As I mentioned, I love the idea of the One City, One Book program, even though I am sure it will lead to lots of strange conversations with my fellow crackpots on Muni who are reading the same book. (This can’t be worse than what happens when you read any Pynchon book on Muni — strange old men coming up to you and mumbling about crocodiles in the sewers and postal service through dumpsters etc. etc.) I mainly read this book on Caltrain, so there was not much community bonding.
Unfortunately, this is classic New Yorker/MFA literature: well-researched and well-written, but without any underlying sense of fun or of having anything to say.
For example, when I read my chick lit earlier this week, I think I understand Mr. Maupin’s motive in writing it: he loves his characters, he loves San Francisco, he wants to depict a social group — gay culture & the sort of extended, bohemian urban family — that is not well represented in mainstream lit. Similarly, to use the example of a more serious book that I loved, “The Known World” seems like it has a similar motive: he loves his characters, he loves the South, he wants to depict a social phenomen — slavery — in a more nuanced way than it has been represented in the past.
Allegra Goodman, however, does not seem to care that much about her characters or their social context (science/research/academia). Instead, it is like she thought, “Hmm, I haven’t seen one of those trite New Yorker stories about the shifting nature of truth in a long time. Also, I would really like to impress my peers by learning everything there is to know about doing scientific experiments on mice.”
And to that I say: eh. I hope next month’s selection is better.
