Comments on: A Curious Affectation

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:37:05 +0000

Well, I’m relieved that it wasn’t just my imagination that Nelson went unnamed in the novel. Your line about him being a “title” made me laugh.

I’ve been following your monsoon in the news. My cousin in Altadena has had flooding at her house. Here in Rainland (Oregon) it’s cold, but all brilliant blue skies. Very odd.

By: booksquare

booksquare — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:19:19 +0000

You know, I can almost understand the approach Sontag took — Nelson was as much a title as he was a human being (though I cannot imagine Emma Hamilton calling Commander in private moments. It was a great period for bizarre nicknames.

I understand about not finding things on the bookshelves. It is well known that many books are able to rearrange themselves based on a cataloguing system known only to them. Our human concepts of alphabet and order are no match for the logic of a book.

Curious in soaking wet Pasadena,

By: Karen

Karen — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:43:43 +0000

Funny you should mention this. Old Hag had a post today about how hard it is to get into Susan Sontag’s novels — I commented that The Volcano Lover is compelling, once you get past the chilly style. Afterwards, I started thinking about how Sontag never once names Lord Nelson in that book (everyone else is named), going for things like “The Commander.” (At least I THINK that’s what she did — I’ve just spent 20 minutes cruising my bookshelves and I can’t find the damn thing.) Since it was Sontag, she undoubtedly had a good reason, but what? It bothers me. And now I’ll never know.