I think Joe was thinking more about the social commentary.

Hmmm. I didn't really pick up a lot of social commentary or allegory. Granted I read it in high school, but I'd also read ANIMAL FARM (heh - type HOUSE at first; definitely not the same) by then. Of course, missing the social commentary in ANIMAL FARM is like missing a shovel to the face. I didn't even know a whole lot about Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky at the time I read it, but I couldn't miss it was MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT about something related to dictators.

I didn't really pick up a lot of social commentary or allegory. Granted I read it in high school

I read it in ninth grade, and I don't know whether I "picked up" on the social commentary, but I did understand that it wasn't just a story about rabbits. If it was making comments on specific things, I'm sure I didn't make the connection, but I do recall appreciating it for being social commentary, with bunnies.

I'm 150 pages into Kavalier and Clay, and I don't even have slash goggles, but I feel like Chabon is fucking with me on purpose.

Or possibly it's a universe where some characters are just gay. That happens in novels sometimes. Hint.

I liked the slow parts, when I read that book. It eased me into the story in a way that worked for me -- gave me parameters for how it would work, how the characters would brush up against fame and famous events and fit into the real world as I know it. Creating that space slowly helped me understand that this was not going to be a fictionalized history of real events, but a riff on reality. Not a substitution, but an addition.

I remember there were pigs. In pants.

It's funny cause in one of my classes we're talking about critical reading vs casual reading. And it occured to me that I don't do critical reading. If it's reading for school, I gloss over it. With the exception of Harry Potter, when I read casually, I read and enjoy it and then I'm done. I sometimes take something away, but mostly I think, "I liked that." or "That was crap." So, I often miss the deeper message.

Or possibly it's a universe where some characters are just gay. That happens in novels sometimes. Hint.

But they're cousins! Wait, that doesn't stop people either. Cool, then.

I liked the slow parts, when I read that book. It eased me into the story in a way that worked for me -- gave me parameters for how it would work, how the characters would brush up against fame and famous events and fit into the real world as I know it. Creating that space slowly helped me understand that this was not going to be a fictionalized history of real events, but a riff on reality.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction there, but I guess I haven't gotten far enough. I was a little confused about the whole Golem thing because it was talked about as if it were very, very real in its supernatural abilities.

The slow parts are fine, really, because of the storytelling. I feel like Chabon's sitting there relating this long-ass story to me, and every now and then he says, "This is a digression. But it's important, so bear with me. I'll make it worth your while." The language and style is so colorful.

Yeah, I can see how that would be a problem. Most novels I enjoy, they appeal to the casual reader and the critical reader both -- I think "Whatta story!" and then can spend extra time on the themes and deep stuff.

But novels like Animal Farm, where there isn't much "whatta story" and it's all deep stuff (not to mention a metaphor where, if you don't know that the pigs are all Soviet revolutionaries, it doesn't have any kind of resonance), the casual reading approach will just leave you baffled and annoyed.

(As I was, the first time I read it, in the 6th grade. It took a very patient English teacher to be like, "No, it's not supposed to be exciting." Even so, in the 6th grade, I had no idea who Trotsky was.)

Oh, speaking of critical reading and casual reading: what the hell is the point of The Crying of Lot 49 ? It had its moments, but overall, I felt like I wasted my time. And I'm...getting kind of tired of that.

critical reading vs casual reading

This is why the inclusion of Reader Group Discussion Questions at the end of so many of the books I've read recently is crawling up my butt. I'm completely able to read critically, but some books I just don't want to read critically.

But novels like Animal Farm, where there isn't much "whatta story" and it's all deep stuff (not to mention a metaphor where, if you don't know that the pigs are all Soviet revolutionaries, it doesn't have any kind of resonance), the casual reading approach will just leave you baffled and annoyed.

Heh, the casual reader part of me was hoping that Snowball would come back and save the day (HA! - I guess that makes me a Trotskyite) and he would have already intervened to save the horse who's name I'm forgetting that got sent to the glue factory.

Reader Group Discussion Questions

I just loathe these on general principles. Also, because they tend to be boneheaded questions. Better than advertising in the end blanks, but sheesh.

P-C, your appreciation for the language and the art of digression is mine. The thing with the golem is kind of what I mean about "addition to reality" instead of a fictionalized reality. The novel takes place in a real world, that I recognize, that has some extra bits added in -- like superheroes you've never heard of, and real-world attempts at tribal magic. My favorite scene from that part of the novel is when they climb inside the globe from the World's Fair. Good metaphor for claiming their dilapidated environment, and going places with it.