Well, I went to my second book group meeting last Monday. It's like I get a contact high from being around people who are as passionate about books as I am. Two new women were there, giving us a total of nine people. Good group.
Our book for the month was "Arrowsmith" by Sinclair Lewis. I have never struggled so hard with a text. If it hadn't been "required reading" for the book group, I doubt I would have read beyond the first 100 pages. That's my tolerance level. If a book isn't good by 100 pages in, then it's never going to get good. Life is too short to read bad books. This particular book wasn't bad. I saw what Lewis was trying to do. Decrying the split between doctors practicing for money and status, and doctors who practice "pure science" for the love of discovery. But the eponymous "hero" of Arrowmith was a truly unlikeable person. He aged in the novel but never matured. He was incredibly whiny and self-centered. The book was written in the 1920s, so this could be one of the first attempts at the anti-hero. But I just didn't like it at all. I did like a few slang words I picked up from the book. "Chickabiddies" refers to young girls. "Hobbledehoy" evidently is a rube. I enjoy learning new words.
Not many of the women in the book group finished the book. Those who did echoed my sentiments. It's interesting to see the different views brought to the book group conversations. No one talks about their jobs, or their former jobs (some seem as if they are retired). I find that refreshing. I hate how Americans (and yes, I am an American, but I can still criticize my own culture) always ask "what do you do?" as an introductory question. Europeans don't do that. I read this quote once -- "Some day we shall be judged by who we are and what we did, not what we are and who we did." About sums up my wishes for the future.
"Arrowsmith" won the Nobel Prize, I think. Perhaps it was more poignant when it came out as a criticism of the burgeoning greed overtaking the medical establishment in the 1920s. Just a few years before, you literally had "doctors" selling snake oil to people. But the book hasn't withstood the passage of time for me. It's very dated. Stilted. The characters are all very one-dimensional. Not very much dialogue. So again, I think at the time of publication it might have had much more impact.
And I'm not one to poo poo on literature like some critics. I can admit when I liked a fluffly little book by James Patterson or Stuart Woods. I don't need to savage books in order to make myself feel intelligent. That's just silly. But this book I can honestly say I didn't like.
I have high hopes for our next book -- "The Moonstone" by Wilkie Collins. One of my favorites when I was growing up.
Our book for the month was "Arrowsmith" by Sinclair Lewis. I have never struggled so hard with a text. If it hadn't been "required reading" for the book group, I doubt I would have read beyond the first 100 pages. That's my tolerance level. If a book isn't good by 100 pages in, then it's never going to get good. Life is too short to read bad books. This particular book wasn't bad. I saw what Lewis was trying to do. Decrying the split between doctors practicing for money and status, and doctors who practice "pure science" for the love of discovery. But the eponymous "hero" of Arrowmith was a truly unlikeable person. He aged in the novel but never matured. He was incredibly whiny and self-centered. The book was written in the 1920s, so this could be one of the first attempts at the anti-hero. But I just didn't like it at all. I did like a few slang words I picked up from the book. "Chickabiddies" refers to young girls. "Hobbledehoy" evidently is a rube. I enjoy learning new words.
Not many of the women in the book group finished the book. Those who did echoed my sentiments. It's interesting to see the different views brought to the book group conversations. No one talks about their jobs, or their former jobs (some seem as if they are retired). I find that refreshing. I hate how Americans (and yes, I am an American, but I can still criticize my own culture) always ask "what do you do?" as an introductory question. Europeans don't do that. I read this quote once -- "Some day we shall be judged by who we are and what we did, not what we are and who we did." About sums up my wishes for the future.
"Arrowsmith" won the Nobel Prize, I think. Perhaps it was more poignant when it came out as a criticism of the burgeoning greed overtaking the medical establishment in the 1920s. Just a few years before, you literally had "doctors" selling snake oil to people. But the book hasn't withstood the passage of time for me. It's very dated. Stilted. The characters are all very one-dimensional. Not very much dialogue. So again, I think at the time of publication it might have had much more impact.
And I'm not one to poo poo on literature like some critics. I can admit when I liked a fluffly little book by James Patterson or Stuart Woods. I don't need to savage books in order to make myself feel intelligent. That's just silly. But this book I can honestly say I didn't like.
I have high hopes for our next book -- "The Moonstone" by Wilkie Collins. One of my favorites when I was growing up.
