Jane Smiley Books

A great sampling of writers whose columns were included in the NY Times arts section. Some of the essays are better than others, but is that a surprise? As a writer, I found it interesting.

The New York Times weekly column, "Writers on Writing," discusses various aspects of the writing life from the perspective of today's best well-known authors. Jane Smiley collects forty-six of the essays and says, "Read it like eavesdropping or like twisting the knob on an old radio and tuning in stations from far and wide." These brief essays have a confessional feel to them, often declaring writing to be difficult, yet also a worthy task for the truly committed.

Numerous passages detail the obstacles confronted when courting the muse and also offer advice on how to write well. The most entertaining and direct approach stems from crime fiction writer Elmore Leonard and his ten rules to "remain invisible" when writing. He sums them up with the maxim, "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite." There are numerous pitfalls that hamper the writing process - the most common is doing everything under the sun but write.

Ann Patchett, author of the critically acclaimed novel "Bel Canto," hilariously explains her battles with procrastination. "I have already restored my oven to the level of showroom-floor cleanliness, written a small hill of thank-you notes (some of them completely indiscriminate: `Thank you for sending me the list of typographical errors you found in my last novel'), walked the dog to the point of the dog's collapse. I've read most of the books I've been meaning to read since high school."

What this collection does best is humanize our published idols; the most notable demystification being Arthur Miller's piece on relating his early years of being a struggling writer. Miller may have written the classic play, "Death of a Salesman," but how many knew his first play was a flop and he "resolved never to write another play." The honest feel coupled with an inviting tone make Miller's essay a standout.

However, the entire collection is compulsory reading for any aspiring writers. The piece by Alan Cheuse is a godsend for any late-blooming writer or for those skeptical to pursue a dream as middle-age approaches. Overall, "Writers on Writing" is a delight that will leave you feeling refreshed with pithy insights about the writing world.

Bohdan Kot

"Muse" is right. Muse is all they do in this book. And the musing isnt interesting or helpful. What it reminds me of is a group hug with strangers. As in...what's the point?

Peter, John, Henry, and Margaret Karlson were the children of a father who drove an old Pontiac and a mother who drove a Datsun. Peter's height came from his mother, Katherine Karlson. Axel and Kate Karlson had a horse farm. The farm seemed to take all of Axel's salary and investment earnings and Kate's annual income.

Kate was concerned that her best rider, her son Peter, and her best horse, MacDougal, did not get along. Axel feared for his quiet farm-bound children. While most family members were at the Barrington Horse Show, Axel cleared out the refrigerator and determined their establishment was a monument to waste.

The novel details Peter's riding feats and victories and John's temper and involvement in a tragic accident. On another level the monomania of Kate to develop horses and riders even to the point of sacrificing her own family is portrayed interestingly and convincingly.

This book literally haunted me. I found myself constantly thinking about the characters days after I finished it. It is a quiet kind of story, packed with repressed emotions, and somehow the ending felt cathartic although not immediately so. I could see chaos in this large rambling horse farm family and I could put together the events with a clarity I did not feel the moment I finished the book. It took awhile, and slowly these people took more shape and I began to understand more and feel the story's latent ending. I was intrigued by the family dynamics, the dominant mother/trainer, the passive, ever-loving, forgiving father, and each child responding in the only way their personalities would allow to the intensity of their demanding mother. The end was powerful. I reflected on the father holding his head in his hands as he realized there was no end in sight to his wife's sovereignity and determination to carry on at any cost. I crave a sequel, yet I already know it. It is the epitome of barn blind.

Kate Karlson is the indomitable, stubborn horse trainer who devotes her life to her calling. Her husband, who is more laid-back, and her four children recognize that there is life beyond horses and the farm, but not Kate. The oldest, Margaret, yearns after an unattainable man. Peter, the next oldest, ever the dutiful son, concentrates on horses, but is still dreamy, with his thoughts straying elsewhere. John, the third in line, is perpetually dissatisfied with life on the farm, frequently comparing their family to others. The youngest, Henry, gives up horses altogether and seeks his own path. Smiley's first novel is rich with details of the equestrians, their mounts, and everyday life on the farm. Kate is a complex character, if not always likeable: she drives her students, but not at the expense of their mounts. The characters are anything but the two-dimensional clichés found in many horse books making it a worthwhile read.

I expected to love this book, but I was disappointed. Although the setting is a horse farm, the horses are basically props moved about in the process of exploring family dynamics. The primary theme is one many people can relate to: a parent trying to live vicariously through her children, without regard to their own desires. However, I was unable to fully "connect" with any of the characters emotionally; perhaps because author Smiley relates their story in a rather detached manner herself. Even so, I might have liked this book more if the ending had not been so abrupt. Just as I was starting to really care about the characters, the climactic event occurs--and the ending comes so soon afterward that the story seems unfinished. Perhaps my expectations were unrealistically high due to having read "Horse Heaven", a more recent work, first. Everything I expected from "Barn Blind" is delivered masterfully in "Horse Heaven". For all but the most avid Jane Smiley fans, I would recommend either reading "Barn Blind" first, or skipping it altogether and reading "Horse Heaven" instead.

im sorry jane-but this book was so boring. you develop the characters for the first 6 chapters and nothing really happens in those chapters. I mean john screws up, margaret crys, henry spys on John, kate and axel fight and thats about it. the last chapter is alright but there's no point to the book. All it does is just explain this family's daily life and it talks way too much about horses. So, unless you have a couple hours to spare (even though i just summarized the book) and your sanity, buy a different book.

Let's start by saying tastes in erotica vary. This collection has a little something for everyone. The stories are more consistently sensual than erotic per say. While some of the story lines did nothing for me there are a number of gems here that make the collection well worth the read.

Of course I recognize that a sense of the erotic is a very individual taste. However, when an anthology self asserts that it is the "best" American erotica then delivers like this, I find myself longing to shop in Europe.

I'll acknowledge these short vignettes are masterfully written...murals of metaphor and simile. But one expects that erotica would appeal to more than one's appreciation of literature. One expects that erotica would stir regions a bit farther below one's cerebral cortex.

I find little of that here. Many of the stories are poignant clips of human interaction with precious little erotica to be found. Generally good short stories with a bit more nudity and profanity than one might encounter at the public library.

These stories often succeed in stirring emotion if not the libido. I find I am repulsed by the celebration of just how base human nature can be portrayed. It's as if Ms Bright's idea of the erotic is directly linked to the degree of perversity, pain, and meanness illustrated. For example, there is one story that illustrates the destruction of a man and his family at the hands of a narcissistic drug addict. Please explain how this sad story is considered erotica?

At first, I believed my disappointment was rooted in my "maleness"...that perhaps these stories were written to appeal to women. My wife has also read them. She thinks it's more like watching the freak show at the circus...plenty to gawk at, but nothing you'd want to touch.

I've seen this general trend in erotica in other anthologies as well. If this is the direction it is headed, then perhaps we just need to start renaming the series "The Best Short Stories with Naked Bodies and Profanity"

I've read the stories and loved them all, but my favorite one is,
"It's never too late in New York," by, Nelson George.
I don't want to explain too much, it's such a short story; I might tell it all in one paragraph. But I will say, I was excited to see slang writing, quoted for the characters.
This was an urban story, African-American based.
This story and all the others were engaging. In the story, I liked the character, Walter's personality. He had a sexy way about him. Walter mentioned to his friend Dwayne, about a girl whose nickname was Medina, a stripper he met in a club. Dwayne reminded Walter both he and him went to the movies with Medina together, in the past; he also reminded Walter of her real name. Dispite Dwayne's jealously towards Walter, in dating Medina, Walter remained cool about it all.
Throughout the whole book, these hot, erotic stories were really worth reading.
I recommend it.

I received the 2000 edition from a friend and I thought it was a bit over the top. Then I decided to buy this one and I was very disappointed. It was boring.

I found this book to be very boring. Not what I would call erotica at all. I will not waste my money on another of the series

A book about shallow fictional people with money and fame. If I don't care about the real shallow people with money and fame, why would I care about made-up ones? Every once in a while, a rich and shallow famous person can cook up a decent wisecrack. Not so here.

In Ten Days in the Hills, a group of characters linked by family relationships, love, and friendship hang out together in a comfortable house, and later an opulent mansion, in Los Angeles, during the opening days of the American war in Iraq. They talk to each other, make love, prepare and eat meals, and watch movies. The book is composed of stories - the story of their time together, and within that the stories of each person, of their connections with one another, of their own private experiences, and of the films they've seen or imagined.

Jane Smiley has always been adventurous, setting out to write every type of novel that exists, and by now she has completed the list. An expert story teller, she's interested in how and why people tell stories, and the ways that we use stories to understand our lives and the world we share. Ten Days defies the expectations of many readers by presenting an undramatic central narrative, while the conflicts and passions of the book are all about stories. At the center is the Iraq war, which the characters argue about a great deal, and seek to understand in varied ways. More profoundly than the question of whether the war is justified - Smiley leaves her readers in no doubt where she stands - is the question of how individuals struggle to come to terms with the actions of their governments. Should we protest, or should we accept misguided government and militarism as unavoidable parts of the human experience? Why do we make those choices?

Throughout the book, characters seek to define what the story really is and how to understand it. Isabel and her mother Zoe have very different stories about their history. Charlie and Elena have conflicting stories about the war. Max can't decide whether to make an epic film set in the Ukraine, or an intimate film set in his bedroom. Simon seeks experience and has little interest in stories, though by the end of the book he's told one or two himself. Delphine seems powerful because she never tells stories about herself. Stoney, caught in grief, tells endless stories about his father. This is where the action is - in the telling of the story, in making meaning. Those who look carefully may enjoy the richness and complexity of this book. I certainly did.

Boring, blase, and just plain bleak. That's all I can say about this book. I had high hopes for it, but once I got to the first page, things went downhill. I really didn't want to read about Hollywood-esque lives, and listen to boring conversations. How could it have won a Pulitzer?

On the plus side, it has a pretty cover. That's the only good thing about this book.

Jane Smiley is an enormously talented writer. I loved "The Greenlanders" and "A Year At The Races", both books stayed with me long after I finished reading them. She can crank out very high quality work, but "Ten Day's in the Hills" is a loser. Yes, maybe it's experimental, but mainly it's just boring. All the characters sound the same, over privileged, affluent, droning on, far too much interior dialog and musing that goes nowhere. It seems more like a study of rarified academic types than Hollywood. Where's the fun, the desperation, the irony, the treachery? I can't imagine Hollywood is populated with people this dull. You will also be treated to Smiley's political views, early in the novel she pontificates about the Iraq war and the evils of Bush. I bailed on page 50.

I'm not going to start any name calling, or saying you didn't get it, because a lot of people make good points to why they didn't like the book, and I think that these points were with merit. But I, personally, just disagreed. A fan of Richard Linklater movies and the sorts, the idea of people just sitting and talking and having sex and talking and watching a movie and talking, really entertains me, and really, I enjoy it a great deal. I thought it was a bit long winded, but it kept my interest quite well. Max and Elena were wonderful characters that really seemed enamored/in love with each other. Delphine was interesting in the manner of the old timers decrees. The rest of the cast was just unique and interesting and I thought, from my little experience in California, very acurate, and very well drawn.

So, I really loved this book, one day I'll probably read it again and love it even more. Jane Smiley is great and I was introduced to her with this book.