Dandy Cat

Cormac McCarthy, Novelist of a Darker America, Is Dead at 89 ↗

By Dwight Garner at The New York Times:

Cormac McCarthy, the formidable and reclusive writer of Appalachia and the American Southwest, whose raggedly ornate early novels about misfits and grotesques gave way to the lush taciturnity of “All the Pretty Horses” and the apocalyptic minimalism of “The Road,” died on Tuesday at his home in Santa Fe, N.M. He was 89.

Knopf, his publisher, said in a statement that his son John had confirmed the death.

This is a sad one. I haven’t read all of his works yet, but I’ve greatly enjoyed those that I have. Whatever one might think about his often dark subject matter, it’s undeniable that he was one of the Great American Novelists. His work is timeless.

I had the pleasure of reading his dual swan song novels, The Passenger and Stella Maris, earlier this year. Both were representative of his immense storytelling powers and unique style. I recommend them both as they’re two halves of a story.

He went out on a high note, that’s for sure.

BookTok encourages reading as an aesthetic and no one is safe from its gaze ↗

From the Makes Me Feel Old Even Though I’m Not Actually that Old Department.

By Elena Cavender at Mashable:

“Lots of people read on their phones or Kindles on the train, and those people are reading just for the sake of reading. But the people that are reading a physical book with a cover on it, they’re making a choice to read that one in public,” Erin Hunziker, a 28-year-old digital marketing content creator, tells Mashable.

The implication that reading has transformed into a theatrical performance in which everyone must be engaged doesn’t sit well. I would have guessed that the person reading a physical book was doing so because they liked reading. It’s a mistake to assume one’s worldview must be shared by the rest of the world (is there a name for that fallacy?).

Maybe I’m out of touch with what younger people value these days. If that’s what being active in BookTok entails, then I’ll take the ridicule and frustrated eye rolls. It’s been clear for a while that I won’t get much out of TikTok. In the past, I may have endeavored to jump on the bandwagon so I could be aware of what’s popular, but that desire has faded. It’s not for me.

Performative reading isn’t something I want to engage in, nor have I felt compelled to. It’s an unequivocal good that BookTok has gotten more people reading books, but shouldn’t reading be done for personal joy instead of clout? Making value judgments about what a stranger is reading is exclusionary. It’s more likely to drive people away from reading for fear of displaying the wrong book. Or it’ll destroy the urge to discover new works in favor of relying on what the rest of BookTok is currently fixated on.

Men who read are largely except [sic] from this treatment of reading, just as they are largely exempt from the conversation around chasing aesthetics. (Though, there’s a certain archetype constructed around men who read Infinite Jest.)

That’s fair. I’ve never felt the pressure to chase an aesthetic in my life. Whether that’s because I’m not on TikTok (and hardly any social media) or because of what’s in my pants is up for debate. Regardless, men should not take for granted their relative lack of pressure from the world.

This whole thing makes me think of how I feel about the term “guilty pleasure”: I don’t think anyone should feel guilty about what they enjoy. Like what you like. To hell with anyone who tries to make you feel bad about your passions!

Conversely, if carrying around a book and designing a look/personality around what accompanies you on your travels is fulfilling, then who is anyone to judge? “Like what you like” cuts both ways—I should enjoy what I want and you should enjoy what you want, and both of us should carry on unmolested.

This article describes a symptom of the broader issue with social media: If you let it, TikTok, Instagram, or whatever else will eventually rise to the top will take what you love away from you. It’s one of the greatest, most efficient joy-sucking tools humans have ever created. That’s the danger inherent in performative posting, as mentioned earlier. Books are a great thing. Wouldn’t it be a shame if that love turned rotten because of the nasty demons lurking in all those services?

Gone with the Wind publishers brand novel ‘racist’ and ‘harmful’ at start of new edition ↗

From Jacob Stolworthy:

A new edition of Margaret Mitchell’s epic novel, released by Pan Macmillan, contains a caution at the start warning readers of its “problematic” content.

The note reportedly says the book has not been rewritten to erase the offensive material, but says it includes “racist” elements that are “hurtful or indeed harmful”.

I feel that this is an appropriate and adequate addition to the book. Assure the readers that nothing in the text has changed, give some historical context, and allow people to choose for themselves if they want to venture into a problematic book.

This is in contrast to the recent trend of removing or altering problematic language and themes in previously published works. New editions of the books of Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and Roald Dahl have had their texts changed in recent months. I can understand why the publishers have made their alterations, but I believe it’s the wrong tack to take.

It will surprise nobody to learn that I don’t own the rights to these books. I’m just some guy in Southern California, not some powerful publishing decision-maker. However, I don’t feel censorship is necessarily the correct decision to make with most things. Not only would Margaret Mitchell’s book be reduced to a slim and confounding thing, but trying to erase slavery from history, even in the context of a work of fiction, would be far more problematic.

It’s not a book ban, but a text ban is still an erasure. In the case of Gone with the Wind, removing any text relating to slavery would be akin to whitewashing the past. I’m glad the publishers haven’t made that decision. Context and education are important. Willful ignorance and turning a blind eye to the atrocities of the past are harmful.

UPDATE: Is there a word for book publishers who fall over themselves to alter the content of older works for “current sensibilities” because other publishers are doing it and they don’t want to be branded as politically incorrect or behind the times?

Penguin Random House has started changing “outdated” terms in the works of P.G Wodehouse. Jeeves and Wooster couldn’t escape this fate either. This time, they’ve also included a disclaimer at the front of the book. As I wrote above, an explanation of a book’s history and how it may be problematic today is an acceptable addition. Altering the content? I’m not as certain.

This is beginning to feel like reactionary jumping on the bandwagon. At what point do these actions go from feeling like they’re well-intended to an obvious fear of losing money?