(no subject)
I'm reading Lucy Mangan's Bookworm, because how can I resist a memoir about books? However, I am probably getting a sort of impression from it quite different from its intended readers. Most of the books she mentions are books I've never read. I mean, I've read Narnia. And Sweet Valley High. Maybe something else. But mostly, for me, it's the social history plus a look into someone else's mind while dealing with reading (a subject I am naturally interested in)
As for social history, I am once again surprised about the nuclear bomb. I mean, once I've started reading in English - especially blogs in English - I've heard now and again that people in "the West" were afraid of the nuclear bomb. But this is still hard to imagine - and Lucy Mangan is my age, too. I mean, I can maybe imagine people being afraid during the Caribbean crisis, but I've been at primary school at the same time Lucy was at primary school, only in USSR. And I wasn't afraid of the nuclear bomb, and no one I know was afraid of it. We read in the news about it, and there was an American girl called Samantha Smith who wrote to the then General Secretary (Andropov?) telling him how afraid she was of the bomb and can we please not blow up the world. She was much feted here, and possibly invited to USSR (can't remember) and told not to worry, and that USSR was all for peace, but there was a feeling that Samantha wrote her letter because she was supposed to. That it was all staged. Because you couldn't really seriously worry about such things, that was all for newspapers.
Also, I'm just now at the place where Lucy says it was hard for her to read historical novels because she wasn't really taught history, and she only learned about the existence of English Civil War after she left university... and, once again, I've heard about history being taught piecemeal, but it's very hard to imagine. (and how do you read books All The Time without getting to know about such things?)
Lucy's reading also feels a bit weird to me. It is hard to imagine someone remembering so many picture books read before the age of five or six (and remembering the ones she "read" before learning to read, too - how does this even work? Mind you, I don't remember the time before I learned to read) and also weird that a voracious reader read within such strict limits - no talking animals, no fantasy, no poetry (were there no children's poems? Weird!), apparently no nonfiction, no adult books (or does she just leave this out of her book? How does a reading child not try to get into her parents' books? At least at the moment where there are no kids' books around).
... and also I have never grown comfortable with comical exaggeration as a style, I keep worrying a little that she really means what she says. But I do enjoy this book - it is very readable and very fascinating (maybe for the reasons I listed before.
This entry was originally posted at https://taelle.dreamwidth.org/76879.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
As for social history, I am once again surprised about the nuclear bomb. I mean, once I've started reading in English - especially blogs in English - I've heard now and again that people in "the West" were afraid of the nuclear bomb. But this is still hard to imagine - and Lucy Mangan is my age, too. I mean, I can maybe imagine people being afraid during the Caribbean crisis, but I've been at primary school at the same time Lucy was at primary school, only in USSR. And I wasn't afraid of the nuclear bomb, and no one I know was afraid of it. We read in the news about it, and there was an American girl called Samantha Smith who wrote to the then General Secretary (Andropov?) telling him how afraid she was of the bomb and can we please not blow up the world. She was much feted here, and possibly invited to USSR (can't remember) and told not to worry, and that USSR was all for peace, but there was a feeling that Samantha wrote her letter because she was supposed to. That it was all staged. Because you couldn't really seriously worry about such things, that was all for newspapers.
Also, I'm just now at the place where Lucy says it was hard for her to read historical novels because she wasn't really taught history, and she only learned about the existence of English Civil War after she left university... and, once again, I've heard about history being taught piecemeal, but it's very hard to imagine. (and how do you read books All The Time without getting to know about such things?)
Lucy's reading also feels a bit weird to me. It is hard to imagine someone remembering so many picture books read before the age of five or six (and remembering the ones she "read" before learning to read, too - how does this even work? Mind you, I don't remember the time before I learned to read) and also weird that a voracious reader read within such strict limits - no talking animals, no fantasy, no poetry (were there no children's poems? Weird!), apparently no nonfiction, no adult books (or does she just leave this out of her book? How does a reading child not try to get into her parents' books? At least at the moment where there are no kids' books around).
... and also I have never grown comfortable with comical exaggeration as a style, I keep worrying a little that she really means what she says. But I do enjoy this book - it is very readable and very fascinating (maybe for the reasons I listed before.
This entry was originally posted at https://taelle.dreamwidth.org/76879.html. Please comment there using OpenID.