I just finished Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. I must say first off that Everything is Illuminated is one of my favorite books so I came into Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (called ELIC from here on out. Too bad it's not about that program at Wheaton... ) with an extremely open mind. Therefore, I really liked ELIC. Not anywhere near my top five at this point but I thoroughly enjoyed the read and I would definitely recommend it as a quick and easy but deep and heavy read. It's amazing how Foer fits all those incongruous features together in one book.
ELIC is definitely a "modern novel." (props to Brendan Fox for that comment) The use of what I would call mixed media, in this situation being pictures and different formatting, that would normally bother me. Honestly, I feel like most times, the use of these tactics often end up gimmicky. However, Foer manages to integrate these tactics into the story in a way that is completely gimmick-less. The main character, Oskar, keeps a book for himself of "Stuff That Happened to Me," which includes many photos that he mentions, photos that are then included in the pages of ELIC. The changes in formatting show the different narrators in the book, which allows the reader to differentiate their voices in a visual way along with the tone and speech patterns of each.
Some would probably say that the subject material of ELIC is too soon. That we haven't been able to separate ourselves from 9/11 enough to be able to appreciate literature about it or be able to take it seriously. But I believe that it makes us appreciate it and take it more seriously than we would be able to if we were separated from the event. Foer is speaking about such universal themes, including loss, family, and love, that need some sort of anchor. In ELIC, the anchor is disaster, 9/11 being the most prevalent, with the bombing of Dresden coming second, and including a short bit about the bomb at Hiroshima. Foer is able to bring those disasters to a different light when comparing them to 9/11. Much of his audience has no real connection or tangible feeling about the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima but can identify, in some way, with 9/11. The subject makes all of the themes resonate better with a modern audience, and I have no feeling that it is too soon.
My last note about ELIC would be the subject of the difference between being loved and knowing that you are loved. Two quotes, one from the grandfather: "That's all anyone wants from anyone else, not love itself but the knowledge that love is there" (130) and another from the grandmother: "I don't know if I've ever loved your grandfather. But I've loved not being alone." (309) The difference between being loved and not being alone or just knowing that you're loved is truly a fine line. This is a much bigger subject than I have time or energy for, but ELIC brings it up. Foer doesn't elaborate a great deal but at least acknowledges that there is a difference. It's something that our generation doesn't talk about often and really just chooses to ignore. Mostly because we probably don't know the difference and usually err more on the side of not being alone/knowing you're loved than actually caring that you're loved. An interesting conversation that needs more discussion.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Hipster Christianity
I finished Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken last night and I have had so many people already ask me how I liked it. I have to say that overall, I didn't. It's not that I didn't like what he had to say, he had a lot of good points to make, but two aspects of the book really distracted me from what he was saying.
First of all, his writing was stylistically strange. McCracken is typically a magazine writer, writing a great deal for Relevant, which translated a bit too much (or too little, depending on which way he could have taken the style) into the writing of the book. Before I get into that, though, I want to make the disclaimer that I don't think of myself as a writing expert. This is all coming from my experience reading the book and others might think that McCracken's writing is perfectly fine.The writing was generally conversational but there were moments where McCracken was attempting to be academic, especially in his chapter on the history of cool/hip. It's the magazine writer writing a book and feeling like he has to write more like a book writer. It's a line that doesn't really need to be crossed, but I'm sure anyone would feel that kind of pressure.
Adding to his magazine style, McCracken uses lists much too frequently throughout the book. Lists like: Churches I visited, Christian Hipster Leaders, beliefs of the emerging church, and the different types of hipster. These lists make up a majority of his content, which, in my opinion, distracts from what he's trying to say. It's sometimes a breather when, in a non-fiction type book, the author uses a list style, but when all the reader gets are breathers, coming up for air gets tiring. It just shows how uncomfortable McCracken is with writing book-type prose.
The second aspect of the book that was a distraction was the scattered nature of McCracken's intended subject. Hipster Christianity really is not an appropriate title for the book. McCracken probably should have just stuck to the tag line he used, "When Church and Cool Collide." What he really wants to discuss is the disparity between what Christianity says about being cool and what the church thinks it needs to do to attract members. This issue is a huge problem for the church today, and one of the scariest parts about the emerging church. But I'll get down off my soapbox. McCracken talks about this subject in length and I really feel that that's what he was trying to get at. It's just a whole lot harder to differentiate the subtleties between churches like that and hipster churches.
This difference is played out most in the churches he describes as "hipster churches." When I read that he described Mars Hill (Seattle) as a hipster church, I am sure I had a confused look on my face. I don't know any hipster (and I know a lot) who would be caught dead at Mars Hill! No self-respecting hipster would go to a mega-church with neon lights up at the front behind a pastor who still wears suit vests with t-shirts and Ed Hardy sweatshirts. A typical hipster church is much more subdued and doesn't try to attract people. For all you Wheaton people, Church of the Res is a perfect example of a hipster church. Liturgy, tradition, but with great arts and more liberal outreach. Res isn't having meetings to dress the pastor or try and figure out how they can be relevant. This is a point that McCracken gets right on, but Christianity is relevant without having to try. Hipsters hate people who try too hard, even though they do themselves, lets be honest.
Anyway, McCracken does talk about the problems that hipster Christians encounter, problems like the prevalence of drinking, smoking, and drugs that occurs in Christian hipster circles, but that's not really the subject of his writing. McCracken wants to talk about cool and Christianity but the cool he chooses to use as a label (hipster) doesn't really apply to the subject he wants to discuss. His talk about hipsters is a bit edifying. For someone who can probably be called a hipster, it is good to hear someone write about how we aren't just a bunch of no-goodniks, but we are young people who appreciate fine things, even though others might not agree (especially with fashion). Hipsters do take stock in finer foods, art, and music. We like things because they are good, but they also happen to be hip. I will just go out on a limb and say that I'm glad I like listening to bands like the Dirty Projectors and eating at gourmet restaurants (avec and the publican two high recommendations) rather than listening to Katy Perry and eating at McDonalds all the time.
Hipster Christianity was definitely an interesting read but I'd find a summary rather than slugging through the whole thing. I'm now into Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. I really like it so far, but a review will be coming as soon as I finish it!
First of all, his writing was stylistically strange. McCracken is typically a magazine writer, writing a great deal for Relevant, which translated a bit too much (or too little, depending on which way he could have taken the style) into the writing of the book. Before I get into that, though, I want to make the disclaimer that I don't think of myself as a writing expert. This is all coming from my experience reading the book and others might think that McCracken's writing is perfectly fine.The writing was generally conversational but there were moments where McCracken was attempting to be academic, especially in his chapter on the history of cool/hip. It's the magazine writer writing a book and feeling like he has to write more like a book writer. It's a line that doesn't really need to be crossed, but I'm sure anyone would feel that kind of pressure.
Adding to his magazine style, McCracken uses lists much too frequently throughout the book. Lists like: Churches I visited, Christian Hipster Leaders, beliefs of the emerging church, and the different types of hipster. These lists make up a majority of his content, which, in my opinion, distracts from what he's trying to say. It's sometimes a breather when, in a non-fiction type book, the author uses a list style, but when all the reader gets are breathers, coming up for air gets tiring. It just shows how uncomfortable McCracken is with writing book-type prose.
The second aspect of the book that was a distraction was the scattered nature of McCracken's intended subject. Hipster Christianity really is not an appropriate title for the book. McCracken probably should have just stuck to the tag line he used, "When Church and Cool Collide." What he really wants to discuss is the disparity between what Christianity says about being cool and what the church thinks it needs to do to attract members. This issue is a huge problem for the church today, and one of the scariest parts about the emerging church. But I'll get down off my soapbox. McCracken talks about this subject in length and I really feel that that's what he was trying to get at. It's just a whole lot harder to differentiate the subtleties between churches like that and hipster churches.
This difference is played out most in the churches he describes as "hipster churches." When I read that he described Mars Hill (Seattle) as a hipster church, I am sure I had a confused look on my face. I don't know any hipster (and I know a lot) who would be caught dead at Mars Hill! No self-respecting hipster would go to a mega-church with neon lights up at the front behind a pastor who still wears suit vests with t-shirts and Ed Hardy sweatshirts. A typical hipster church is much more subdued and doesn't try to attract people. For all you Wheaton people, Church of the Res is a perfect example of a hipster church. Liturgy, tradition, but with great arts and more liberal outreach. Res isn't having meetings to dress the pastor or try and figure out how they can be relevant. This is a point that McCracken gets right on, but Christianity is relevant without having to try. Hipsters hate people who try too hard, even though they do themselves, lets be honest.
Anyway, McCracken does talk about the problems that hipster Christians encounter, problems like the prevalence of drinking, smoking, and drugs that occurs in Christian hipster circles, but that's not really the subject of his writing. McCracken wants to talk about cool and Christianity but the cool he chooses to use as a label (hipster) doesn't really apply to the subject he wants to discuss. His talk about hipsters is a bit edifying. For someone who can probably be called a hipster, it is good to hear someone write about how we aren't just a bunch of no-goodniks, but we are young people who appreciate fine things, even though others might not agree (especially with fashion). Hipsters do take stock in finer foods, art, and music. We like things because they are good, but they also happen to be hip. I will just go out on a limb and say that I'm glad I like listening to bands like the Dirty Projectors and eating at gourmet restaurants (avec and the publican two high recommendations) rather than listening to Katy Perry and eating at McDonalds all the time.
Hipster Christianity was definitely an interesting read but I'd find a summary rather than slugging through the whole thing. I'm now into Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. I really like it so far, but a review will be coming as soon as I finish it!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Infinite Jest
So I finished Infinite Jest. Finally! Jeez. Y'all will see soon that I read about a book a week usually so devoting two whole months to DFW (David Foster Wallace for all you non-intelligentsia hipsters, who probably are better off not being intelligentsia hipsters...) took a whole heck of a lot of perseverance from me.
Anyway, it was amazing. I will confess that I'm fairly certain I only understood about 20% of all of it's nuances and the ending totally baffled me but it really was an amazing piece of work. I will have to read it a few more times before I would feel as if I understood any kind of majority of it but it's totally worth it as a read. DFW is an amazing writer and uses some unique, albeit occasionally somewhat unnecessary, writing techniques. A few as follows:
-The revelation of details about characters, especially in appearance, near the end of the characters' developments. For example, a character who appears throughout the novel is finally revealed to have white hair. Which may seem like a totally nominal trait, but was completely disorienting for me in the moment as it totally changed my minds-eye picture of the character.
-The seemingly backwards development of characters (which probably explains the first point). Throughout the book, there are smaller vignette type stores that are all connected. And there are three main lines, life at ETA, the Ennet House, and the goings on of the AFR. The first hundred pages of the novel don't make a ton of cohesive sense because all of these different seemingly disconnected stories happen and they only start to make real sense together about halfway through. Which is my number one reason why I want to read the book again.
-The EXCESSIVE use of footnotes. I'm sorry but I really get annoyed when authors use footnotes for EVERYTHING. That's why I haven't made it through but ten pages of Ulysses. Anyway, DFW uses footnotes for every little aside that he might use. Some footnotes are more than asides. There are entire story lines that happen through a single footnote that might be several pages long. And sometimes I would get lazy and not really read the entire long footnotes carefully which makes me feel like I must have missed something.
Overall, I would definitely suggest it to anyone who is willing to take the plunge. Worth it.
I am now reading Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken which is interesting but his writing shows that it's his first book and he's trying to figure out if he wants to have a casual or academic voice. He's coming to speak at Wheaton this week so I might be able to go see him speak and get some light shed. After, I'm going to start Till We Have Faces again for a Sunday school class at church and hopefully finally get to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. As a reminder: I'm always ready for some suggestions for books, movies, and music.
Anyway, it was amazing. I will confess that I'm fairly certain I only understood about 20% of all of it's nuances and the ending totally baffled me but it really was an amazing piece of work. I will have to read it a few more times before I would feel as if I understood any kind of majority of it but it's totally worth it as a read. DFW is an amazing writer and uses some unique, albeit occasionally somewhat unnecessary, writing techniques. A few as follows:
-The revelation of details about characters, especially in appearance, near the end of the characters' developments. For example, a character who appears throughout the novel is finally revealed to have white hair. Which may seem like a totally nominal trait, but was completely disorienting for me in the moment as it totally changed my minds-eye picture of the character.
-The seemingly backwards development of characters (which probably explains the first point). Throughout the book, there are smaller vignette type stores that are all connected. And there are three main lines, life at ETA, the Ennet House, and the goings on of the AFR. The first hundred pages of the novel don't make a ton of cohesive sense because all of these different seemingly disconnected stories happen and they only start to make real sense together about halfway through. Which is my number one reason why I want to read the book again.
-The EXCESSIVE use of footnotes. I'm sorry but I really get annoyed when authors use footnotes for EVERYTHING. That's why I haven't made it through but ten pages of Ulysses. Anyway, DFW uses footnotes for every little aside that he might use. Some footnotes are more than asides. There are entire story lines that happen through a single footnote that might be several pages long. And sometimes I would get lazy and not really read the entire long footnotes carefully which makes me feel like I must have missed something.
Overall, I would definitely suggest it to anyone who is willing to take the plunge. Worth it.
I am now reading Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken which is interesting but his writing shows that it's his first book and he's trying to figure out if he wants to have a casual or academic voice. He's coming to speak at Wheaton this week so I might be able to go see him speak and get some light shed. After, I'm going to start Till We Have Faces again for a Sunday school class at church and hopefully finally get to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. As a reminder: I'm always ready for some suggestions for books, movies, and music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)