Tom De Haven

This book looked appealing, because it promised a literary and intelligent look at a cultural icon, and that sort of thing has always appealed to me. It was literary, and literate. It's a well-written book. And it was intelligent. And it didn't insult the intelligence of the reader.

What it wasn't was very interesting. I feel like this was a huge opportunity for something as dynamic as the title character, yet De Haven seemed intent on avoiding the big scenes and the big themes that could well have suited this subject. Everything he writes is interesting and very well researched, insofar as authenticity to its time, it seems to me. But if you're going to write a book about Superman and how he got to be who he is, I would hope you wouldn't save all your extraordinary action and conflict until the final quarter. I enjoyed reading along, but kept thinking, "When's it going to start?" Right after it finally did start, it stopped.

A serious novel on Superman, as well-written as this one is, should leave the reader deeply moved, intensely affected in some way. This one left me remembering how I'd cried over the death of Superman story back in one of the 1960s comic books, and wondering why I felt so much more moved then.… (más)

Sometimes, when I'm writing these 'reviews', I feel like I shd just give up & embrace my lack of memory of them & have a special column somewhere called "Korsakoff's Amnesiacs Corner" or some-such. Almost all novels for me have become just alternate worlds that I enter into b/c my own life is so lacking in adventure these days. But what about when my life was full of adventure? I read novels galore then too & I don't remember them either. I suppose the point is that I get engrossed in the plots & 'escape' for awhile but I don't retain anything b/c none of it really ties that much into my 'real' life.

Anyway, "Freaks' Amour". Does the title remind you of anything? "Geek Love" by Katherine Dunn? Well, lest you think that De Haven was inspired by Dunn, let it be known that Dunn's bk came out in 1989 & De Haven's in 1979. I haven't read "Geek Love" but it's been enthusiastically recommended to me by many a friend. I don't know if the similarities between the titles is where such similarities stops but looking at the Wikipedia plot synopsis for Dunn's bk the similarites seem to run deeper. I'm not saying that Dunn plagiarized De Haven, the sensationalist taste for 'freaks' will always be there in the zeitgeist.

Otherwise, HEY!, I remember nothing about this bk. I've just read the back cover description & skimmed thru it to remind me. It was probably funny, etc; I probably enjoyed it, etc.

Perhaps now is the time to insert a bit of personal philosophizing to explain my indifference to getting into this bk (& many others) in detail. My interest is in living a fantastic 'REAL' life. I've spent my life trying to be here now. & that's not influenced by the bk by the same name (wch I haven't read - but might someday). So why do I read so many damn novels & watch so many fictional movies? I know, I 'know', it's contradictory.

BUT, if you read my more autobiographical bks, like "How to Write a Resumé" & "footnotes", you'll realize that my main interest has been to lead an assertive life that manifests my imagination, to not just stand by & watch my life trickle away - wasted on vicarious living. Even writing these sometimes shallow 'reviews' is an attempt to get a grip on my life by using reading these 'escapist' bks as an excuse to write shit like I'm writing now, to be less passive, more ENGAGED.

I've always tried to create an ACTUAL LIFE that's special - that's why I don't write (much) fiction. I like fiction but I feel like trying to provide texts that're as interesting as fiction but about my own personal 'REAL' experience is more important. As such, I run the risk of being written off as an egomaniac. But my egomania is beside the point, my life-as-example it to the point. I think most people PREFER fiction, though. Maybe even I do - after all, I've read a zillion novels & very few biographies.

But wch ones stick w/ me more? Crowley's "autohagiography"? Or "Freaks' Amour"? Definitely the former. I read "Freaks' Amour" w/in the last 5 yrs & the Crowley bk 20 yrs ago. One cd attribute my more recent lack of memory to age deterioration but I don't think that's actually the case here. Anyway, I'm not saying "Freaks' Amour" is a bad bk, I'm just saying that novels, & living in fantasy worlds, are less important than trying to live yr own life to the fullest. I love bks & bookworms (like myself) usually have pretty active brains, but if you don't APPLY THAT ACTIVE BRAIN you might just be missing out, eh?!… (más)