纽约时报2009十大好书

读好书做好人,把您喜爱不已的好书推介给各位。

Moderators: 周碧香, kuanghong

*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

HALF BROKE HORSES: A True-Life Novel

Image

书名: 《半驯服的马》
作者 : Jeannette Walls
出版社 : Scribner

In her luminous memoir, “The Glass Castle,” Walls told of being raised by eccentric and unfit parents. Now, in a novel based on family lore, she has adopted the voice of her maternal grandmother, Lily Casey Smith — mustang breaker, schoolteacher, ranch wife, bootlegger, poker player, racehorse rider and bush pilot. The result ¬re¬animates a chapter of America’s frontier past.

在Jeannette Wall的回忆录《玻璃城堡(The Glass Castle)》中,Walls讲述了被古怪、不称职的父母养大的股市。现在,在一部以家族传说为基础的小说中,她采用了她外祖母Lily Casey Smith的口吻,她祖母是一位驯马师、老师、农场女主人、酿私酒者、扑克玩家、骑手和无人区飞行的飞行员。这部作品重新赋予了美国拓荒史新的生命。
*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

Book Review: HALF BROKE HORSES: A True-Life Novel

Untamed Heart

By LIESL SCHILLINGER
Published: October 15, 2009



Jeannette Walls was raised in poverty and hardship by skittish, eccentrically idealistic, profoundly unfit parents. As Rex and Rose Mary Walls caromed between dying mining towns, both of them too willful to hold down a job, their four children slept in cardboard boxes, set themselves on fire, subsisted on margarine and cat food, and, as they grew older, struggled to hide their meager earnings from their father, who cheerfully robbed them to pay for his alcoholic sprees. Anyone who devoured Walls’s incandescent 2005 memoir, “The Glass Castle,” has wondered: How did such untamed characters come to exist in America, in the not-so-distant 1960s and ’70s?

Walls’s new book, “Half Broke Horses,” a novelistic re-creation of the life of her maternal grand¬mother, Lily Casey Smith, in the first half of the 20th century, told in her grandmother’s voice, gives a partial answer to that perplexing question. Through the adventures of Lily Casey — mustang breaker, schoolteacher, ranch wife, bootlegger, poker player, racehorse rider, bush pilot and mother of two — Walls revisits the adrenaline-¬charged frontier background that gave her own mother a lifelong taste for vicissitude. “I’m an excitement addict,” Rose Mary Walls liked to tell her children. And yet — can the contours of one woman’s life ever sufficiently explain the life that proceeds from hers?

Lily Casey was born in 1901 in a one-room dugout in West Texas, on a parched flood plain on the banks of Salt Draw, near the Pecos River. Reading the word “dugout” early in these pages will set off a memory loop in the minds of the millions of women (and not a few men) who grew up reading Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House” books about her pioneer girlhood in the 1870s and ’80s, back when families traveled by covered wagon, not S.U.V. In 1874, Charles and Caroline Ingalls (Pa and Ma) moved their growing family into a grass-covered dugout on the Minnesota prairie. Garth Williams’s illustrations depicted the place as a flower-strewn, bucolic hobbit hole. When a steer’s leg came crashing through its sod ceiling, Wilder wrote that Ma and Laura “laughed because it was funny to live in a house where a steer could step through the roof. It was like being rabbits.”

The Caseys’ dugout was less jolly: “scorpions, lizards, snakes, gophers, centi¬pedes and moles wormed their way out of our walls and ceilings.” In rainstorms, Walls writes, “the dugout turned to mud. Sometimes clumps of that mud dropped from the ceiling and you had to put it back in place.” Once, during an Easter dinner, a rattlesnake dropped onto the table, and Lily’s father took a break from carving the ham to chop off its head.

Wilder’s stories have acquired such mythic power (in “The Glass Castle,” Walls lists them among her favorite childhood books) that it can be easy to forget how many American families shared similar histories, each with their own touchstones of calamity, endurance and hard-won reward. With convincing, unprettified narration, Walls weaves her own ancestor into this collective rough-and-tumble heritage.

Like Laura Ingalls, Lily Casey grew up on farms in sparsely populated country, learning self-reliance and doing chores without complaint. At age 5, she helped her father train carriage-horse teams and, once a week, hitched up the buckboard and drove into a nearby town to sell eggs. After the family’s dugout collapsed in a flood and a tornado smashed in the roof of their next house, the Caseys moved to a ranch in New Mexico. Because her father had a gimpy leg and a speech impediment, and “was never the most practical man in the world,” it was Lily, age 11, who hired and fired laborers and oversaw the tilling, planting, harvesting, peach picking and manure spreading. Her mother, who “worked very hard at being a lady,” was no help. She was “dainty, only four and a half feet tall, and her feet were so small that she had to wear button-up boots made for girls.” While her mother wore corsets and rubbed her hands with a paste of honey, lemon juice and borax to keep them white, Lily acted as ranch foreman (and tightened her mother’s laces, as needed).

At 13, Lily was permitted to leave the ranch to go to school in Santa Fe, but she had to leave midway through the term after her father squandered her tuition money on four Great Danes, dreaming of puppy mill riches. But a neighbor, Old Man Pucket, shot the dogs almost immediately, claiming they had spooked his cattle. No matter. As the Ingalls family would say, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” As restitution, Old Man Pucket gave the Caseys eight “half-broke” mustangs — unshod and unused to the saddle. It was one of these, a mare, that Lily lassoed, tamed, broke and rode off on, alone, to a teaching job 500 miles west, in Red Lake, Ariz. She was 15 at the time, the same age Laura Ingalls was when she took a job at a lonely prairie school to help her family’s finances.

Unlike Ingalls, Lily Casey wasn’t homesick; she relished her independence. “I’d been on the road, out in the sun and sleeping in the open, for 28 days. I was tired and caked with dirt. I’d lost weight, my clothes were heavy with grime and hung loosely, and when I looked in a mirror, my face seemed harder. . . . But I had made it.” The circumstances of the two young teachers’ employment were also different. Ingalls got her job because teachers were scarce out west in the 1880s. Lily got hers because World War I was on, men were overseas, and certified lady teachers had left their schoolhouses to take factory jobs.

For four years, blissfully freed from back-breaking ranch chores, Lily taught school in Arizona. But when the seasoned teachers returned after the war, she had to start all over again. She found work as a maid in Chicago (her first employer fired her, saying, “You don’t seem to know your place”), married and dumped a two-¬timing no-account scoundrel, then took some college courses and moved back to Red Lake to teach school. There she met the man, Jim Smith, who would become Jeannette Walls’s grandfather — just in time for the Great Depression.

The Smiths rode out the hard times by managing a 100,000-acre cattle ranch for its British owners, fighting both the elements and the tax collector. Lily made chairs out of orange crates and drinking cups out of coffee cans, and sent her two children out to scavenge bottles for the refund money. When Rose Mary was little, she relished their rugged life, but hated to watch the cowboys on the ranch break wild horses. “I feel bad for the horses,” she told Lily. “They just want to be free.” “In this life,” her mother responded, “hardly anyone gets to do what they want to do.” But when Rose Mary Smith grew up and met Rex Walls, they resolved to do just that.

In an author’s note, Walls writes that she considers “Half Broke Horses” less a novel than an “oral history, a retelling of stories handed down by my family through the years.” But her grandmother’s eventful trajectory would never be known to the rest of us had Walls not set these memories down on paper. Her grandmother, many years ago, opposed Rose Mary’s marriage to Rex Walls. “My daughter needs an anchor,” she told him. “The problem with being attached to an anchor,” he retorted, is that it makes it “hard to fly.” Rose Mary got to fly, in a way; but Lily Casey Smith also got her wish. Rose Mary eventually found an anchor in the form of her daughter — the third generation of a line of indomitable women whose paths she has inscribed on the permanent record, enriching the common legend of our American past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books ... ger-t.html
*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

A SHORT HISTORY OF WOMEN

Image


书名: 《妇女简史》
作者 : Kate Walbert
出版社 : Center Point Pub


The 15 lean, concentrated chapters in this exquisitely written novel alternate among the lives of a British suffragist and a handful of her Anglo-American descendants. The theme is feminism, but Walbert is keenly alert to male preoccupations and the impressions they leave on the lives of her female cast. Walbert’s prose, cool and intelligent, captures the many ways we silence and are silenced, the ways we see and hear as we struggle to grasp hold of meaning.


这部写作精巧的小说共有简短,精炼的15个章节,讲述了美国妇女参政论者和她的多位盎格鲁-美国后裔的生活。主题是女权主义,但作者对男性的关切及其在女性生活中留下的印象很敏锐。其优美、冷静、睿智的语言捕捉到了我们沉默不语和被迫沉默的情形,我们努力抓住意义时观看和聆听的方式。
*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

Book Review: A SHORT HISTORY OF WOMEN

Feminine Mystique

By LEAH HAGER COHEN
Published: June 12, 2009



Nearly everything about Kate Walbert’s new novel is wickedly smart, starting with the title: “A Short History of Women.” Does it connote modesty or grandeur? “Short” sounds modest. “History” sounds grand — grandiose, in fact, when affixed to a work of fiction. But “Women” clinches it: modest, then. After all, what more trifling subject could one elect to research? Such, at any rate, is the prevailing view in the world inhabited by Walbert’s characters — all five generations of them. One of the book’s accomplishments is that it persuades us that this sentiment holds no less currency in 21st-¬century America than it did in late Victorian England. But Walbert’s primary concerns — unlike those of some of her characters — aren’t political. Her writing wears both its intelligence and its ideology lightly. No manifesto, this is a gorgeously wrought and ultimately wrenching work of art.

Like her last novel, “Our Kind,” which was a National Book Award finalist, “A Short History of Women” consists of linked stories: in this case, 15 lean, concentrated chapters that hopscotch through time and alternate among the lives of Dorothy Trevor Townsend, a British suffragist, and a handful of her descendants. Several of the stories have been previously published; most could stand alone. Yet together they coalesce into more than the sum of their parts. It is Walbert’s conceit that while the oldest and youngest generations never meet, they share a legacy of echoes: objects and phrases that repeat mysteriously, and with increasing significance, across the decades. This spare novel manages, improbably, to live up to its title: it delivers what feels like a reasonably representative history of women — at least of white, Anglo-Saxon women, over the past hundred-odd years.

What is that history? What are its implications? And why should we care about them? Consider Virginia Woolf’s dictum: “This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing room.” If you think this belief is dated, think again. Just two months ago, Joyce Carol Oates told The New York Times Magazine why violence is so often the subject of her fiction. “If you’re going to spend the next year of your life writing,” she explained, “you would probably rather write ‘Moby-Dick’ than a little household mystery.”

“A Short History of Women” ingeniously suggests the fallacy of the war/drawing room dichotomy. Its various settings include neither battlefield nor whaler, yet masculine power and influence pervade these pages, from Havelock Ellis, Charles Darwin and the “good men of Lloyd’s” in belle époque London to the young soldiers patrolling Dover Air Force Base in present-¬day Delaware. What’s remarkable is the way Walbert uses male preoccupations to illuminate the lives of her female characters — and there’s nothing “little” about them.

The most arresting and oddly affecting is Evelyn Townsend, Dorothy’s daughter, who opens the book by announcing, “Mum starved herself for suffrage, Grandmother claiming it was just like Mum to take a cause too far.” The year is 1914, and the War to End All Wars has recently begun. Evelyn’s father long ago “vanished in Ceylon.” Her mother lies dead “in her simple box, a lavender Votes for Women sash across her small, unquivering bosom,” while “bloated zeppelins” darken the sky overhead. Eve¬lyn, age 13, is packed off to a girls’ school far north of London, “out of harm’s way,” where she’ll be taught elocution and Domestic Duties.

All this is reported with dispassionate, almost surgical precision. Evelyn is a stoic, apparently — or else shell-shocked, like so many of the newly returned soldiers. Or perhaps, as her grandmother puts it before sending her away, she’s simply “hard as rock.” But Evelyn’s cool dispatches are actually flooded with feeling, and flood us with feeling. Like an actor who knows that fighting back tears can evoke 10 times the pathos of dissolving into sobs, Walbert makes skillful use of restraint.

At school, Evelyn falls for the young new priest, Father Fairfield, who smokes and takes the girls sledding and “no longer believes.” To top it off, he reveals that he admired her mother: “A real hero she was. She would not compromise, he says. She did something, he says.” Evelyn’s tone is habitually terse, but in this instance her austerity is particularly moving, since we know Father Fairfield’s words must salve a terrible wound. (Everyone else, from the press to the hospital attendants to Evelyn’s own grandmother, has expressed only contempt for her mother’s act.) And Evelyn’s woodenness is not simply heartbreaking; at times, it sublimates into a kind of stark poetry, as when she reveals that after only a few months at the school Father Fairfield will be drafted, then “killed within his second week, but for now he stands before us beautiful and ruined and not yet dead.”

Now I must throw up my hands in despair: I’m running out of space, and the only thing I’ve addressed in a modicum of detail is the first chapter — a mere dozen pages! The trouble is that each chapter is like a slice of exquisite cake. But the reviewer’s predicament is the reader’s pleasure. I found myself going back time and again to reread whole paragraphs, not because they’d been obscure, but in the way one might press a finger to the crumbs littering an otherwise cleaned plate: out of a desire to savor every morsel.

So much is packed between this book’s covers that the “Short” of the title and the brevity of the chapters (two are no more than a page long) wind up feeling like a kind of trompe l’oeil. Here is Dorothy as a child in the late 1800s, witnessing the rape of her friend on a dirt road. Here is Evelyn as a professor of chemistry at Barnard, sharing a drink with a student on V-J Day. Here are Dorothy’s American descendants — including her granddaughter and namesake (a shaggy-haired iconoclast who might have stepped out of a Grace Paley story) mounting a solo protest against the Iraq war. In the next generation, Walbert gives us a divorced businesswoman who, surfing the Internet after midnight, accidentally stumbles across her mother’s blog, and a Manhattanite with three small children who spins “clay into pots and teacups and dessert plates” and compares anxieties with another mother during one marathon, wine-fueled playdate.

Nor is it only the main characters who come to life. If Walbert excels at miniatures, she’s fantastic at micro-miniatures: the homosexual World War I medic, a witness to the Christmas truce at Ypres; the female servant to whom the task falls of telling Evelyn that her mother is dead; the black maid issued an impromptu invitation to participate in her white employer’s consciousness-¬raising group. I’d gladly read an entire novel about any of these fleeting figures. But they’re not simply further evidence of the author’s skill. Each contributes something vital to what she is saying about our world. That is, about us — the ways we silence and are silenced, the ways we see and hear and grasp hold of meaning. Kate Walbert may work in miniature, but her scope is vast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/books ... hen-t.html
*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

THE AGE OF WONDER: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science

Image


书名: 《奇迹年代:浪漫主义一代怎样发现了科学的美与恐怖》
作者 : Richard Holmes
出版社 : Pantheon

Holmes harnesses the twin energies of scientific curiosity and poetic invention in this superb intellectual history, which recreates a glorious period, some 200 years ago, when figures like William Herschel, Humphry Davy and Joseph Banks brought “a new imaginative intensity and excitement to scientific work,” and literary giants like Coleridge and Keats responded giddily to these breakthroughs, finding in them an empirical basis for their own faith in human betterment.

Holmes 在这部杰出的知识史中,霍尔姆斯点燃了两个能量来源:对科学的好奇和诗意的创造力,重建了一段辉煌的时期——大约200年前,威廉•赫舌尔、汉弗莱•戴维和约瑟夫•班克斯等人为科学工作注入了“新的想象力和激情”,科学上的突破让柯勒律治和济慈等文学巨人非常激动,他们在其中看到了为人类谋福利的经验主义基础。
*小周
Posts: 2822
Joined: 24-07-09 Fri 11:44 am
Location: 农林园

Book Review: THE AGE OF WONDER

Science and the Sublime

By CHRISTOPHER BENFEY
Published: July 16, 2009



In this big two-hearted river of a book, the twin energies of scientific curiosity and poetic invention pulsate on every page. Richard Holmes, the pre-eminent biographer of the Romantic generation and the author of intensely intimate lives of Shelley and Coleridge, now turns his attention to what Coleridge called the “second scientific revolution,” when British scientists circa 1800 made electrifying discoveries to rival those of Newton and Galileo. In Holmes’s view, “wonder”-driven figures like the astronomer William Herschel, the chemist Humphry Davy and the explorer Joseph Banks brought “a new imaginative intensity and excitement to scientific work” and “produced a new vision which has rightly been called Romantic science.”

A major theme of Holmes’s intricately plotted “relay race of scientific stories” is the double-edged promise of science, the sublime “beauty and terror” of his subtitle. Both played a role in the great balloon craze that swept across Europe after 1783, when the Montgolfier brothers sent a sheep, a duck and a rooster over the rooftops of Versailles, held aloft by nothing more substantial than “a cloud in a paper bag.” “What’s the use of a balloon?” someone asked Benjamin Franklin, who witnessed the launching from the window of his carriage. “What’s the use of a newborn baby?” he replied. The Gothic novelist Horace Walpole was less enthusiastic, fearing that balloons would be “converted into new engines of destruction to the human race — as is so often the case of refinements or discoveries in Science.”

The British, more advanced in astronomy, could afford to scoff at lowly French ballooning. William Herschel, a self-taught German immigrant with “the courage, the wonder and the imagination of a refugee,” supported himself and his hard-working assistant, his sister Caroline, by teaching music in Bath. The two spent endless hours at the enormous telescopes that Herschel constructed, rubbing raw onions to warm their hands and scanning the night sky for unfamiliar stars as musicians might “sight-read” a score. The reward for such perseverance was spectacular: Herschel discovered the first new planet to be identified in more than a thousand years.
Holmes describes how the myth of this “Eureka moment,” so central to the Romantic notion of scientific discovery, doesn’t quite match the prolonged discussion concerning the precise nature of the tail-less “comet” that Herschel had discerned. It was Keats, in a famous sonnet, who compared the sudden sense of expanded horizons he felt in reading Chapman’s Elizabethan translation of Homer to Herschel’s presumed elation at the sight of Uranus: “Then felt I like some watcher of the skies / When a new planet swims into his ken.” Holmes notes the “brilliantly evocative” choice of the verb “swims,” as though the planet is “some unknown, luminous creature being born out of a mysterious ocean of stars.” As a medical student conversant with scientific discourse, Keats may also have known that telescopes can give the impression of objects viewed “through a rippling water surface.”

Though Romanticism, as Holmes says, is often presumed to be “hostile to science,” the Romantic poets seem to have been positively giddy — sometimes literally so — with scientific enthusiasm. Coleridge claimed he wasn’t much affected by Herschel’s discoveries, since as a child he had been “habituated to the Vast” by fairy tales. It was the second great Romantic field of science that lighted a fire in Coleridge’s mind. “I shall attack Chemistry, like a Shark,” Coleridge announced, and invited the celebrated scientist Humphry Davy, who also wrote poetry, to set up a laboratory in the Lake District.

Coleridge wrote that he attended Davy’s famous lectures on the mysteries of electricity and other chemical processes “to enlarge my stock of metaphors.” But he was also, predictably, drawn to Davy’s notorious experiments with nitrous oxide, or laughing gas. “The objects around me,” Davy reported after inhaling deeply, “became dazzling, and my hearing more acute.” Coleridge, an opium addict who coined the word “psycho¬somatic,” compared the pleasurable effects of inhalation to the sensation of “returning from a walk in the snow into a warm room.” Davy passed out frequently while under the influence, but strangely, as Holmes notes, failed to pursue possible applications in anesthesia.

In assessing the quality of mind that poets and scientists of the Romantic generation had in common, Holmes stresses moral hope for human betterment. Coleridge was convinced that science was imbued with “the passion of Hope,” and was thus “poetical.” Holmes finds in Davy’s rapid and systematic invention of a safety lamp for English miners, one that would not ignite methane, a perfect example of such Romantic hope enacted. Byron celebrated “Davy’s lantern, by which coals / Are safely mined for,” but his Venetian mistress wondered whether Davy, who was visiting, might “give me something to dye my eyebrows black.”

Yet it is in his vivid and visceral accounts of the Romantic explorers Joseph Banks and Mungo Park, whose voyages were both exterior and interior, that Holmes is best able to unite scientific and poetic “wonder.” Wordsworth had imagined Newton “voyaging through strange seas of Thought, alone.” When Banks accompanied Captain Cook to Tahiti and witnessed exotic practices like surfing and tattooing and various erotic rites, he returned to England a changed man; as president of the Royal Society, he steadily encouraged others, like Park, to venture into the unknown.

“His heart,” Holmes writes of Park, “was a terra incognita quite as mysterious as the interior of Africa.” At one low point in his African travels in search of Timbuktu, alone and naked and 500 miles from the nearest European settlement, Park noticed a piece of moss “not larger than the top of one of my fingers” pushing up through the hard dirt. “At this moment, painful as my reflections were, the extraordinary beauty of a small moss in fructification irresistibly caught my eye,” he wrote, sounding a great deal like the Ancient Mariner. “I could not contemplate the delicate conformation of its roots, leaves and capsula, without admiration.”

For Holmes, the “age of wonder” draws to a close with Darwin’s voyage aboard the Beagle in 1831, partly inspired by those earlier Romantic voyages. “With any luck,” Holmes writes wistfully, “we have not yet quite outgrown it.” Still, it’s hard to read his luminous and horizon-expanding “Age of Wonder” without feeling some sense of diminution in our own imaginatively circumscribed times. “To us, their less tried successors, they appear magnified,” as Joseph Conrad, one of Park’s admirers, wrote in “Lord Jim,” “pushing out into the unknown in obedience to an inward voice, to an impulse beating in the blood, to a dream of the future. They were wonderful; and it must be owned they were ready for the wonderful.”

Christopher Benfey is the Mellon professor of English at Mount Holyoke College. His books include “A Summer of Hummingbirds” and an edition of Lafcadio Hearn’s “American Writings” for the Library of America

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/books ... fey-t.html
Post Reply

Return to “好书推介”