Reading meme or book meme

1. There's a rather good entry by sci-fi writer John Scalzi on The relevance of Robert Heinlein, thirty years after his death or last book was published

Scalzi makes the point that relevance has a lot to do with how much a book is "out there" and "discussed via other media outlets such as films, television etc". Also that how someone in the 1960s, 70s and 80s would read Heinlein and how they would today -- well there's a big difference.

Quite true. This is actually true of all genre, not just sci-fantasy. When Heinlein was writing in the 60s and 70s, fantasy didn't quite have the prominence or influence on the genre that it does now, nor did female, minority, or LGBTQ writers. And we didn't have the internet or technology like we do now.

Also the books that influenced me in my 20s and 30s (Scalzi and I are around the same age, he's turning 49 next month, and ahem, I turned 51 recently), are not the books that influenced most of the people turning 30 now.

A telling moment was at work this week...when I told a young co-worker, African-American, highly intelligent, former music teacher, that I'd seen David Bowie Is at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and he said "Who is David Bowie?"

Blew my mind. I also found it rather funny.

It's quite possible people don't know who Robert Heinlein was, or his works -- Stranger in a Strange Land (which was must reading in the 1980s -- if you were a sci-fi fan, you had to read THAT book -- I kept getting the plot confused in my head with Huxley's Brave New World), Starship Troopers, Friday or The Cat the Walks Through Walls - my favorite and the only one I remember at all vividly,
The Puppet Masters (which they made a really bad movie out of -- but I liked better than The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney) -- I think the Buffy writers read it because Bad Eggs borrows heavily from that book's plot, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (never got through that one and I tend to confuse it with Vonnegurt's Sirens of Titan for some reason).

While they do know Tamora Pierce and Bradford Anderson -- neither of whom I've read nor feel much attraction towards.

There were women writers back then, but far more controversial -- at least now. There's bits in the old sci-fi novels that well would not work in a 2018, and would turn people off.

This however is true of all genre. There are romance novels and historicals written in the 1970s and 80s and 60s that...well don't quite work now. Some writers can be timeless, but genre writers generally speaking don't tend to be -- particularly the conventional ones and popular ones. Its the subversive writers who went against the norm, like Philip K. Dick, Ursula Le Quinn, Octavia Butler,
and even to a degree Stephen King that remain relevant.

2. What I just finished reading

Fun Home by Allison Bechdel -- I have no idea why I kept thinking her name was Kate throughout the book. Very weird.

The book...disappointed me. But, to be fair, I am not a fan of the memoir genre. Never have been. It irritates me. I've read a lot of memoirs, in comic book form and non-comic book form. (Prefer the comic book form, because it at least lightens the mood, also a faster read. The non-comic book form can get a bit exhausting. Also professional writers are better at memoirs than professional actors, politicians, etc who think they are writers. Just saying.) My difficulty with memoirs is my difficulty with the book -- which is they are all without exception - overly self-indulgent, whiny/angsty, and a wee bit myopic. Also, not quite honest --- in that the writer by necessity is sort of guessing at what happened in their own past. Memory is hardly accurate for anyone.

That said, Allison Bechdel does manage to skirt the dishonesty hurdle, by firmly admitting that she has no clear idea what is true and what is embellished memory. The book reads a bit like someone digging back through their past to unearth memories and try to make sense of them.

Her prose is poetic and well-done for the most part. But her cartoons and art falls flat, and lacks emotion or expression. Also there's a drabness and sameness to it that begs the question why she bothered to tell the story in this manner. Unlike Perspelsis, Maus, American Splendor, and Ghost World...the book lacks something in its artistry. It's rather bland. And I kept going to sleep while reading it, with the numbing rocking motion of the train ride to and from work.

The story itself I identify with, oddly more so than the other works I mentioned. And that may well be the problem? I've read all the books that Bechdel utilizes to describe her life. In particular, James Joyce's Ulysees -- which she bonded with her father over. In a way reading this completes my Joyce Odyssey. I've read Joyce, I've read criticism on Joyce, I've read The Most Dangerous Book -- the Fight over James Joyce's Ulysess, and now a memoir about a lesbian woman and her homosexual father bonding over it. I was an English Lit major and I sort of agree with the writer's issues over literary analysis. I'm not quite sure I see the point of it either -- hence the reason, I realized I was not cut out to be an English Lit Professor.

Also, I remember the 1970s and 80s, and Watergate. Bechdel is about seven years older than I am. So we're in the same generation. I'm not gay, but I get the gender issues in a way. My issue with the book is she makes the mistake, as many people did back then, of drawing a line between gender identification and sexual orientation. The two aren't linked. You can be a woman who identifies more with male traits and prefer men, just as you can be a man who identifies more with feminine traits and prefer women. Also it is a spectrum. Many of the gay men that I've known were very masculain, macho even, and many of the lesbians I've known, were extremely feminine with the high heels, and the makeup. And I've met men who were effeminate and liked jewelry and dresses but also loved women.
The world is not as black and white or clear cut as Bechedel and her family want to make it. Which may explain why The Bechdel Test is a problematic one -- her own book doesn't hold up to it.

So, overall? I give it about 4 stars or an A-. Good but not great. Above Average, but hardly worth the accolades it has received. And I'm having troubles envisioning a musical version. I've listened to some of the songs -- none are memorable and none made me want to see it. So it disappeared before I caught it. Reminded too much of Next to Normal, and I liked the music better in it.

I've no idea why she's gotten all the attention she has. But pop culture never ceases to bewilder me.

What I'm reading now?

Sort of poking around. Haven't decided yet.