Tag Archives: books

Books

I brought The Stand with me to Stockbridge, because I thought I could use a big book to keep me occupied for awhile. I like it, I read it last summer, but I think the main reason I enjoy reading it is that it is very long, and thus can sustain my fast reading habits for more than a few days.

I finished the thing in a week and a half. After sitting a moment to figure out what to read next, I discovered that I still have Brendan’s copy of Watchmen that he loaned to me awhile back (so Brendan, if you’ve been searching for it, you know where it is now ^_^). I started it yesterday and am nearly through.

I was fretting all day about what I would read next, and where I would get a book, fretting all through checking my email. “Where on *earth* am I going to find a book to read?” I thought. Then I remembered I was in a library and felt really dumb.

Seriously, though, it’s been a long time since I’ve gotten books from a library for anything more than research, I’d nearly forgotten what wonderful things libraries are (and not just for an internet addict to check her email while she’s stranded in Massachusetts).

I picked up Watership Down, because it’s something I’ve always intended to read, and also The Once and Future King, because my friend, Carleton, and I were pondering over its role in X2, and he said that I should read it and then tell him all about it. I guess being a fast reader has its advantages. If I can finish The Stand in a week and a half, I should have no trouble finishing two normal-sized books in two weeks.

Meanwhile, if anyone has any good recommendations of very long books (like, 1500 pages or more…and Not Moby Dick), leave them here. I need long books!

On Arting

So I’m reading this book, right? I’m reading along, and over this passage:

“He looked at his hands. They were large, strong–and yet unweathered, as sensitive and delicate as an artist’s hands.”

Now, when I read a book, I read right through, stopping only at chapter ends or when exhaustion overtakes me. But this time, this little passage caused me to stop in my tracks. I set down the book, and took a good look at my hands (which I recommend, I mean, how often do you look at your hands?)

I guess, with all the arting I do, that makes me an artist. But unweathered? Delicate? I don’t think I’d ever use these words to describe my hands, even though I *know* they’ve been used to describe the hands of an artist, in more cases than just this book.

My hands are used hands. They’re rough, calloused, and dry. They’ve born hundreds of nicks and cuts, burns from exploding glass or carelessly plucking up heated tools. In spite of all my caution, they’ve been saturated, I’m sure, in oil paints and mineral spirits and other nasty chemicals you really don’t want seeping into your body. They’re often tired things, frequently dirty–especially after arting–and hurt (again, especially after arting). I really should take better care of them…

…but that’s not really the point, I think. Who got the crazy idea that an artist’s hands are “delicate?” Or maybe I’m just thinking of “delicate” in the wrong way. I guess many artists have a delicate sense of control with their hands, especially with a large painting, or with throwing a vessel, or even handling glass. I guess that’s accurate, but I’m not sure if that’s the definition the author had in mind.

It brings up somewhat of an art major stereotype which people have conveyed to me: the artist who wanders fashionably about and engages in deep, philosophical, “arty” conversations, and who create art on dramatic inspiration and this and that.

Art majors aren’t like that! At least, here they’re not (well, Emil has that “arty” sense about him, but still). Sure, it’s not terribly hard to spot an art major on campus…they’re the ones who are constantly covered from head to toe in filth–paint, charcoal, clay, general art barn scum. They are tired people, who generally work too hard, and don’t linger every waking moment in the studio for their image of an “artist,” but because the physical work necessary in churning out their art requires them to do so. They are often exhausted and broken, and tend to neglect themselves, and are worn from pumping so much of themselves into physical objects.

Of course, this could just be me. Perhaps my view is skewed? Any input? I know you Centre people read my journal! You’ve told me, so comment! Comment I tell you! Tell me if i’m right about this.

In the mean time, ursulav wrote This nice post about art. It’s a good read.

Resssst

Spring Break thus far has been absolutely exquisite. I have done nothing. Sweet, pure, absolute nothing. I’ve been reading The Worthing Saga, which Brendan lent me long ago. I like it, but I would probably like any book at this point, just because it’s been so long since I’ve had a moment to read for leisure. I love having those days where you read late into the night, only to wake up early the next morning for the sole purpose of lounging about and reading all day.

I think this is just the recharge my body needs. I’m already feeling much more refreshed and pleasant, and I think my body is getting plenty of rest. By Monday I’ll have created enough relaxation reserve to last me through the rest of the term.

As a side note, I find it particularly annoying when you’re at a meal, and someone offers you a dish, and you say “no thank you,” and they interpret that to mean “no, I don’t like it”, and respond with such things as “but it’s good!” or “but I thought you liked _____!” It drives me up the wall! Is this a normal family thing, or is it just mine that does it?