12. Montreal Stories - Mavis Gallant

I had heard good things about Mavis Gallant, particularly about her collection of short stories entitled Paris Stories so I thought I would pick up this collection. I have nothing against her writing per se. It is clean and concise and contains beautiful imagery. However, and as much as I hate to make a sweeping generalization, I think I am not really a short story girl. This book made me remember the class on short stories that I took and another book of short stories that we read for book club and yeah. I have, as yet, not encountered a short story to fall in love with. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one out there, just that I haven't found it yet.

Short stories make me think of highly character driven books like A Tree Grows in Brooklyn which are all about a character and the daily activities that lead to their growth or some kind of revelation. I don't like those books either. Mostly because I don't get how they get from event a to point b. It seems as bizarre to me as saying that watching a beautiful sunrise will suddenly clarify the meaning of life. I know that it supposedly happens. But I live in a world that seems a lot more complicated than that. Or maybe I just overthink things and make them overcomplicated. It is hard to say.

I just found, with these stories, that I didn't relate to the characters; that I didn't get the social references; that I just didn't get it. And maybe that says more about my levels of awareness than anything else. I fully admit that. But that doesn't change the fact that this book just wasn't my cup of tea. Maybe once I get to be more worldly I will find some understanding. Who knows when that will actually happen.

NonFiction: Guinevere - Norma Lorre Goodrich (#11)

Somehow I just cannot get myself excited to write about this book. Maybe because I have been some combination of too busy, too tired, or too cranky for the last few days. Maybe because, despite being about a topic I am fairly interested in I just couldn't get comfortable with the text. Maybe because I am just really freaking lazy sometimes.

Anyways, I find that with history books there is a fine line between baby talking to your reader, assuming that they know nothing, but nothing, about the topic and talking in complicated prose and assuming that your reader is also a Rhodes Scholar and knows everything, but everything about the topic. It could be that I haven't read a lot of scholarly history texts since my undergrad days, and even then with sufficient supplemental lecture material, but I found that Goodrich seemed to take the latter assumption. I felt like I was doing math again (definitely not a strong suit) and I was given a problem that went something like A = C so F is 5 and I was all huh? Where are all the steps in between that explain that enormous leap of logic? So I would go back and re-read more carefully in case I had missed something, but most of the time she really was actually randomly changing topics, or, and probably more the case, assuming that I had a vital piece of knowledge somewhere in my brain that I didn't actually have. And I don't blame the author entirely, I chose the book knowing that it would be a little heavy and assuming I could handle it, but I have to admit I was frustrated on more than one occasion.

I also felt like Goodrich didn't really come to any conclusions. She cited a lot of sources and demonstrated a lot of theories but just as you thought she was giving you an answer of sorts she would up and cite the exact opposite theory and a whole lot of source material to prove that too. I guess the point is that we can never really know 100% for sure what happened in the past, even the present is subject to interpretation, and you know, here are some possibilities. And I get that. But I wish she would have indicated in a foreward or something that she was going to spend the whole book being totally wishy washy. Because I wasted a lot of time going "Guinevere is blah blee? but I thought she just spent 2 chapters saying that she was Blee Blah. OH. ha ha. She is telling me that what we know about Guinevere is totally uncertain. Moving on. And also Grr."

Hovever, given all that, I did learn a few things and I managed to make a few scribblings about what I found interesting, as noted below:

*Lancelot is suspected to be descended from Joseph of Arimathea (or possibly even Jesus?)
*Arthur's Camelot is in Scotland (not Cornwall), known as "the key of Scotland" and thought to be of military significance. Camelot and the Round Table were part of Guinevere's dowry.
*There are rumors of 2 (possibly 3) Guinevere's ... The real Queen and a False Guinevere (who shared a father with the Real Guinevere) who drugged Arthur and convinced him that she was his rightful Queen.
*Guinevere was literate; Arthur was not.

10. Under Gemini - Rosamunde Pilcher

Oddly enough I got this book from my grandparents - I am not sure if the 3 books they gave me at Easter were a gift or merely things they thought I would enjoy after our discussion of Maeve Binchy but they came for dinner and I left with 3 books and that was that.

This was a nice break from the books I have been reading lately. All of which I have loved and enjoyed, but I had gotten myself into a rut of books that were long and complicated and full of theory and taking me For Freaking Ever to get through. And for whatever reason I seem to be the kind of person that likes to finish one book before I start another - sometimes with more textbooky types I can take a break in the middle and read something short and then come back, but for the most part I like the continuity of finishing what I have started and mulling it over and then moving on. I guess that way I don't have characters or ideas from one book on my mind when I am trying to absorb a new set of characters or ideas.

Under Gemini was an uncomplicated distraction. From the blurb on the back I already felt like I knew the general path the book was going to take me down - there would be a bit of mystery, a bit of romance, a bit of mistaken identity and then everyone would live happily ever after. And sometimes that is just what is needed - a story you know the outline of if not the exact people and words that will be involved. I didn't fall particularly in love with any of the characters but I didn't hate them either - they could have been anyone, anywhere and the story would have been the same.

This is exactly the kind of book I used to live off of as a teenager. A story that is comforting in its' predictability and in its' happily ever after.

NonFiction: Sylvia Browne's Book of Dreams (#9)

Another dream book. I am not kidding when I say that my dreams are crazy enough that I want to read every book I can that might help me to analyze them and figure out what exactly my sub-concious is trying to tell me.

A friend of mine saw this particular dream book on the seat of my car and his response was particularly amusing - "Why the hell are you reading Sylvia Browne?? She is CRAAAAZY!" And I have to agree, some of her ideas are definitely out there, and her writing does not hide the fact that she is a bit of a religious fanatic. My opinions on her level of craziness tended to vary - some of her statements I found a little hard to swallow (I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head) while she had other ideas that, while they didn't mesh entirely with my belief system, were at least feasible in the sense that they were things I had pondered. This would include things like reincarnation, visits from spirits, astral travel while we sleep, angels etc etc. I am not entirely sure where I stand on those issues, but they are not things that I necessarily discredit or disbelieve. If that makes sense.

A lot of her suggestions for dream analysis involved praying for God's/the Holy Spirit's intervention and help in clarifying the dream messages your spirit is sending you. She was very big on relaxation before sleep and wrapping yourself in "the white light of the Holy Spirit, the purple light of God and the green light of healing." Which seems a little extreme, and yet in my yoga class we are very big on healing energies and during relaxation we are encouraged to send energy to the parts of our body that are under stress or in pain and I always visualize that energy as green ... So either it is an interesting coincidence or maybe there is something to some of her theories. Sylvia would say there is no such thing as coincidence.

Sylvia also talks a lot about how everyone has a spirit guide who is always present when they dream and 2 angels who are omni-present. She says these are people we have chosen on The Other Side before we were reincarnated into this lifetime. In fact she firmly believes that we have all been reincarnated many times and that before we come to earth we plot out a life chart for ourselves with the goals we hope to accomplish this time around. Which ... I don't know.

She divides dreams into 5 categories: Prophetic, Release, Wish, Information & Problem Solving & Astral Visits. There is talk of archetypes and totems and symbolism and she suggests some possible interpretations of these but mostly emphasizes that YOUR definition/what rings true with YOU is more important than any dictionary of symbolism could ever be.

I liked that she used a lot of examples and that the dreams she included seemed to be less straightforward than the dreams from the last book I read. I didn't like that I felt like she was being all preachy and you must believe in God the way I believe in God. I also didn't like that my goal in reading this book was to understand my own dreams better, and, while I have a little more theory behind me now I still feel as confused as ever. I guess maybe there is something to the practice makes perfect speech. Maybe I really should just buy a dream journal and see if that helps.