled—there was no hint of sadness in her face” is especially provocative. It allows readers to come to their own conclusions about the ghost’s previous life and makes one wonder how or why she is content with her life after death. The poem is also intriguing because the ghost’s origin is a mystery. Perhaps she lived in the speaker’s home once upon a time, perhaps she is someone from the speaker’s past, or perhaps the ghost the narrator speaks of is a portion of herself she lost long ago. 

The Little Ghost by Edna St. Vincent Millay

I knew her for a little ghost
That in my garden walked;
The wall is high—higher than most—
And the green gate was locked.

And yet I did not think of that
Till after she was gone—
I knew her by the broad white hat,
All ruffled, she had on.

By the dear ruffles round her feet,
By her small hands that hung
In their lace mitts, austere and sweet,
Her gown's white folds among.

I watched to see if she would stay,
What she would do—and oh!
She looked as if she liked the way
I let my garden grow!

She bent above my favourite mint
With conscious garden grace,
She smiled and smiled—there was no hint
Of sadness in her face.

She held her gown on either side
To let her slippers show,
And up the walk she went with pride,
The way great ladies go.

And where the wall is built in new
And is of ivy bare
She paused—then opened and passed through
A gate that once was there. 

I suppose I've been neglecting poetry a bit...

William Blake’s 1794 Poison Tree, a poem in his Songs of Experience collection, is lyrical yet sinister. Just like the speaker in the poem, Blake is devious in the construction of his work. The poem feigns cheerfulness and even appears on the page as a nursery rhyme might. However, as each stanza progresses the tone grows darker and darker ascending to its murderous conclusion. The poem seems to be a comment on human nature and goodness. It analyzes the ill- effects of holding a grudge. Blake brilliantly weaves a literal and metaphorical world together. As the narrator’s hatred grows deeper and deeper, it becomes more tangible until finally it is manifested in reality. 

A Poison Tree by William Blake

I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears:
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning glad I see;
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Wise Words

Wise Beyond Her Years

Going up the down staircase all these years has clearly kept Bel Kaufman hale and hearty. The author stood resolutely for the duration of her discussion with our Jewish Literature class, then returned in the evening, vibrant as ever, to celebrate the beloved Sholem Aleichem. The Up The Down Staircase author spoke fervently about her years as a teacher, her time as a writer, and the teachings of her grandfather. Yes, she was affectionate, charming and witty, however, even these adjectives seem empty beside her name.  Bel Kaufman is so much more than her amiable demeanor and sunny disposition. She has spent almost one hundred and one years, not merely surviving, but thriving in a harsh world. Kaufman has been triumphant.

Like her grandfather, Bel fought many battles throughout her life; and, like her grandfather, she has faced them with conviction, persistence and a splash of humor. The author told our class that she was turned down time and again because of the book’s unconventional style, yet she clung stubbornly to its epistolary format. Bel said the book would not have been effective had it been laden with description like a classical novel. As the author, she wanted to remain completely absent from her work.  The book “needed to be a speaking novel,” one that could represent the “gobbledygook,” and the “bureaucracy” of the public school system.

Although Bel had commonalities with many of the authors who visited our class, she and Erica Jong seemed most similar. This was not just because both were dressed to the nines and donned large Hollywood glasses (although it is perhaps the reason I began to compare them in the first place.) Rather, it was their fearlessness and use of humor that united the two women. Both Jong and Kaufman explore serious content but do so in a way that compels a reader to laugh. In this way, both women seem to take after Sholem Aleichem.  Kaufman spoke about Aleichem during both the afternoon and evening events. She called him “a great humorist” but noted that his “subjects are not funny at all.” The documentary Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness further illustrated her point. In times sorrow, Aleichem chuckled. He returned time and again to laughter as a means for survival. 

  Bel began her afternoon discussion with our Jewish Lit Live class by asking how many people believed that her book was funny. Most of us raised our hands. “Its not,” she said sternly. “Its actually a very sad book about miscommunication.”  While the message of her book is serious, many passages within Kaufman’s novel are so absurd one has to laugh. This is exactly the point. In her article, At 95, Running Up The Down Staircase, Sandee Brawarsky compares Kaufman and her grandfather simply yet aptly. The author says, “she’s a writer like him, able to combine humor and compassion” (Brawarsky).  When Erica Jong spoke about Fear of Flying, she also discussed this dichotomy. “When people laugh,” Jong had said, “ I hope they will laugh with recognition.” This statement seems appropriate for the work of Kaufman and Aleicham as well. All three authors masterfully demonstrate how humor can overcome adversary.

It’s no wonder Kaufman continued to teach for decades after Up The Down Staircase became a best seller. She still had (and has!) so much to say. Her life is replete with stories, anecdotes and wisdom. Teaching seems to run through her veins. As Brawarsky notes, “she's a great storyteller, sharing tales in her deep voice of an engaging life.” Even now, when she has long since left the hallways of her public school, Kauffman remains a true educator. Teaching was never just an occupation, nor simply the premise for her book, it’s been a facet of Bel’s being entirely. Once Bel passed her exams, she “was teaching for the rest of [her] life.” “When I talk to you now,” Bel said, I’m still teaching.”

In perhaps the most poignant moment of our afternoon discussion, Bel Kaufman spoke about a teacher’s immortality, stating that “a teacher who showed you the way lives on in memory.” Wednesday night’s documentary further emphasized this idea. Aleicham’s stories contained messages about life, family, grief, and poverty. His tales live on, and so, he too remains. Kaufman refers back to her grandfather often. He is a ubiquitous force in her life, just as she claims all good teachers are on their students. 

Book reviewer Garson Kanin states in a quote appearing on the cover of Kaufman’s book, that Staircase is “pertinent useful, charming, important and utterly adorable.” This describes both the work and the author in general. She is so sweet and compelling that it is difficult to find fault with anything she says. And yet, at times I found myself challenging her belief that all it takes to be a truly great teacher is “to care.” While the sentiment is lovely, this idea seemed awfully simplistic. Doesn’t a teacher also need a solid method and the energy to push against an administration?   This does not mean that Kaufman’s advice was unwarranted, however. In fact, there was something deeply gratifying about seeing the idyllic, optimistic Syl Barrett still alive in Bel.

Kaufman, like the previous four authors, detailed the importance of empathy and the need to identify with your characters as a writer. Her compassion springs directly from her own personal experiences. The author discussed one Puerto Rican child who always sat silently in the back of her class , hindered by the language barrier in the room. Of course, Kaufman understood; she too had to adapt to a new language, a new world and a new way of life as a child.  “Been there, done that,” Bel said, smiling.  

Sandee Brawarsky says that Kaufman “has no secrets of longevity; she chalks up her energy and good health to good luck” (Brawarsky). Personally, I think her long life is the result of her persistence. That, and perhaps a bit of selfishness from her readers; those desperate to hang on to the teachings of Kaufman and who refuse to seal the portal to the world of Sholem Aleichem. 

Brawarsky, Sandee. 2006. At 95, running up the down staircase. The New York Jewish

Week, May 05, 2006. http://search.proquest.com/docview/362520146?accountid=11243 (accessed April 24, 2012).

The Library of Congress Celebrates Gwendolyn Brooks!

Gwendolyn Brooks is a woman of brilliant contradictions. On Thursday, June 7^th the Library of Congress celebrated the Pulitzer prize-winning poet’s birthday at an event that seemed to capture the essence of Brooks. Her work was serious but jocular, acerbic but placid. Presenter and poet Kyle Dargan said aptly that she has a magical way of being “dark and funny.” The compelling thing about Brooks’ work, is the way her incongruities thread together into one unyielding knot. In “We Real Cool” the poet manages to both condemn and identify with her subjects. Dargan informed audience members that the she crafted what is considered by many to be her most famous piece, after spotting a crowd of kids in a pool hall and wondering “how they feel about themselves.” In eight short lines the poet has not only created a voice for her subjects and established a smooth, jazzy rhythm, she has also instigated thoughts relating to authority, society and youth.

Poet and children’s librarian Janice Harrington gave profound insights into Brooks’ work and the intention behind it.  “Gwendolyn Brooks was of the mind that we are all each other’s business,” Harrington said. She went on to imply that Brooks’ poetry tries, in many ways, to show the importance of taking care of one another.  From A Street in Bronzeville and Annie Allen to Maud Martha Brooks provides insights into an eclectic group of characters. Her work travels from “the hood” to Beveley Hills and back. Her poems, as Harrington said, “examine the dignity of people,” despite the neighborhood in which they live. With cadence and audacity Gwendolyn Brooks, as Harrington stated, used “her words as instruments of hope.”

Want more on Brooks? Check out Haki R Madhubuti's book:

Honoring Genius Gwendolyn Brooks: The Narrative of Craft, Art, Kindness and Justice

Happy Father's Day!

My FAVORITE dad in literature? 

Mr. Atticus Finch! 

Erica “Fearless” Jong

Erica Jong is described in a 1975 Time Magazine article, as “a pretty, blonde woman with an expansive smile.” The author “is giggly and ebullient, sprinkling her talk alternately with four-letter words and literary allusions.”  This description may have been written thirty-seven years ago, but it is just as apt today.  At first, the author appeared guarded, hidden behind her leather jacket and leopard-print scarf. She even seemed to have a twinge of condescension in her demeanor. However, this proved to be largely my own preconceived notions as, minutes into our discussion, she shed this persona entirely. She peeled off her jacket, removed her scarf and, in the ultimate transformative moment, removed her enormous sunglasses, appearing at once more relaxed and amicable.

Right from the beginning, Erica stood in blatant contrast to the other authors of the semester. With (to quote Jong herself) “dare I say penetrating” humor and guileless remarks, the author’s candor added new dimension to both her own novel and the course in general.  Many of the Jewish Lit Live authors have been charming, yet relatively pensive and introverted. In fact, these characteristics were becoming the status quo for our author visits. With a refreshing, forthright personality, Jong obliterated this trend. She spoke with a certain spark. Her sarcasm and emphatic nature teetered on the brink of hyperbole at times, but Jong ultimately grounded her statements in (at least some version of) reality. 

At times while reading Fear of Flying, I had sided with the Times article which deemed the book “ shapeless” with a “self-indulgent plot” and “too prone to phrases like ‘our mouths melted like liquid.’” I see now that perhaps Jong’s exaggerations and elaborate metaphors do not, like the article implies and like I claimed initially, replace the author’s authenticity. Instead, maybe the flowery, poetic prose mask the truth and challenge the reader to search a bit before they find it. This is similar to the way Jong seems to conduct herself; amidst her one-liners and amusing anecdotes, the author tucked profound insights and ideas.

When Pearl Abraham came to visit, she immediately drew a palpable distinction between herself and the protagonist of The Romance Reader. This was not the case for the Fear of Flying author. Both Jong and her character Isadora Wing are intriguing because of their inconsistencies; they have the ability to be simultaneously sardonic and sweet. Erica, like her protagonist, was a fountain of information. She bubbled with quotes from authors, book trivia, and historical facts. While she was open to every type of question, at times she veered from the subject at hand.  An aside would turn into a story or a simple answer would become a tangent to a more complex subject matter.  It was in these digressions that the Erica would unveil a gem of wisdom. Isadora’s confessions mimicked Jong’s responses. Both found their greatest stories once they swerved from an original path.

Although our class has been warned repeatedly to avoid categorizing an author and her protagonist as one in the same, Jong and Wing came as a unit. At times it seemed like the author had decided to become her book’s protagonist for the purpose of discussing Fear of Flying. The truth, however, is that Isadora and Erica actually are, mostly, one in the same; the lines between them are indelibly blurred. Some authors protest being compared to the characters they create. Erica embraces it, acknowledging that the book is "an interweaving of fiction with reality" (Time).

In the book that Jong openly admits is a “bit of a rant,” Isadora often speaks in melodramatic tones or confronts the sinister themes in life with wit and a touch of absurdity. Despite the subject matter, humor saturates the pages of Fear of Flying. Erica’s ability to be both side-splitting and serious may have been one of the reasons the mock-memoir had such success. It reads as both a ground-breaking and important novel which altered the feminist movement and a comic guilty pleasure.  The reason for this dichotomy is simple; Jong explained that “humor makes the medicine go down.” It allows us to addresses the harsh realities of the world in a way we can stomach. Fear of Flying gives women a way to approach taboo subjects. The important thing, Erica explained, is that when people laugh at the book, “they laugh at it with recognition.”

During the evening event, Erica described her growth as a writer but noted that the main themes in her work have stayed the same from her college years to today. When she read her story Kiss from the Sugar in My Bowl short story anthology, this became immediately apparent. With the same intimate tone seen in Fear of Flying, Jong once again confronted femininity and what the author called the  “psychological games that we play with ourselves and with each other.” She harkened back to the idea of the “zipless fuck,” expressing one woman’s desire to have sex without having to deal with the emotional repercussions.  Sex, fear, passion and inner turmoil, were just as pervasive in Kiss as they had been in her work three decades earlier.

While her advice to budding writers was in many ways similar to the tried and true advice we’ve heard before, her methods were also unique and innovative. When Jong described her work on her current book, she said that at times when she was writing she thought it might be a memoir. At other times she said it seemed like fiction. Sometimes, she believed it would be another Isadora Wing installment. This spoke volumes about Jong’s ability to make fiction and the real world interact.  Erica does not imagine new worlds or create characters out of nothing, as some authors do. Rather, she chooses to examine reality, at times contorting it to her liking. This is a perilous yet inspiring decision because it forces an author to take part in deep self-reflection, something Erica seems to know how to do. “You have to write for yourself” she assured our class, “write about the thing you feel a need to write about.”

"The Loves Of Isadora." Time 105.5 (1975): 93. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.

            

Goodbye Ray Bradbury

Yesterday, the world lost another literary giant. A few excerpts from the Huffington Post and Chicago Tribune below. Read the articles  here and here.

During his acceptance speech for an honorary National Book Award in 2000: 

"Everything I've done is a surprise, a wonderful surprise... I sometimes get up at night when I can't sleep and walk down into my library and open one of my books and read a paragraph and say, `My God, did I write that? Did I write that?', because it's still a surprise."--Huffington Post article by By Mallika Rao and Gazelle Emami 

"His gift for storytelling reshaped our culture and expanded our world. But Ray also understood that our imaginations could be used as a tool for better understanding, a vehicle for change, and an expression of our most cherished values."-- --Chicago Tribune article by Carmel Dagan

The Romance Reader and Reading Pearl Abraham

    

      In American Taliban Abraham writes that John Parish “ introduced himself to himself.” In The Romance Reader, Rachel has, in a way, done this as well. As the narrator detaches from her community, as she peels away the layers of religion, marriage and seamed stockings, she begins to gain a true understanding of herself. At the novel’s close, Rachel is on her way to what Abraham calls “Gnosis,” the “deep, internal, imaginative knowing of oneself.” Although Rachel has not yet reached this state at the end of The Romance Reader, her rebellion and determination to find freedom indicate she will get there one day.

The author hopes that all younger generations are given the opportunity to achieve “Gnosis.” She described her fear, saying that we may not get the time we need to reach internal understanding. When the John Walker Lin story first appeared in 2001, Abraham feared that “Gnosis” would no longer be possible. She worried that Lin’s story would keep young adults from setting out on their own and seeking knowledge and power. Abraham turned these reservations and suspicions into fuel for her book, American Taliban.

 Perhaps the author’s conviction and devotion to the idea of “Gnosis” stems from the importance it played in her own life. It seems that to create characters who achieve or will achieve “Gnosis,” a writer must have experienced the phenomenon herself. Abraham has. Her attachment to freedom probably comes from the lack of it that she had as a child.  Stifled by the parameters of her religion, Pearl was emerged in the conventions of her family’s belief system. “In life, we are always emerged in something, but being emerged in anything doesn’t lend itself to self discovery,” Abraham said. She seems to have found “Gnosis” in college, when she had distance from the Jewish community and room for exploration.

In Shoshana Ziblatt’s review, “‘The Romance Reader’ Reveals Dreams, Tensions of a Chassid,” the author states that “Pearl Abraham’s first work of fiction, leaves the reader wondering where the author's identity ends and the main character's begins. And therein lies its success” (Ziblatt). Rachel and Pearl are plagued by the same dilemmas. Both vacillate between family and the desire for freedom. It was surprising that even now, decades later, the tension between the author’s past and present still feels palpable.

Although Pearl outwardly protested the stringencies of the Hasidic community, she also stated that the culture is “not based on corruption but on beliefs.”  In Shoshana Ziblatt’s review,  the author states that Abraham belongs to no “ organized branch of  Judaism, but still feels what she calls the "internal rhythm" of Chassidic culture.” Pearl still clings to the romantics of her religion; “Sunsets on Friday nights mean something to me, certain religious days of the year mean things to me," she said (Ziblatt).

The author approached religion with what seemed to be a newfound practicality.  She discussed religion as fiction, explaining that “it begins with a vision by some leader. If it is true enough, it gets picked up.” She also noted that the founder of Hassidism was a fiction writer himself.  These ideas harkened back to some of Nicole Krauss’ statements. Krauss remarked that God was the greatest created character of all. Abraham also defended religion, stating that modern society tends to blame it too much. She acknowledged that religious convictions can be limiting, but this might not always be the case, “sometimes it is just an easy fault.”

Pearl Abraham’s personality was, perhaps, the greatest surprise this year. Areyah Lev Stollman was soft-spoken and self-aware, just as I would have envisioned an adult version of his protagonist. Nadia Kallman was slightly eccentric but filled with the same enthusiasm that permeated in The Cosmopolitans. Nicole Krauss was careful with her words and spoke in the same lyrical style as The History of Love. Although Pearl had biographical similarities with Rachel, and although both strived for the same goals, their personalities varied significantly. While Abraham has said that "Rachel is impulsive in a way [she] is not” and that she is “not so courageous,” the opposite seemed to be true (Ziblatt). Perhaps it came with life experience, but Abrahm seemed devoid of  insecurities and comfortable with her place in the modern world.

It has become abundantly clear that compassion is one of the most important qualities a writer can have. Stollman stated that the empathy he uses with his patients translates in his writing as well. Kallman said that her own similarities with her characters allow her to write with a deeper understanding. Krauss remarked that writing is the road she takes to empathy, which leads to better writing. Abraham would probably agree with all three. She believes that an author must “have a kind of love and understanding for every character she creates.” Rachel’s mother is a fierce, strong woman trapped in a Patriarchal society. Pearl said that as a writer, she loved writing the mother’s character the most. She was an antagonist for Rachel, but she suffered too.

At one point in the evening, Abraham quoted her mentor E.L. Doctorow, who said that a writer “ knows best when he knows the least.” I believe this true. However, Abraham’s The Romance Reader seems to negate this idea. Pearl’s novel is compelling, poignant and ultimately successful but didn’t she use the what she new and had lived to create her story?

Ziblatt, Shoshana. "’The Romance Reader’Reveals Dreams, Tensions, of a Chassid." The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California (1995): 1-3. ProQuest. Web.

The Alluring Nicole Krauss

      Leo Gursky utters the phrase “And yet” more than fifty times throughout the History of Love. During her evening reading, Nicole Krauss said that this deceivingly simplistic statement “represented him in a way no other words could.” However, the phrase also seems to profoundly resonate with the author herself.  Her revelations about life and its value or meaning, are not novel ideas and yet Krauss conveys her thoughts in a manner that revitalizes their nature entirely.

Nicole said that “writing is a venue in which we may say and touch things we otherwise could not.” She stressed the importance of rhythm and sound and silence- noting that the phrasing of words is just as important as their content. These lessons about sentence structure and character development are fundamental but not ground-breaking. However, the passion enveloped in her words and the way in which poetic reflections poured from her mouth without hesitance, was a testament to the author’s sincerity.

In his Washington Post review “Parallel Lives,” Ron Charles also examines the “and yet” that clings to Krauss and her work. He describes The History of Love with its “characters named for other characters, cases of plagiarism and mistaken identity, and several crucial coincidences and chance meetings that are all maddeningly scrambled in an elliptical novel that shouldn't work but does.”  Charles calls Krauss’ book a spider web, a description the author would probably sanction because she “believes metaphor is the basic unit of literature and of language.”  Her book begins in the cobwebs of Leo’s life but ends as an elegant mesh of what Charles calls “beautiful confusion.” “The fractured stories of The History of Love” the reviewer says, “ fall together like a desperate embrace.”

Nicole seems to approach her writing the way she approaches life- without a master plan. She says she must “start before she knows where she will arrive.” Although she likens writing to “being skinned alive,” she also proclaims that it is the road she travels to find empathy. When she spoke to the Jewish Lit class, she declared that writing “comes from some necessity.” It also “is from the gut.”  It would seem that this idea is contrary to The History of Love with its interweaving plotlines and subtle allusions. It would seem the characters in Krauss’ book are painted so intricately they could not possibly be instinctual. However the author explained this incongruity when she clarified that nothing in the book was included based on “pure whimsy.” That would “go against every grain of her instinct.” Rather, writing is “honed instinct.”

Nicole’s talk harkened back to Aryeh Lev Stollman’s visit in many ways. The two seemed to be especially analogous in their quest to resist labels. Krauss refuses to surrender to categorization. If she thinks too much about others’ perception of her work, than “writing ceases to be a freeing experience.” Stollman was also wary of assumptions. The term “Jewish American writer” seemed almost distressing to both authors. Aryeh had been quick to mention the ways that literature transcends culture, a concept that Nicole preached as well.

To me, categorizing doesn’t seem as dangerous as these two writers claim. Why must a label be restricting? Why can’t an author collect labels as they produce work. Can’t a writer be labeled a Jewish American author only to be branded something else later on? The idea of being classified connotes restrictive properties but doesn’t it also celebrate a genre or type of work one has already mastered? Nicole acknowledged this idea briefly when she mentioned that labels could also be seen as “markers of the things she has done throughout her life.” In her text she writes that calling Mr. Mortiz “a Jewish writer…or, worse an experimental writer, is to miss entirely the point of his humanity, which resisted all categorization.” And yet. Couldn’t Mr. Mortiz’s body of work, along with the work of Stollman or Krauss, actually be an expansive anthology of labels that are gratifying rather than restricting?  Perhaps, the key is to embrace the categorizations bestowed upon you.

Part of Nicole’s success, in my opinion, stems from her ability to form connections. Not just the compassionate relationships she forms with her characters, but also with every individual who cracks the spine of The History of Love. This relationship, as Krauss described it, is “more profound than one might ever experience in life.” The book invites the reader, not only to delve into the author’s mind, but also to explore and possibly re-interpret the events relayed. Krauss said that, despite the word’s origin, the author is not the final authority. Rather, the reader is one who “finds things in the text that are far richer than even the writer may have intended.”  

It took not even two sentences of Nicole’s excerpt from Great House for the audience to realize that poignancy that saturates The History of Love exists in all Krauss’ prose. In a father’s tender, expressive monologue to his youngest  son, he says that he “seemed just the tiniest bit closer than the rest of us to the essence of things.” This is the effect Nicole Krauss has on her readers. Throughout The History of Love she provides us with a greater understanding of nature, the human condition, and the soul. She is closer to “life’s essence” than the characters she creates.  

It's a great day to check out The Power of The Word exhibit!

What's That? The G8 Summit is today? The NATO summit is this weekend?  Learn about the leaders here. Then, give them some suggestions for their free-time reading! 

Most Well-Read City In America

My hometown, Alexandria, VA, was deemed the NUMBER ONE Most Well-Read city in America! I've never been so proud! Checkout the The Huffington Post article Here! (Notice the mention of Hooray For Books, the bookstore that will always be #1 in my eyes) Washington DC also made the cut! Very Exciting! 

Power of The Word: Leaders, Readers and Writers

Two in one day! I'm setting records...


I am beyond excited to announce the American Writers Museum's first ever online exhibit. Please explore and comment! 


Click Below!

Nadia Kalman's The Cosmopolitans

     Placid, thoughtful, and respectfully rebellious, Nadia Kalman speaks fervently about her life and the life of her characters. Kalman’s soul does not plague her like it does her character Stalina. While Stalina’s soul materializes in the form of a handkerchief, Kalman’s soul materializes in the form of her novel. It is not her burden but rather her strength; the very thing that gives her freedom and allows for empathy and vivacity in her work. When Nadia spoke to the Jewish Literature class, she said that the characters in her book who run from their history and ignore their culture are the ones who cannot escape the Russian Soul. Through The Cosmopolitans Nadia shows readers that she is not a victim of her past; rather, she has the strength to embody it. 

     A self-proclaimed lucky immigrant, Kalman explained that there is a bit of her heart in every character she creates. Like Milla, she has tried to obey the rules and conform. Like Yana, she has been tempted to rebel. Like Katya she has, at times, felt very lost. While her similarities allow her to empathize with each character individually, they do not provide her with full control over their actions. “Sometimes,” Nadia said, “ your characters are not willing to go where you ask them. They have different paths in mind.” Nadia listens to the people that she creates. She tries to give them as much freedom as one can give an imaginary person. Perhaps this is the reason why The Cosmopolitans is so successful; it is a conversation between an author and her characters. 

     In an article from Red Thread Magazine,“Can Russian Lit Be the New Jewish Lit?” Yoni Apap states that Kalman’s The Cosmopolitans “is, at its core, a story about what makes this profoundly Russian family so recognizably American” (Apap). Maybe the novel’s core is bigger than nationality. When asked about how she conveys immigrant issues through writing, Nadia replied that “maybe immigrant issues are also just human issues in general.” Many of the conflicts that the Molochniks face are typical family disagreements. Nadia remarked that immigrant children face the same family problems that all children do. Despite their nationality, children tend to “live in a different world from their parents.” 

     Apap aptly praises Kalman’s style as “a mash-up of Russian absurdist influence and… Jewish-American magic realism” (Apap). Part of what makes Kalman’s humor so effective is that it stands in stark contrast to the serious themes of the book. The author combines playful anecdotes about love and marriage with sinister themes of tyranny and culture divides. Kalman addressed this combination when she spoke to the Jewish Literature class. Portions of her novel are sweet and sentimental but, on their own, they do not represent a realistic and authentic interpretation. “We would like to think that love moves the world,” Kalman said with a grin. Her smile faded, as she added, “but tyranny- that moves the world it too.” 

     Nadia Kalman’s novel addresses the ways in which the children of immigrants are affected by their parents’ history. In The Cosmopolitans, The youngest Molochnik daughter, Katya, has never been to Russia but she is plagued and haunted by a Russian figure from her parents’ past. Katya’s curse, Nadia explained, was intended to show how children of immigrants “are still tied to their parents’ home lands” no matter where they are born. 

     One of the novel’s most engaging characters is Lev, Osip’s reclusive brother and the story’s narrator figure. In her article Apap says that at times Lev is “frustratingly mysterious.” This obscurity, however, also gives the novel a truly authentic voice. Kalman acknowledged Lev’s ambiguity in class. He is not willing to convey the truths of his past. In fact, the author explained, “Lev writes to avoid and to forget it.” He is the character that has “become broken by the Soviet system.” Lev realizes he will never live a full life and so he masks his grief by detailing the trials and tribulations of the Molochnik family. While Lev may be trying to cover up his emotions, Kalman herself is not one to hide. Her book is blatant and appropriately unapologetic. 

     Although her characters may grapple with identity, Kalman’s writing shows that the author has a profound sense of self. Her style is unique and personal. Nadia whittled a 370-page novel into what it is now. She described to the Jewish Literature class, her omission process. Anything that didn’t shine new light on a character or work to further the plot was erased. Nadia described how the editing process was one of the hardest aspects of the book. Kalman said she wanted to allow herself to throw things away while simultaneously watching to be sure she was not “editing the personality from [her] work.” Kalman’s character Milla, also seems to struggle in this department. Throughout the text, the eldest Molochnik daughter often tries to edit out any attribute of her personality that doesn’t conform to a status quo. In the end, both Kalman and Milla have demonstrated their freedom and individuality. 

     At the end of “Can Russian Lit Be the New Jewish Lit?” the author calls The Cosmopolitans a “literary Declaration of Independence” which is absolutely appropriate. Kalman’s novel ends with sparks of hope for the Molochnik family as they take advantage of their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

Apap, Yoni. "Can Russian Lit Be the New Jewish Lit?" Red Thread Mar. 2011. Web. 

Aryeh Lev Stollman

I'm posting within two days of each other? It must be summer! 

     This year, I took a class called Jewish Lit Live. It was, quite honestly, life changing (no hyperbole here). I got the chance to meet five incredibly awesome , elegant, charming, curious and oh so creative authors: Aryeh Lev Stollman (The Far Euphrates), Nadia Kallman (The Cosmopolitans) , Pearl Abraham (The Romance Reader), Erica Jong (Fear of Flying) and Bel Kaufman (Up the Down Staircase). Jealous? Don't be, I'll share my thoughts! 

     Aryeh Lev Stollman is, in many ways, a man of contradictions. A brilliant writer and a successful neuroradiologist, he belongs to the realms of both science and art. The author of The Far Euphrates is pensive and articulate just like his protagonist. He is soft-spoken yet vocal, and timid yet self-aware. He is also an openly gay, once orthodox, Jew. Pigeonholing Dr. Stollman into any of these categories, however, would be reducing him to a series of labels; something the author adamantly warns us against. “Labels,” Stollman said, “are okay to orient oneself, but can be misguiding as well. They are actually a little dangerous.” 

     Stollman is, himself, the best example for his own statement. His inconsistencies appear to be the source of his strength and talent. Because of them, his compassion, knowledge, and perspective permeate throughout his pages. And so, ironically, it is perhaps the author’s unpredictable nature that allows him to create a book brimming with a coalescence of ideas and characters and beliefs and feelings, all as varied as he is. When asked about merging the worlds of literature and medicine, the author replied that his two passions “feed on each other.” Being a doctor adds a layer of compassion to his writing. But being a writer provides him with an understanding as a doctor. Most importantly, there is room only for empathy, never judgment in either field. “You can’t judge your patients. You just have to help them. And you can’t judge your characters,” you just have to write them. 

     Dr. Stollman provided new perspective for the Jewish Lit Live class. During his evening reading, he asked readers to be wary of assumptions and placing labels on the authors that we read. Assumptions are like the serpent Stollman alludes to in The Far Euphrates, sneaky and at times misleading. Dr. Stollman discussed the reasons why an author might not be keen on being deemed a Jewish American author. If a writer categorizes himself, he narrows his audience. “If you call yourself a Jewish author, then you worry you will only appeal to a Jewish crowd,” Aryeh said adding, that writing “transcends culture.” 

     When he spoke to our class, Stollman remarked that, because an author is their creator, there is “something about you in all of your characters.” In her New York Times book review, “In a World of Secrets,” Margot Livesey remarks that “The narrator, Alexander, is, like the author, the son of a rabbi.” This is just one of countless similarities between the author and his main character. While Stollman is quick to point out that the book is not a memoir, he does admit that there is certainly an autobiographical nature to the novel. The mere fact that the author chose give his narrator his own Hebrew name, proves this point. However, upon meeting Dr. Stollman, one can discern that, like he said, he is similar, not just to his protagonist, but to almost all of the characters he has created. 

    When he read from and spoke about his new novel, soon to be published, Stollman discussed the importance of history. “It affects us culturally,” he said. “Culture tries to shape you, but even one individual can change a culture.” When he said this, he was speaking about his newest protagonist, an ancient fourteen-year-old princess. However, he was also unconsciously, speaking about himself. Just by exploring the history of his culture, Stollman provided a new layer and facet of understanding. Livesey writes that “most novels would be content to show how our lives are shaped by history, but this one seems to be after something even larger.” The author of The Far Euphrates asks questions “raised by the Holocaust and its legacy: how we must try to solve for ourselves the riddle of God's existence and cultivate a sense of mercy in an unforgiving age.” 

     Livesey directs readers’ attentions to an important quote in The Far Euphrates where Alexander’s father remarks that their “ forefathers originally came not from Kana'an, not from an earthly Jerusalem, but from the far Euphrates with its source in Eden...We cannot forget it, or ever find it again.'' Stollman’s book is much like this mystical river. A reader will never find a book quite like it and will certainly never forget it. See for yourselves. 

<http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/21/reviews/970921.21livesey.html>.

Stay tuned for my reaction to Nadia Kallman's visit!

In Honor Of The Beloved Maurice Sendak

No doubt about it--because of Maurice Sendak, Children's Literature has been changed irrevocably. The New York Times calls Sendak "the most important children's book artist of the 20th century." "He wrenched the picture book out of the safe, sanitized world of the nursery and plunged it into the dark, terrifying, and hauntingly beautiful recess of the human psyche." Read the article here

"Please don't go. We'll eat you up we love you so" -- Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are

Don't miss your chance to share your favorite books

On Behalf of The American Writers Museum:

The American Writers Museum is putting together their very first online exhibit about how literature and world leaders are connected, and what readers believe are the most important books for everyone to read. The survey is open to anyone who is interested, and it’s a good opportunity to be able to share your favorite books. Survey responses will be highlighted on the exhibit website once it launches in May (along with such writers as Jonathan Franzen and Joyce Carol Oates). To take the quick survey, follow this link to our website: http://www.americanwritersmuseum.org/power-of-word-leaders-readers-writers-survey/

Click here to see the world's most beautiful bookstores!

Sneak Peak: 

Maurice Sendak on Grim Colberty Tales

Please take a look at this if you have not already seen it. These two have the greatest chemistry ever.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406796/january-24-2012/grim-colberty-tales-with-maurice-sendak-pt--1


http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406902/january-25-2012/grim-colberty-tales-with-maurice-sendak-pt--2

Grendel's Mother by The Mountain Goats

Read  Beowulf and Grendel by John Gardner and then listen to this. Or, just listen to this. So, so pretty.

The cave mouth shines.
By pure force of will
I look down on the world
From the top of this lonesome hill.
And you can run, and run some more
From here all the way to Singapore,
But I will carry you home in my teeth,

In the great hall you drink red wine.
You chew meat off the bone.
I beat down the new path to the castle.
I come naked and alone.
I laid my son on the bier; I burned the wreath.
Fire overhead, water underneath.
You can stand up, or you can run.
You and I both know what you've done,
And I will carry you home.
I will carry you home.
I will carry you home in my teeth.

Book Nerds Unite!

At the annual National Book Festival! 

Happy Birthday Mr. Dahl!

     September 13th marks the birthday of a true literary genius. In elementary school, a great summer did not exist without devouring the library's Roald Dahl section. From Matilda to The Twits to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dahl painted new worlds for his young readers. 

     Many children's books are filled with suspense, adventure and humor. However, Dahl went further than this. The author's imagination transformed every story into a genius innovation. His protagonists are unparalleled in their pizazz and vitality. His villains are unsurpassed in their treachery and abhorrence. 

     If you have never picked up a book from his collection, you have yet to experience true brilliance in the Children's literary world. Be prepared to be amazed.

September 13th is now recognized as Roald Dahl Day. So, an early happy Roald Dahl Day to all! 

Curious about Roald Dahl, his life or  his characters? Take a look at this fantastic site: 

http://www.roalddahl.com/

SENTENCES TO HOLD ON TO

You know those sentences that you read in a book and don't want to let go of? You read them twice... You come back to them in your mind...They, to be perfectly cliche, give you chills? Here are mine...

Atticus told me to delete the adjectives and I'd have the facts.  ~ To Kill a Mockingbird

Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy... but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird. ~ To Kill a Mockingbird

Jimmy Cross carried a compass, maps, code books, binoculars and a .45-caliber pistol that weighed 2.9 pounds fully loaded. He carried a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men. ~ The Things They Carried

you have to laugh at the things that hurt you just to keep yourself in balance, just to keep the world from running you plumb crazy ~ One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

We tell ourselves stories in order to live ~ The White Album 

So we drove on toward death in the cooling twilight ~ The Great Gatsby 

Some people were so delicate that one look was enough to wipe them away, but even bone-dumb grunts seemed to feel that something weird and extra was happening ~ Dispatches 

rock and roll turned more lurid and dangerous than bullfighting, rock stars started falling like second lieutenants; ecstasy and death and (of course and for sure) life... ~ Dispatches 

A puzzled look replaced the look of pain in the lead-colored face. Then Spade smiled. His smile was gentle, even dreamy ~ The Maltease Falcon