"The Little Friend" by Donna Tartt

I don't think that Donna Tartt has ever smiled - not once - in her entire life.  Just take a look at the picture inside the dust jacket of this book.  She is standing there, unsmiling, daring you to be happy.

No, I can't believe that Donna Tartt has ever smiled.  And if she had, she wouldn't be writing books like "The Secret History" and "The Little Friend."  If she smiled, she'd be writing happier books.

A friend loaned me a copy of "The Secret History" two years ago.  I can't say that it was a great book - the characters were hard to empathize with, and the "maleness" of some characters was entirely unconvincing - but it was a good try, and that book led me to expect great things from Donna Tartt.

Yes, "The Secret History" was gloomy, and downright depressing - filled with pessimism from beginning to end - but there were some great ideas in it.  Given the originality of these ideas, I think that in time Donna Tartt will mature into a better writer, and one day she might just write one of those books that makes people see the world in a whole new way.

Still, as I read "The Little Friend," I couldn't help but reflect back on that Douglas Adams novel I just read, "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish."  I couldn't locate the exact passage, but towards the end of that (much shorter) novel he points out that many American novels are full of pointless details, and much of the information supplied by (American) authors does little to advance the plot.

There is no better example of this than "The Little Friend," a book in which very little of importance seems to happen.  Donna Tartt spends hundreds of pages describing dead birds, or fruitless quests for local snakes, or, most boringly, the weather.  No character's interests are truly advanced or checked, no one really goes anywhere, and the entire book revolves around memories that have little dramatic significance.

It is like the antithesis of every novel that Faulkner ever wrote.  Instead of a series of microcosms that brilliantly illuminate the macrocosm, what one finds in "The Little Friend" is a world of isolation, where inner worlds are isolated from one another, and there is NO big picture - not in the author's mind, not in her characters' minds, not anywhere.  In the end it all amounts to a kind of clutter, not unlike the newspapers that litter the Cleve-Duffresne household.  Yes, there often isn't any "big picture" in life, but what else is an author supposed to do, if not draw larger meanings from seemingly disconnected events?

I'm not saying that this book is horribly bad, just that it's boring.  At 555 pages, it's waaaay too long.  A more discerning editor would have removed the first 200 or so pages in their entirety, and what we would have been left with, at 355 pages, would have been a much better novel.  Donna Tartt definitely has a way with words - I wouldn't dream of disputing that - but a skill with words doesn't automatically make for a compelling story.

"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" by Douglas Adams

"There is a feeling which persists in England that making a sandwich interesting, attractive, or in any way pleasant to eat is something sinful that only foreigners do.


"'Make 'em dry' is the instruction buried somewhere in the collective national consciousness, 'make 'em rubbery.  If you have to keep the buggers fresh, do it by washing 'em once a week.'


"It is by eating sandwiches in pubs at Saturday lunchtime that the British seek to atone for whatever their national sins have been.  They're not altogether clear about what those sins are, and don't want to know either.  Sins are not the sort of things one wants to know about.  But whatever sins there are are amply atoned for by the sandwiches they make themselves eat."

"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" came out in George Orwell's least or most favorite year, depending on whether you are discussing soul-crushing authoritarian dictatorships or novels that made his career.  It is the fourth book in the "Hitchhiker" series, leaving me with only the fifth and final book yet to read.

Despite what the quote above might lead you to expect, it's not all that funny.  Arthur Dent finds his way back to Earth, starts to think that his misadventures in other parts of the universe might have all been a dream, and then a huge alien robot shows up and promptly takes a holiday by the seaside.

It's still a good book, but I would only recommend it if you have read the first three.  Then again, if you've read the first three, it is inevitable that you will read this one, so why bother to recommend it in the first place?

"Beyond Oil" by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

"Hubbert pointed out that Spain was inadvertently devastated by New World gold and silver.  During the years it plundered the New World's riches, Spain could sell gold and silver to other countries and buy anything: food, manufactured goods, art objects.  By the time the flow of gold and silver ceased, Spain had lost the ability to produce anything and permanently lost its place as a world power.  Hubbert's fear was that cheap oil and gas would permanently erode the industrial world's manufacturing and agricultural capability.  Economists, in their all-seeing wisdom, point out that the U.S. economy today is much less dependent on energy than it was in 1980.  Today, 92 percent of our economy provides services; petroleum is not supposed to matter.  I shudder, remembering Hubbert's talking across a cafeteria about Spain.  As long as the world will trade us oil in exchange for Microsoft software and Walt Disney movies, we're in fat city.  Hearing that the U.S. service economy is being outsourced to India should be accompanied by Prewett bugling 'taps.'"

"Beyond Oil" first appeared in 2005, just before the peak in world oil production predicted in 2006.  The author, both a geologist and oilman, outlines the problem of oil scarcity in a world economy predicated upon the discovery, marketability, and widespread use of fossil fuels.  At no time does this book speculate upon the subject of global warming.  Instead, what the author does is lay out the history behind our dependence on oil, the very real problem of scarcity hanging on the horizon, and proposed alternatives to the use of oil and natural gas.

Alternative energy sources are discussed in detail.  Hydrogen, nuclear power, coal, and tar sands are cataloged and presented for our inspection - warts and all.  What emerges is a picture of a world in crisis, and this crisis is due to our failure to explore more realistic options in the face of a world oil shortage.

This book offers an excellent description of how we use natural resources to keep our economies going.  It is well thought-out, well researched, and the author has excellent credentials to back up his arguments.  What makes this book even more relevant are many of the troubles that the U.S. economy has been experiencing since this book appeared.  After reading this book, I can appreciate more of President Obama's economic policy, even if I haven't always agreed with it.

This book gets a bit "scientific" at times (yes, there are equations), but it's short, and I read it through in a couple of days.  I'm not going to say that our collective futures hinge upon reading "Beyond Oil," but it does offer a refreshingly simplistic look at a very, very complex problem.

"Life, the Universe, and Everything" by Douglas Adams

"It was a large mattress, and probably one of quite high quality.  Very few things actually get manufactured these days, because in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.  (A forest was discovered recently in which most of the trees grew ratchet screwdrivers as fruit.  The life cycle of ratchet screwdriver fruit is quite interesting.  Once picked it needs a dark dusty drawer in which it can lie undisturbed for years.  Then one night it suddenly hatches, discards its outer skin and crumbles into dust, and emerges as a totally unidentifiable little metal object with flanges at both ends and a sort of ridge and a sort of hole for a screw.  This, when found, will get thrown away.  No one knows what it is supposed to gain from this.  Nature, in her infinite wisdom, is presumably working on it.)"

"Life, the Universe and Everything" was first published in 1981, back when I was six years old and entirely unable to read it.  It is the third book in Adams' "Hitchhiker" series.

This book is my favorite in the series so far.  It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as the first book, and it doesn't feature any concept as cool as "the restaurant at the end of the Universe," but it is really, really clever.  It is also funny, but it's mostly just clever.  The plot of this book was much better thought-out than the first two books, and it's extremely well written, with an eye (and ear) for the English language that leaves most other authors in the dust.

I want to say that the plot is beside the point, but that's not true.  Rather, the plot is a lot more subtle than the book jacket would have you believe, and is just too "layered" to be neatly outlined here.  Suffice to say, there is an alien race about to obliterate the entire universe, Arthur Dent and Co. are left to stop them, and along the way they learn of cricket's sinister origins, the cruel side of reincarnation, and the dangers inherent in challenging thunder gods to a brawl.

It's a great book, and I can't recommend it enough.  Buy it, borrow it, or steal it NOW.  You won't be sorry you did!

"The Pagan Path" by Janet and Stewart Farrar and Gavin Bone

Thinking about choosing the Pagan path?  Me neither.  But I came across this book in a Seattle thrift store, thought "What the hell," and used my pocket change to buy it.

"The Pagan Path" was written in 1995, by a couple of self-described witches who live in Ireland.  The male half of this couple also refers to himself as a witch, since apparently the word "warlock" was a term of abuse in Scotland.  I'm not sure what the third author, Mr. Gavin Bone contributed, though all three are mentioned in the book.  I have the feeling that Mr. and Mrs. Stewart supplied the content, and Mr. Bone was the one who wrote most of it down.

As it turns out, seeing the world through the eyes of a modern pagan is somewhat interesting.  I had never really thought about how pagans might view other religions, or about schisms within their particular group, or about how they might approach issues as varied as homosexuality, abortion, or freedom of speech.

My favorite part of this book was the digression into spells and rituals.  I loved the fact that they tried to make some of this stuff seem "scientific," even if it is anything but.  Many of their justifications for these numerological, astrological, and hallucinogenic excursions were culled from Jungian psychology, and sound even more dated in 2011 than they did in 1995.  Not to sound too condescending, but I had fun imagining portly married couples in their living rooms, chanting over pentagrams and lifting their "cones of power."

Apparently (and I am NO expert!), modern paganism is primarily made up of those following a Wiccan belief system.  To these are added the shamanists, the believers in Thor and other nordic deities, as well as an almost overwhelming number of Hindus and Shintoists throughout Asia. 

The book tries to present itself as "a book for all pagans," though I think the glossing-over of differences between Western and Eastern pagans was a mistake.  Yes, Wiccan beliefs incorporate the study of chakras and share a common Indo-European origin with Hinduism, but I think a belief in Irish fairies or Egyptian fertility goddesses is a far cry from the polytheism that most Hindus embrace.  Hinduism (if not Shintoism) is a world religion, with over a thousand year of history, while most modern pagan movements can only trace their history back to the 1800s, if that.

But this aside, "The Pagan Path" offers a relatively thoughtful overview of modern pagan beliefs and practices.  It also advances several thoughtful arguments in favor of paganism.  While these arguments failed to convert me, they did much to enhance my respect for this (let's admit it) fringe religion.

And anyway, it makes more sense than Scientology, right?

"The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams

"'Good evening,' it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, 'I am the main Dish of the Day.  May I interest you in parts of my body?'  It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.


"Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.


"'Something off the shoulder perhaps?' suggested the animal.  'Braised in a white wine sauce?'


"'Er, your shoulder?' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.


"'But naturally my shoulder, sir,' mooed the animal contentedly, 'nobody else's is mine to offer.'


"Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.


"'Or the rump is very good,' murmured the animal.  'I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'  It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud.  It swallowed the cud again.


"'Or a casserole of me perhaps?' it added."

"The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" was first published in 1980.  It is the second book in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker" series, and as such is the the sequel to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

I read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" a couple of years ago, so my memory of that one was pretty fuzzy.  Fortunately the beginning of this book recaps much of what went before, so it can be read as a stand-alone novel.  The plot revolves around Zaphod's quest to find the true ruler of the Universe, and also (of course) the near-disasters encountered along the way.

It's not, in my opinion, as funny as the first book, but there are some hilarious bits towards the end.  It doesn't really pick up speed until they reach the restaurant for which the book is named, but after that point it's just as good as "Hitchhiker's".  If you loved the first novel, then you'll also like this one.  Even if you haven't read the first novel, and are instead the kind of person who appreciates Monty Python, you'll like this one a lot.