The last three books I've read

30 Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers
Edited by Susan Morrison
Copyright 2008

First off, I should mention that I did not caucus for Hillary Clinton. But I cried when she dropped out of the election. The Me Who Doesn't Want to Vote for a Female Candidate Just Because She's a Woman has been at nearly constant odds with the Me Who Really Wants to See a Woman President for more than a year. They say you either love or hate Hillary, but I don't agree. I like her and am as outraged as the next guy by the treatment she has received; I just don't know that we match up all that much in our political views. That is all. None of my opinions about her have anything to do with pantsuits, cookie-baking, or Monica.

I was really interested in reading this book after seeing the editor interviewed on, of all shows, The Colbert Report. I think the subject matter appeals to many of us women who don't know how to feel about Hillary -- who admire her as a fearless female but are not sure how empowering it would be for the first female president to be elected in large part because she was FLOTUS.

Some of the essays included in this book are fairly stupid. I would have expected more from Susan Orlean than to speculate about Hillary's status as either a cat or dog person. (Zzzzzz.) And Robin Givhan's pontification on Hillary's cleavage induced some eye-rolling. (Though it probably is noteworthy to count the references to clothing and fashion in the book, which are pretty telling about how much steeper the climb is for women in politics...would a collection of essays about a male politican EVER include an analysis of his tie collection and how much he should try or not try to be sexy? Don't. Think. So.)

Some of the essays are great. The 30th, "Beyond Gender: The Revenge of the Postmenopausal Woman" by Leslie Bennetts, is the best. I also enjoyed Susan Cheever's analysis of Hillary's self-proclaimed favorite book: Little Women, and Rebecca Mead's examination female presidents in pop culture, including a 1964 movie I'd never heard of called "Kisses for My President," in which Fred MacMurray played the First Husband. Heh.

The book definitely includes a variety of perspectives, but there are lots of common themes -- pantsuits, Maureen Dowd, Monica, academics, the "baking cookies" comment -- that maybe got a little old. I finished the book several months ago, when it was probably more relevant. But if you're interested in feminism or Hillary (this book is not so much about politics), I still think it's worth reading.

Plainsong
By Kent Haruf
Copyright 1999

Whenever I rave about a book to friends or family, they invariably ask me: "Well, what's it about?" This question trips me up. It seems like half the books I really love are difficult to summarize, and Plainsong is certainly no exception. It's basically a story about people who live in the tiny High Plains town of Holt, Colorado, and the way their lives intertwine. Sounds thrilling, I know. But the beauty of this book is truly in its writing. It's more like a beautiful song than a beautiful story. The writing style may at first trouble anal-retentive punctuation sticklers like I Have No Idea Who That Would Be for a few pages, but it quickly wins you over. It's simultaneously one of the simplest and most unique pieces of prose I've ever read.

And it's a quick read because it's nearly impossible to put down.

Can I Keep My Jersey?: 11 Teams, 5 Countries, and 4 Years in my Life as a Basketball Vagabond
By Paul Shirley
Copyright 2007

I should probably first point out that I kind of know the author. We went to college together. I've talked to him a few times and we know a lot of the same people, at least. So the point I'm trying to make is that this book was interesting to me because a lot of the references were familiar.

The book does answer the question of, "What happens when you give a book deal to a sarcastic mechanical engineer with no real writing background?" Answer: He inserts a lot of distracting parenthetical commentary on his own writing ability that should actually just be replaced with real editing and mildly irritates those of us with degrees in writing who have yet to be offered any sort of book-writing opportunity. Also: Someone should have fixed his subject/pronoun agreement errors. Just saying.

Of course I can be jealous of Paul's book deal, but until I have the motivation to actually write a complete book about something people would actually want to read, I can stop whining any time now. Why would anyone offer me the opportunity to write a book about my job? I sit at my desk chewing on pens all day.

And actually, this book is not about me. It's about a relatively well-known former collegiate basketball player who is so obsessed with the idea of playing professional sports that he is willing to upheave his entire life in pursuit of some specific goal that the book doesn't exactly define. (I think he says it's to be an NBA benchwarmer, but since he attained that I would think there would be no need for further life upheaval.) The content is definitely interesting if you can get around the somewhat sloppy presentation. And the writing is pretty good if you can get around the aforementioned parenthetical tangents. Oh yeah, and the extreme negativity.

I'm about as big a fan of sarcastic and/or cynical writing as they come, but the book still troubled me in parts. I don't believe Paul is actually as mean as he sounds in the book, but otherwise I can't really defend some of the insensitive things he says, usually just in passing, about people, usually mentally or physically disabled individuals. Maybe he thinks it's funny...? It's not.

Part of the reason I think a lot of readers, including me, got frustrated with the author is because he discloses in the book his monetary compensation for several of the basketball gigs he whines about ad nauseam. Spoiler alert: In many cases, it's extremely high. I guess I just think that if you're making THAT much money to do something so inconsequential you should have a positive attitude about it. Otherwise, please use your intelligence and education for something that is valuable to society. Like developing vehicles powered by alternative energy sources would be one thing you could do if you were, say, AHEM, a mechanical engineer.

If you are cynical about professional sports (like I definitely am), this book will certainly bolster your cynicism. If you have no interest in or connection to collegiate or professional athletics, you will probably want to pass. Unless you just like reading things written by really negative people.

What's next?
So now it's time to move on to my summer reading. I've got some fluffy stuff (like Turning Tables by Heather & Rose MacDowell and How to Lose Friends & Alienate People by Toby Young) and some heavy books my mom gave me that I've been avoiding to this point because I'm afraid they'll give me nightmares: Infidel by Aayan Hirsi Ali and The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid. I think I'll start with...

Um.

Doesn't David Sedaris have a new book out?

Thinking outside the inbox

So I've always wanted to find out exactly who those people are who write the e-mail forwards.

You know the ones I mean: Those messages that say things like "I am proud to be an American and think we should nuke Djibouti and those who don't agree with me can go to hell! If you agree, forward this to 40 people." or "For every person you forward this message to, Bill Gates will send you a $100 gift certificate for Crystal Pepsi." Or whatever. (I know these lose something when translated to a font that is not blue 36-point Comic Sans and without being illustrated by an animated GIF of a bald eagle flapping its wings, but you get the picture.)

I mean, really: Where do these come from? Are the authors 12 years old? In mental institutions? Please help me understand.

And while the authors of these masterpieces have me utterly perplexed, I am also aware that they are far outnumbered by the thousands of people who will willingly forward them without thinking twice (or even once). When did our society come to the consensus that it's okay to "say" whatever you want as long as you didn't write it and are just, to quote Michael Scott in The Office, "forwarding like it's hot...f-f-forwarding it like it's hot?"

I seriously doubt my co-workers would consider it acceptable for me to fire off an e-mail to them saying, "Remember the days when women stayed at home and raised their children? Wasn't that great? And don't you think the federal government should stop spending money to rebuild the communities of those whiny Hurricane Katrina victims? Boy, they have a lot of nerve. Forward this to 10 people."

I can pretty confidently say this would be considered inappropriate and my co-workers would, at minimum, think I was crazy. Probably worst case scenario, one of them would sue me for harrassment. But contrast: If I simply forward an e-mail containing these sentiments, they magically become okay regardless of truth, tact, or tolerance. Not okay to me, that is. But apparently okay to most people.

In fact, I've learned that some people even consider it their patriotic duty to forward such e-mails, even if they don't necessarily agree with them. Also: I have learned that you are not allowed to question or even comment upon the content because, hey: The sender didn't write it! They're just forwarding it! You should also be warned, if you haven't been already, that just because the person who forwards you an e-mail is one of the most intelligent, accomplished individuals you know IT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. I think we've all learned that the hard way: Inboxus Megastupidius can literally afflict anyone at any time.

But, I'm sorry: In my opinion, the act of forwarding intolerant or otherwise stupid e-mails at least creates the illusion that the sender supports their content, if not serves as a full-fledged endorsement. I know, I know, but I don't care if that wasn't your intent; I'm just telling you how it is. I would love to start a movement to dispel the notions that: A) people are in any way obligated to forward all their e-mails; and B) people should not be held accountable for views expressed in the e-mails they send. Even ones written in 36-point blue Comic Sans and decorated with animated GIFs that were written by 12-year-olds in mental institutions. Sorry, dudes.

Maybe I should create an e-mail expressing my views and start forwarding it around. I hear if I send it to at least 10 people I will probably win a Disney vacation, or at least a Cracker Barrel voucher. From Warren Buffett, who planted an e-mail tracking device in the message.

Hey, I didn't make the rules. Al Gore did, when he invented the Internet. At least that's what he claims, the pretentious bastard. Didn't you get the e-mail about that?