<i>The Blind Assassin</i> by Margaret Atwood

This book was suggested by a friend. Since I have read other Atwood (The Handmaid's Tail about 3 years ago and Cat's Eye in high school) and liked them, I was happy to return to her work, especially with a recommendation.

Atwood adeptly weaves together three stories: a book within the book, the memories of the protagonist and the clippings to support these memories. So, as readers we get an interpreted history through the book within the book, a personal history through the memories and an objective history through the clippings. These three aspects establish a rich story.

An additional layer is the sci-fi stories that were incorporated as part of the book within the book (I was reminded of the sci-fi aspects of Cat's Eye). These stories compounded the interpretation, creating caricatures of the main characters: a girl who couldn't talk and a boy who couldn't see. The caricatures were broad brush strokes, reflecting an inability to stand up for one's self and family and one's ability to navigate deftly through life without seeing anything.

I liked Atwood's writing. I especially enjoyed the voice of Iris as an "older" woman looking back on here life and writing to her estranged grand-daughter. The writing about her family's and her own more elegant past was enjoyable and the feeling of distress as that (and her family) slipped away over the years was palpable.

Overall, a very good read.

8/10

<i>Notes Towards the Definition of Culture</i> by T.S. Eliot

Dave and I spent some time discussing this book---indeed, Dave loaned it to me in the first place so we could do just that. We haven't had a final conversation about it since I finished. I have a few thoughts, though, that have been discussed to some extent about the content of this work.

Eliot contends that culture must have a religious base. I, rather flippantly, disagree with that. But, I cannot give an example of a culture where its people are not involved in a religion (i.e. a faith in the supernatural/divine). Even if, in the case of agnostics or atheists, it is only to speak against the 'common' understanding. For an atheist to say there is no god, there must be some cultural understanding to make that meaningful.

Eliot also claims that those who come to a religion through culture are just as entitled to call themselves of that religion as those who come to a religion through faith. I summarized this to Dave as: becoming Catholic for the art (or, in the Seinfeld tradition, Jewish for the jokes). Eliot's point is that the cultural results of religion will tend to reflect the same values as those held by the religion. As such, if you like the cultural aspects, the faith will fit you as well.

I find this hard to agree with. While I think people can come to faith by a variety of directions, I also think it is fair to be suspicious of the of those who have conversions based on cultural aspects that can be found in many religions or in society at large (see Jason's entry on Take This Bread). While a group of people who are in the local soup kitchen may share your desire to hep the needy, the conversion to a faith should rest on more than a single commonality, as faith, if one is serious about it, is a more encompassing than the single act to serve soup.

I agree with Eliot on his general view of culture: that cultures are intertwined and depend on each other; that you cannot have a middle-class culture without a lower class culture; when people forget the cost ties between cultures, wars breakout; the ideas of a world culture is meaningless without any counterpart to help define it.

Overall, I liked the book, Eliot sets his argument out reasonably. He keeps it short, which enables understanding. I enjoyed thinking about the ideas he presented.

8/10