(There is a knock on the door.)
TOA: Hey, come on in.
(THE BB enters.)
BB: Hey, boss.
TOA: How was the month?
BB: Is he here?
TOA: Who?
BB: Moya.
TOA. No. I gave him a day off. Why?
BB: Goodness, last time, let me tell ya, usually I keep track of his rants but he was neither here nor there, I couldn’t tell if he wanted everyone to ride a bike or if he wanted them all to get run over by a duck boat, he was going on and on, I’m surprised he still isn’t going on, I thought it would never end, if he was my employee I would’ve axed him.
TOA: Well, I’m sorry to hear it was tough, but whatever you did worked some magic, last week he came in and actually got some work done. I put it in the newsletter. I might post one of his rants in the coming weeks.
BB: Oh, good, so you finally get some return from a new hire.
TOA: What does that mean?
BB: What about that guy, I forget his name, Mister Wu is it?
TOA: Master Poo.
BB: Right, what’s he done?
TOA: Well, he’s supposed to take over the Talking Shits-
BB: Hey! Watch your mouth!
TOA: What, that’s the name of it, what do you want me to call it?
BB: I don’t care, just call it something else, what a dumb name, no wonder why no one cares, even the guy you hired to do it doesn’t care.
TOA: Oh, give it a rest, he’ll come around.
BB: Yeah, it doesn’t matter to me, anyway, I just want to get this done with today.
TOA: Fine by me. Where were we when we left off?
BB: So last time before Moya, I think we were talking about what you saw in common among the books?
TOA: Right, well, in terms of connections, I did see many connections-
BB: Hold on, I remember now, I meant as in, did you see connections among the fiction you read in the way you saw connections among the nonfiction?
TOA: No, not so specifically within genres, I mean in M Train there is a significant portion devoted to Patti Smith reading and responding to Wind-Up Bird and this, too, was something I’d forgotten since my first reading. And are you gonna just interrupt all day again?
BB: If you start saying something dumb, I’ll interrupt. So yes, probably a lot. What was her take on the book?
TOA: She didn’t really get into it, if I recall correctly.
BB: Which you probably don’t…
TOA: Yeah, for once, smart-
BB: Hey!
TOA: Oh, chill, for once, OK, smart guy, I’m with you, wise guy, I’m just saying as I reread I realized my recall for these books wasn't very good at all. For Smith, I think Wind-Up Bird just captured her imagination. She talked about how much she enjoyed the description of a particular property, I remember, and wrote about how she might actually go to Japan to see it. I mean, are you kidding me? I didn't care half as much about seeing the apartment building I grew up in, and as far as I know, my living there actually happened, though this recent revelation-
BB: So you don’t care one way or the other for description?
TOA: Well, it’s vital, but I’m never captivated by that sort of thing in writing, those details usually just zip right by my eyes, in fact, when I read it, it didn’t even occur to me that I could find this place in Tokyo if I tried, I just assumed Murakami made the place up.
BB: So what, then, did you take from Wind-Up Bird, if you didn’t care for any of the words?
TOA: Other than a name for a cat?
BB: Other than…what? I thought Jake was from the Animorphs?
TOA: Ah, right, I forget you don’t read this blog, Mr. Honda is going to be the name of my first cat. And I didn’t read Animorphs again, you clown.
BB: I see, so, wait, so, was that the security question?
TOA: Did I read Animorphs?
BB: No, the cat thing. I’m lost. It's been a month, you know.
TOA: Well, why do you care? What, you trying to hack my accounts?
BB: Oh, like there’s anything worth hacking. Listen, brainless, I told you last month, I got hacked, and I can’t get into the accounts again, those stupid questions keep coming up and I don’t know the answers and I need to do my taxes and this inability-
TOA: What, they tax $0 now? You gonna get us a refund?
BB: Oh settle down, I only got a job because you couldn't handle the uncertainty of unemployment, too embarrassed to give honest answers to dumb questions, like what is there to be so afraid of, but now I spend half the day-
TOA: Whatever. Well, you might like Wind-Up Bird, code breaking is a key part of one section. And regarding that book, it’s like I said, one thing I took from it was indirectly through M Train, just the realization that I’m going to like a book for very different reasons than someone like Patti Smith.
BB: You needed a dedicated rereading month to figure out you were different than Patti Smith?
TOA: Oh, pipe down, it’s just different, it’s like with Harry Potter, some people like those books because they are inspired by the magical world and I’m usually the one ruining the experience by asking why someone didn’t just invent the equivalent of text messaging with all the magic they could do, you know?
BB: It sounds like you just want to be obnoxious.
TOA: Well…
BB: Right? Or clever via your consistently contrarian view?
TOA: No, I like Harry-
BB: It’s not like contrary is always original, you know? Not every fact is relevant.
TOA: Hey, listen-
BB: Like, this blog should be called ‘Advocate For The Devil’ or ‘The True Contrarian’ or some other nonsense. Or maybe just ‘Irrelevant Fact Roundup with-’
TOA: Bullsh- er, Bolshevik, I mean, that’s BS. That’s crap.
BB: Bolshevik?
TOA: Sorry, it slipped out.
BB: Why would that slip out?
TOA: I don’t know, maybe, well, a couple of these books make loose references to politics and such, so maybe it’s in my head.
BB: Yeah, right, well I do recall hearing Eureka Street is a bit political, though it was probably from your noise, so who knows if it's true, and, well, maybe Sputnik Sweetheart, obviously, I could see why-
TOA: I’ll get to that, but first, look, if J.K. Rowling wants to tell us her magic kingdom is accessible by crawling under the French fry machine at Mickey D’s or whatever, then I expect a higher standard for realism. Otherwise, just make up the whole universe, like those sports movies that pretend the NFL or D-1 college basketball doesn’t exist and make up their own teams.
BB: Right, Willie Beamen and the Miami Sharks.
TOA: Exactly. There’s no reason why a wizard living in a parallel world to ours should communicate by tying parchment to an owl or sticking his head into a fire when any twelve year old girl can just text all her homies-
BB: Huh? What are you talking about? How is this crap magic book popular?
TOA: Well, I mean…the Harry Potter books are good. But I think we get taken advantage of a little bit because the books are supposed to be about magic. So what? Just because a broomstick can fly doesn’t mean I can’t call-
BB: You’re full of it, man, fiction requires this sort of thing, you know, you can’t just read it and then yell at everyone, fiction requires a certain willingness to suspend disbelief, like, surely, something came up in a plot you reread in December that you were just like come on…
TOA: Sure, that’s true, and for the most part I’m willing to suspend disbelief. I think if I’m reading fiction, I’ll give the plot free reign. But if I’m reading nonfiction I’ll take a closer look at strange plot elements.
BB: So Harry using an owl instead of texting isn’t a plot element? Give me a break.
TOA: Hmmm.
BB: Like-
TOA: No, see, it’s part of the environment to me, or maybe the back story is a better way to put it, or characterization even, I don’t know the meaning of that word but I think that’s it, but the way the wizards sit around and ignore the advancements made in the real world just makes no sense, like in the first book Harry has to explain what a telephone is, and that’s preposterous, really, like no Muggle-born ever came to Hogwarts and was like - hey, we can use these things called telephones - like, Harry almost died in the first book because Dumbledore communicates like the rest of that lot, via owl, who really thinks the best way to deliver a package is by tying it to an owl-
BB: Right, but-
TOA: Like people in Beacon Hill order a sixty-eight dollar bottle of conditioner via Amazon and worry it’ll get stolen en route even though Amazon would probably shoot thieves on sight if they could and meanwhile Dumbledore’s sending top-secret messages about Voldemort by tying a note to old Hootie?
BB: Well, small price to pay for self-esteem, really, and besides, what do you have against-
TOA: It doesn't matter, I don’t care, and I didn’t reread the Animorphs, I didn’t reread Harry Potter, we aren’t here to talk about those books, anyway, right, we aren't here to talk about how ridiculous it is that through all seven books everything Hermione tries to do is something Harry eventually does, because how could we believe a woman would be good at magic, anyway, right, no way I could properly suspend my disbelief for that-
BB: Yikes.
TOA: -that Ron is considered a great friend even though he spends half the books just abandoning Harry-
BB: OK, fair enough! I think we got it, man, and maybe we'll deal with it more later, but you didn't read those books in December right, just like you didn't read Animorphs, which reminds me, I thought Jake was in the Animorphs? So how did you pick him out as a favorite character?
TOA: What? No, when did I say that? Jake’s in Eureka Street.
BB: I thought Jake had a cat?
TOA: Right, in Eureka Street. It’s a good book, man, you should read it.
BB: So is the name of it the password?
TOA: Name for what? And password for what?
BB: For my accounts.
TOA: Will you stop with the accounts? The cat’s name is Mr. Honda, or Noboru Wataya, I should say, the password is Mr. Honda, and as for Jake’s cat, I actually think it didn’t have a name.
BB: No name? Are you kidding?
TOA: I think so, I know I forget these details here and there but the names in Eureka Street are pretty memorable, Septic Ted, Aoirghe, so on, Poetry Street, I’d probably remember the cat’s name.
BB: Roche?
TOA: No, Roche was a kid. Probably still is, as a matter of fact, though since it was set in the early-
BB: You said you liked Roche, what did you like about Roche?
TOA: He’s just a good character, though convenient, too, I should say. Read the book.
BB: Convenient how? He own a grocery or something?
TOA: Well, like the plot stuff, he just pops up from time to time to link pieces together. Sometimes, it’s a little like…
BB: Like…?
TOA: Well, like…it’s nice that he pops up, you know? Like you need a ride and suddenly someone pulls up, that just never happens in real life, but in fiction-
BB: So you gotta suspend disbelief, right? Like coincidences?
TOA: Not quite, I mean, with fiction at some point worrying about the plot becomes a bit too much for me to take seriously, fiction is the plot, you know? So if the plot is a little wacky, well, that’s too bad, but I’m not gonna fuss over it because the plot is the fiction. So saying something made up is too made up feels off to me.
BB: How is this different from Harry Potter and the telephone?
TOA: The problem is just in the details. I don’t believe a character like Hermione who Rowling presents as smarter and more capable than any other student in that school would show up and not instantly be like – hey, let’s get a telephone up in this tower! I mean, she goes around trying to end slavery and does time travel and such and manages to avoid doing anything dumb like going to the Under The Sea Dance with her father or that git Ron, even, and so to me I'm just not sure getting a phone jack into the Gryffindor common room is supposed to be too much, you know?
BB: I...do not know...but, whatever-
TOA: Like if you went to school in another country and they used the same forks to handle the cooked meat that they used for the raw meat, you wouldn’t be like, hey, wash the forks? Hermione definitely would, kid’s smarter than two Rons, Ron’s so dumb-
BB: OK, one more Harry Potter reference and I’m done!
TOA: Next December, I’ll reread them all just so we’ll have to-
BB: So I’m just saying, convenient coincidences don’t bother you?
TOA: Not much, like I said, any story is fundamentally a convenient coincidence.
BB: When did you say that?
TOA: Well, maybe I didn’t say it like that, but that’s what I meant. In fiction, what bothers me is someone acting out of character or something in the environment that just makes no sense. With Harry Potter, it’s like, why would Quidditch ever be popular, you know, it’s would like if-
BB: Will you stop it with the magic stuff? You are starting to sound like Moya here.
TOA: Right, right. Well, it’s true, though, I mean in Wind-Up Bird the whole book just comes to a complete stop at like ten different times because the character gets a letter or talks to some guy who tells a long story or reads an article on the computer. At some level, it’s just a construction, it’s just like Murakami’s writing it and saying – hey, I have something to say and no way to really say it naturally within the plot, so the character is going to conveniently receive a letter or log onto the computer. And I’m fine with that. But it’s also convenient, the letters I get are never timed like that, I don't even get letters anymore, and the emails I receive never quite arrive when I need them, they're too long anyway, and when old people tell me stories, I’m just like what the-
BB: Hey!
TOA: Right, sorry. What’s with this, though? New Year’s resolution to stop cussing?
BB: Well, kind of, I suppose-
TOA: You’d hate Eureka Street, all they do is cuss. I learned some new words, actually.
BB: Like what?
TOA: Like tay...who knows, really, I can't pronounce those Irish words.
BB: Right. Well, I see it a little better when you put it that way. But I’m still not sure. Can’t a story have too much coincidence built in?
TOA: Well, let’s talk about Hard-Boiled Wonderland, that book is really something, it’s basically two parallel stories, and they intersect in ways, but really it’s just two stories in one story, and Murakami just alternates chapters.
BB: So one chapter is the first story and the next is the other? Sounds like Lost.
TOA: Like the TV show, you mean?
BB: Right, like the show is on the island, but also the show is off the island, and it was kind of one or the other in terms of scenes.
TOA: So what did you make of that?
BB: Well, it just had to happen, right? How else would you tell the off-island story?
TOA: Lots of ways, I think, and this is like I was saying last time with the memoirs, Nelson relies on breaking up the sections to make her points and Smith is writing it in a more traditional style. But by using one style or the other, I think the reader ends up with certain expectations, and it’s harder to write when the structure creates expectations. Like if you bought a comic book, you would expect a drawing somewhere, you know?
BB: That’s not a very good comparison, I think, but what you are saying is like the end of season three?
TOA: Season what?
BB: In Lost. You know, season three, you gotta go back, you gotta go back next December, maybe make it a rewatching month-
TOA: Oh, right. Yeah, I mean, by that point the show’s structure was still non-traditional but well-enough understood by the viewer, so the-
BB: Spoiler alert!
TOA: Oh come on, it’s been like ten years, anyone who hasn’t seen it already can go-
BB: Hey! No cursing.
TOA: Oh right, I forgot. But anyway, my point about these things-
BB: Wait, you ignored my point from before, about too many coincidence-
TOA: Yeah, chill, I’m just saying, it’s like I don’t mind if Roche just pops up so Jake can go from one part of Belfast to another, it's not like they had Uber twenty years ago, and I don't care if Murakami decides his character is going to receive a letter every day just so the plot moves forward, like I said those elements make sense because at the end of the day a story’s a story, right? If the routine happens like expected, it wouldn’t be a story, you know?
BB: Sure. But in nonfiction, if the plot’s off, your antenna goes up a bit? Why bother to make a distinction? And what is a nonfiction plot anyway?
TOA: Well, shouldn’t it have a plot? It's just the chronology of events, and whether those are plausible, like in your stupid business bro books, like if the example doesn’t make sense in the context of a workplace, you can’t really take it seriously, right?
BB: Well, I suppose, sure. If someone writes a book about managing and they say something like give a ‘Shit Sandwich’ for feedback- oh, hey, look at you, making me curse-
TOA: Hey, I didn’t make you say shit.
BB: OK, well, I know, that person probably isn’t getting much out of the feedback just because I’ve been on the receiving end of it and it didn’t work, all I hear is the negative part, and I start to think the boss is afraid to be direct, on top of it. Or if a book is like – hey, don’t go to a meeting unless there’s a clear agenda – well, that might work for a certain type of worker-
TOA: Like a wealthy worker, probably-
BB: Yeah, yeah, or maybe it applies to someone with control over a schedule or a workload, but most people just want to go to work, not have a very stressful time, do their jobs well, and go home to their lives without thinking about work all night. And I think these books just don’t acknowledge the reality-
TOA: Right, right, but we’ll talk about that when you actually read a book, OK, because I got something to add anyway, I think it’s like what you are saying, in nonfiction, the worst thing I say about it is that something is untrue. And that makes sense, since the only thing separating fiction from nonfiction is truth. The plot has to at least add up or I’m gonna question the author’s grasp on what happened, if not the truth of the matter.
BB: But why make a distinction about environments or characters or motives? Aren’t these all part of the story?
TOA: Well, sure, to an extent, but my rope is a lot longer for nonfiction. A biography or a profile doesn’t need to add up, really, since most people are far deeper than what the author understands about them. It’s like looking at a picture, a photo, it’s a good representation but still a dimension short of a full person.
BB: Well, what if the topic is the author?
TOA: Yeah, but even in the case of memoir, the author is simultaneously exploring and mapping, teaching and learning, and the act is so tangled up in this mess that I don’t think it’s worth saying a character doesn’t add up.
BB: But in fiction, since the characters are created, don’t you think they have to add up?
TOA: Well, I guess not necessarily, but what’s the point of reading about a character if the author holds back? Like, why buy a calculator that doesn’t add up the numbers for you? Or divides when you say subtract?
BB: Well…
TOA: It’s not like anyone else is going to describe the character to me, you know? The author is literally the only person in world history who will ever be able to do it. So do it! And if the character does something inconsistent, then I’m going to be disappointed in the author a little bit because maintaining the consistency, that’s the author’s job! Don't tell me Hermione is smart, make her do smart things!
BB: I mean, you could have an inconsistent character, though?
TOA: Well, sure, but then they have to be inconsistently consistent.
BB: You mean consistently inconsistent?
TOA: Right, whatever it consists of, that.
BB: I don’t know. But then how could an author ever surprise anyone?
TOA: What, like a twist ending?
BB: Sort of, I guess.
TOA: Who cares about that? A great author can write a twist ending without being lazy about the characters. A great author should be able to get the reader to look back and say – hey, that ending was surprising, but it’s definitely in character, and maybe even predictable.
BB: Well, I’m not sure about it, I guess, but maybe for now, best to leave the endings for later.
TOA: Yeah, probably, it’s not like these books had surprise endings anyway.
BB: Oh yeah?
TOA: I guess Hard-Boiled Wonderland, in hindsight, was a suspenseful ending in the sense that I found it hard to expect. I’m not sure if that’s why I really like it or not, but that was my experience. Eureka Street was hard to figure out the first time around but in this reread I think I understood what happened. Wind-Up Bird just kind of stopped, I guess I’m not really sure what I make of the ending.
BB: Sputnik Sweetheart?
TOA: That’s a tough one to talk about, I’ve read it twice now and each time I’m just left with a huge feeling, it’s almost like loss or regret or mourning, I think the book’s a real accomplishment but I think I suffer a little bit each time I read it. It reminded me of looking at my ankle after I injured it and realizing that something permanent had happened, that I wouldn't be able to walk for a bit, and who knew how long it would be, you know?
BB: Not really. I was just thinking about how to email folks at work so I wouldn't have to come in the next day.
TOA: It's a hard feeling to explain, like you would do it differently in a heartbeat while simultaneously understanding that there won't be a second chance, ever. It's like having two people in your head at once, each one trying to get a handle on a different aspect of the situation.
BB: I guess you’ll need to read it again.
TOA: Possibly. With books, you do get second chances, provided you read it once.
BB: So, what’s the verdict for next December?
TOA: I think any good idea is worth trying twice.
BB: Where’d you get that one, a fortune cookie?
TOA: I mean, it wasn’t so bad to finish the year with familiar books. The holidays are a time for family, or whatever, right? So I think I’ll try it again and as long as things go well, I’ll keep at it with December rereading.
BB: OK, and, last thing…
TOA: Go ahead.
BB: Is Eureka Street your favorite book?
TOA: That one, I’m still mulling, but I’ll get around to answering it eventually.
BB: OK, then, that’s a wrap.
TOA: All good?
BB: Yes.
TOA: You want to talk to Moya before you go?
BB: I thought he was off?
TOA: Yeah, he’s off, but he’s still here. I think he’s having a whiskey out back.
BB: I think I’ll pass.
TOA: OK, well, thanks for stopping in.
BB: No problem. We’ll chat again soon, I’m sure, you were saying something about another debate?
TOA: Yeah, I think it’s about time, maybe get Moya and Master Poo involved, if you haven’t fired them yet-
BB: Hey, that’s on you, I’m only advising.
TOA: Right, well, I’m struggling to write about helmet football, so maybe we’ll get the debate club going again and see what we come up with.
BB: Sounds good.
TOA: OK, until next time.
BB: See you.
