Summer Reading

It was really liberating to go to the Jersey shore just for the evening last night. This is because when you live in Manhattan, car-free (as opposed to care-free), you know that going to a place where they don't have decent public transportation is going to reduce you to a state of helpless dependence. Your friends are perfectly happy to pick you up - but then you (a) interrupt whatever they are doing and/or (b) are at the mercy of their schedule.

It turns out there is an easy solution to this. You look up the numbers of all the local taxi companies (there are only 5 or so serving the entire county, barring the limo services). You bring them with you, and Presto! - instant mobility.

So I took the ferry to Atlantic Highlands yesterday after work, sitting outdoors in the gorgeous sunshine, which is good - and gets even better if you have the sense to sit in a location where you are protected from the wind.

En route, I listened to another chapter of a book by Rick Riordan (The Red Pyramid). The Red Pyramid's premise is that some modern kids discover that the Egyptian gods are real! And that they (the kids) have a strong connection to them (the gods)! Mayhem ensues!

This formula is somewhat familiar to me, since I previously read Rick Riordan's The Lightning Thief, in which a modern kid discovers that the Greek gods are real! And that he (the kid) has a strong connection to them! Mayhem ensues!

The books have some clever (and cute) touches. For example, in The Lightning Thief, we learn that Mount Olympus is accessed by taking the elevator up to the 600th floor of the Empire State Building. In the Red Pyramid, we learn that the Egyptian gods generally steer clear of Manhattan because there are already other gods there.... That's a nice self-referential touch.

So far, I like The Red Pyramid better than The Lightning Thief. Maybe the Egyptian gods are cooler or more exotic to me than the Greek gods (undoubtedly true). Or maybe the warring narrators help - there's less self-conscious hipness somehow, and it might be because the narrators are sniping at each other. And maybe it's because I'm listening to professionals reading the book - rather than reading the words on paper and thus imagining voices to go with the sometimes snarky tone and comments.

Speaking of which, here's a snarky sentence that really caught my eye in The Lightning Thief:

"Even from far away, I could see people being chased by hellhounds, burned at the stake, forced to run naked through cactus patches or listen to opera music."

At first glance, it's mildly amusing to pretend that opera music is classified with the other tortures on the Fields of Punishment in the Greek underworld. But it's a totally gratuitous dig.

It's not credible, for one thing. If he's far away, how does he know that people are being forced to listen to opera music? (Unless he can hear it, in which case, he would presumably be wracked with suffering too.)

Moreover, the young adult demographic to which the novel is geared is not known for familiarity with opera. That is, they do not know enough about opera to form their own opinions about it. That's not to say they don't have "an opinion" (e.g. that opera is dull or for old fogies), but it is not their own opinion - it is a cliche or assumption they've picked up from others. That's not to say that they would necessarily enjoy opera if they actually went and listened to it. They might or might not. And they might find out that they like certain composers or certain genres or certain specific operatic works - and not others.

But this easy assumption that opera music is painfully boring or unpleasant, pitched like an easy softball lob for an easy laugh to a young audience that has not been meaningfully exposed to opera, seems a bit unfair. It's a cheap shot, a cheap laugh.

The phenomenon is not unique to The Lightning Thief, of course. C.S. Lewis captured it nicely in The Screwtape Letters:

"Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it."

You see this on Broadway, where merely saying the name of a politician from the "other" political party brings easy laughs - no one has to actually think up a clever remark or a punchline, the joke is assumed to have been made. (Obviously, all politicians from this party are corrupt and/or stupid, so you don't need to establish that or any other scenario.)

It's the same when people mindlessly repeat criticisms of a particular sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has been singled out for scorn. You don't have to like this judge. You don't have to agree with the judge's views. You don't even have to inform yourself of what the judge's views actually are (instead of assuming you already know the judge's views without actual inquiry or investigation). But if you are going to attack this judge personally -- if you're going to question the judge's intelligence (as so many people do), you'd better have a good basis for your conclusion. This judge made it to the highest court in the land, appointed by a U.S. President, with consent from the U.S. Senate. At that level, with that kind of scrutiny, mere patronage or preference does not explain the appointment. So when people assume based on only the insinuations and snide remarks they've seen or heard in the media that this judge is stupid, it makes my blood boil. If they've heard the judge lecture, or if they've read the judge's opinions, or if they've met the judge, then they may have some basis to assess the judge's intelligence. If they haven't, I'd really rather that they respect the fact that they don't know and have no real basis to know.

But I digress. I was in New Jersey for my friend's 40th birthday. It was wonderful. I hadn't seen her family in ages, and it was so good to catch up. Her grandmother has just turned 99, her daughter is almost 2. Both adorable.

My friend's husband planned the party and managed to take her totally by surprise (with the connivance of numerous friends and relatives). The tents and tables and food were all set up outdoors in their backyard. It had the feel of a community beer garden (appropriate since he does in fact brew his own beer), and there were plenty of small children running around. Good food, good company, good times.