Finished July 31, 2005

There are four commonly accepted types of experience:physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. Given your own predilections, you may assign more weight or validity to one type over another. It seems to me that physical experience is often afforded the most ‘validity’ because it is most easily observed by external parties, and therefore more opportunities for shared or common physical experiences. Who has not stubbed a toe, etc…? As a result, we have a pretty rich language which supports the expression and communication of physical experience, and to a lesser extent emotional experience. Mental & Spiritual experience may be the hardest to express/communicate because there are not adequate tools to quantify or qualify them .Without an elusive common ground for beginning a discourse, how can you reasonably expect to reach shared conclusions. (Personally, I find the Joy in the journey — without ever actually trying to reach a conclusion, but happy to look for it).

So how to legitimize some some Mental & Spiritual experience over others…which to trust? My (and possibly others) first source is to trust my own personal mental & spiritual experiences. This didn’t last too long for me, as I am skeptical to the point of not even trusting myself, and insecure enough to seek validation by affiliation or association with others. Better yet, why not trust those who have been there, those who were "in the shit", so to speak? So immediacy of experience (first-hand, second-hand, etc…) has some part in the path towards understanding. The more I can understand about experience in general, the more I can understand my own experience. I  trust this quest for understanding to be important. Here I can get into trouble, because in seeking understanding, I can get derailed by knowledge, and possibly authority.

While I don’t dismiss authority out of hand, I am certainly wary of it — not necessarily because the authority  is wrong, but because authority can be conferred upon some one/thing for dubious reasons — all too often because followers were simply looking for something to latch onto. I’ve come to suspect that authority can just as easily be nothing more than a wolf in the sheep’s clothing of understanding.

How does this all tie to WTV? For one he certainly has (or claims) to have experienced physically (and possibly mentally/emotionally) much more than the typical American. You could guess that (and he apparently has said as much in some interviews) that Vollmann feels the need to experience things first hand to sate his own curiosities and quests for a valid understanding. Since these quests seemingly stem from a distrust of external or other authoritative accounts, it is logical to assume that he does not expect us to confer any authority upon him for the same reasons. If I may indulge you with my own experience of  (pause for affect) Vollmann In The Flesh© — he struck me as hyper-logical and the thought that he should be granted any status or authority based solely on his experience would strike him as ludicrous. The vitriol for dogma run amok as opposed to theology / spirituality that I find in Fathers and Crows supports with my suspicions, I suspect.

But then again, what do I know?

P.S. I am wishing I took better notes when I saw Martin Jay’s talk (last year?) in Berkeley – so I could at least have a better understanding of the vocabulary for discussing experience.

MobyLives.com alerts us that:

William Fenton, author and "nationally renowned scholar of Iroquois culture," has died at age 96 in Cooperstown, New York. As a brief obituary on the Associated Press wire indicates, Fenton "became fluent in the Iroquois language and was hailed by the Indian tribes for helping to preserve their culture." While also serving as director of the New York State Museum, he subsequently "published several books considered the definitive works on the customs and ceremonies of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy."

The Skinny: I started out confused, but am beginning to find my groove. You know how sometimes you come across a book so engrossing, that you "wish it would keep going"? Well, my spider senses tell me that this will be one of these books. Except that at around 1000 pages (along with the other cycles of the Seven Dreams sequence) I won’t run out of reading quite so quickly. "Food for thought, so get a buffet plate. With lyrics so phat you might gain weight" comes to mind as I am starting to get a taste for the WTV smorgasbord.

More below…

The Dedication
The Dedication is presented in two parts: one for those the book is for, those it is against. The latter:

This book is dedicated against all dogmatists* and their armies (in which the above may have enlisted). Whoever they are, I cordially with them a warm stay in Hell.

THE AUTHOR

So begins my first summer book**.  As
a WTV newbie, the word I keep remembering from Ed’s descriptions is
"grit", and the dedication seems to fit the bill.

From "what I’ve heard", I get the impression that WTV does not
entirely separate himself from his work, and I’m not sure whether or
not I should as a reader (I usually try). I’ll start off by trying –
and see how long that lasts — in small part because the dedication is
from THE AUTHOR (presumably WTV himself, but he also concludes an
introductory paragraph with the signature, "William The Blind" closing
the paragraph that includes:

…until at last I am
successful in steadiness, deviating from my history no greater distance
than that equal to the radius of a needle’s eye: – viz., the
proverbial entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven (which I, William the
Blind, have seen with my own eyes).

So there. Also
included is a detailed contents listing, along with appendices,
glossaries, etc.. which are included as an aid to the reader (a la
Orwell’s New-speak references) and fit quite well, and do not come off as a gimmick appendage you
may find in other meta-aware books.

Crow-Text (pp. 1-22)
This first section had me
scared by its difficulty. It is a jumbled stream (including drawings,
maps and various typefaces). From all this I did glean a few things.
Hopefully this chapter will make more sense once I’ve gotten further
along in the book.

There is much talk of Saints and spiritual figures, in particular one who is alternately referred to as Catherine Tegahkouita, Catherine Tekakwitha & Kateri Tkakwitha and the narrator’s mystical, devotional quest/pilgrimage for the relics of this Blessed ‘Lily of the Mohawks’.

Also dominating this first chapter is nebulous citations of "The Points" that may be related to Ignatius‘ spiritual exercises, though for now I am ignorant of both.

As
mentioned earlier, different typefaces are employed in the text,
including a super-sized "RIVERS" in the sentence (pg 7), "And yet in
this tales of Fathers and Crows, the word writ in grandest majuscule must be RIVERS."
Indeed, as we read on, not only are the rivers of Canada key elements,
but there is the "Stream of Time" that will be referenced repeatedly in
the first 106 pages (and likely more):

There are so
many rivers in their Country, in fact, the Canadians classify them,
letting some, the middling ones be rivieres, while the grander ones
they call fleuves. The town of Three Rivers has three rivieres. But the
way from Kebec to Montreal is the Fleuve Saint-Lauren. – The Stream of
Time is neither fleuve nor riviere as we begin, but rather a mild
little brook, time being mild, meaning no harm to the leaves it whirls
away, exerting no effort.

Enough of all this,
though. It is a relatively short chapter that I suspect sets ups many
things that will make more sense to me later. Since it’s a long book, I
pretty much plowed this opening  as part of a blitzkrieg of pages of
turned, seeking momentum, a current of inducted  interest brought on
by brute force (a strategy that worked well in my reading of
Baudolino, and its challenging opening chapter). Whether this was the best course remains to be seen. I will
keep Catherine/Kateri, The Points and  The Stream of Time in the back
of my mind is I blaze away. Besides, I will contentedly, lazily make due
with this takeaway:

This book is the story of how the Black-Gowns [Jesuits] and the Iroquois between them conquered the Huron people.

Get It? Got It? Good. Forging ahead…

1. Kingdom Come or, How the Black-Gowns Sailed to Canada (pp 23+)

At this point, the books  turns to a more readable, plotty narrative
of the French’s first forays into Canada. This story seems to be akin
to historical fiction, but doesn’t seem to jibe with other books I’ve
read in that genre (supposing it is a genre). This essay by James Gibbons at Bookforum uses the term imaginitive fiction,
and the description seems apt. The only character I remember from my
elementary school days is Samuel de Champlain. In Fathers and Crows, he
is taken from the pedestal he’d assumed in my memory/imagination,
rendered much more human – often the target of ridicule and scorn of
his compatriots. Within the first 100 pages WTV has naturally overcome one obstacle in historical / imaginitive fiction — breathing life into characters already long embalmed in the tomes of history.

The landing of the Black Robes is first told from the perspective of the native Micmc/Souriquois/People –again, WTV highlights how people/places have different names by different sources from different times  –, beginning with the prescient visions of Born Swimming who foresees the ‘Floating Island’ to come. Later, the story doubles back and is told from the perspective of the French travelers. Suffice to say many characters are deftly introduced with appropriate glimpses forward and back in time.

Along with the historic jumping about, WTV encourages the reader (me) directly at points where the text seems to meander or mozy. On page 39, for instance:

(I beg you, by the way, not to think that the pages which already lie behind you are but fallen leaves of meaninglessness in an interminable forest of digressions – indeed, did I not know the end of this story I myself would despair. For already Savages, priests and harlots have slipped through our fingers, and it seems that we but grasp water. What will come next? Will I persist in my pretensions that this book has to do with the reduction of those pagan Huron Nations to faith and reason, when – now it comes out – we shall not even get our first glimpse of their Country for two or three hundreds of pages? – Yes! I refuse to say otherwise. For history is like a string that the cat has swallowed: – drawing events and events from the poor creature’s throat, one is surprised at how much must be disgorged.

Some may find such asides indulgent, but WTV times them well without coming off as fancy. And personally, I appreciate the thoughtfulness – I’m willing to put up with a lot, as long as I feel like I’m in the loop, so to speak.

With that, I sign off on my first entry in the Voll-Tron log. Hopefully you found something here worth your while. I’m admittedly not a writer/reviewer / critic and gladly take any criticisms you care to offer. (Of course,  my BMK money back guarantee is in effect, as always.)

* William Safire took on the "ist" suffix in one of his weekly articles, describing its use as a pejorative modifier (Islamist, Christianist, etc…)

** Other Summer Books: Paradise (AL Kennedy), The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (U Eco), The Master (C Toibin)

What you’ll get: Weekly updates on my reading of WTV, beginning with Fathers and Crows. I have not read him before, but the vigor of his fans’ enthusiasm along with his critical acclaim are enough to lure me in. If reading the ruminations of a not-too-literary minded person wheeling his way through Vollmann for the first time sounds like your cup of tea, then welcome. I hope to read at least 100 pages a week, and then post whatever comes to mind.

For an introduction into my world, here is a little background on my "literary" leanings, in a chronological nutshell (prepare to be underwhelmed).
Age 0-4: "The Illiterate Years" Despite my inability to "read" I did enjoy pop-up, coloring and match books.
Age 5-10: Favorite titles included: The Hardy Boys, The Circus of Adventure and Beverly Cleary titles
Age 11-15: I don’t think I read much at this point. Unless you count Becket’s and SI.
High School: I tended to like most of the reading from my high school classes. Favorites from the curriculum included Going After Cacciato, Winesburg Ohio, Slaughterhouse Five. Biggest non-favorites were Ethan Frome and The Oxbow Incident. Outside of class, I enjoyed  Catch-22,The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and Tom Clancy novels.
College: There was not much leisure reading outside of my engineering courses. I was a little over my head in my freshman seminar class and have vague recollections of Ovid and Joyce. The phrase "sweet breath" also remains forever lodged in my head along with the mixed feelings of hatred and sadness I felt for my classmate who proclaimed his love for Manhattan Transfer.
Immediate Post-College Years: Reading? Hah!
More Recently: I guess you could say I fall under Ed’s classification as a "New Literate". I have mostly the internet to thank for this, as the web has made it is much easier to find a variety of reviews and recommendations. My favorite recently read books are Home Land, Gilead, Cloud Atlas, The Cave and The Book of Evidence.

…and with that, I’m off like a herd of turtles…

* apparently, seeing WTV "in the flesh" (at a reading, presumably) is the key to membership.