The Listen Here! Short Story Reading Series gets off the ground this week with its first readings at Willoughby’s Coffee & Tea at 194 York Street, at 7 p.m.

Our theme?
“What Did She See in Him?”

Our stories?
Raymond Carver’s “Fat” and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Jelly-Bean”

Why these?
“Why not” would be too glib an answer. First and foremost, they’re really good.

Second, did I mention that they’re good?

“Fat” is one of Raymond Carver’s finest tales. In the tradition of Carson McCullers’ Ballad of the Sad Cafe, it takes what would otherwise be a classic sideshow freak and turns one customer’s gastronomic compulsion into a story of salvation for the waitress who must serve that compulsion. It’s a tale marked by the quiet bittersweetness and powerful subtextual currents that typify all of Carver’s stories.

Fitzgerald’s “The Jelly-Bean” was published in the October 1920 issue of Metropolitan Magazine and was later collected in Six Tales of the Jazz Age. This classic short story wonderful captures a generation’s embrace of the imminent freedoms promised by the Roaring Twenties, but not without pain and wasted possibility. Sympathy and pathos mix liberally in a story about a time when both were so deeply needed after the terribleness of the Great War.

OK, call me lazy, but I’m reposting something I had written once upon a time for my personal blog and still find to be the case, not that currency always justifies repetition.  But, in this instance, I’m making an exception.

Once, while I sat schmoozing in the home of  New Haven Review editor Mark Oppenheimer, we started speaking of our respective experiences as college instructors. He noted how much he preferred teaching nonfiction writing to literature because he neither wrote nor knew all that much about literary criticism—a gross understatement on his part, really. I chimed in, stupidly perhaps, “I don’t really understand why we teach students how to write literary criticism at all.”

But is such a sentiment all that stupid?  In spirit of making a go of this bit of devilish advocacy, I thus ask: why do we teach students how to write literary criticism? Make no mistake, it is a type of writing that can approach the status of art in the right hands. But even for experts it is a far more difficult form of nonfiction to produce—in my humble view—than those ol’ classroom chesnuts: narration, description, and argumentation.

Now, technically, literary criticism is a subdivision of the last, but it remains one of the hardest to do well. I attribute this difficulty not only to the inability of students to read and write well but to the inherent complications of trying to formulate an argument about something as slippery as a well-wrought story or poem.

In my experience, the slipperiness of the literary artifact comes directly from the story-like nature of this species of discourse. When I taught the art of litcrit—and probably not all that well, to be honest—my students continuously wrestled with the Herculean (or more likely Sisyphean) task of unwinding authors from characters, storytellers from their stories, the telling from the showing. Even I still have difficulty with the boxes-within-boxes or wall-of-mirrors (pick your metaphor) nature of this discursive mode. And, mind you, I have a doctorate in literature.

I’m currently convinced that high school teachers and college professors teach students how to write literary criticism not because it instructs them in how to “think critically” or “formulate an argument” better. These can be done just as easily—actually more easily—focusing on more seemingly concrete topics, like reproductive rights or drunk-driving laws. Instead, I believe many teachers, in their heart of hearts, would rather not teach students how to write literary criticism at all. What they’d prefer is reading works of literary quality and talking about them intelligently—like a book club but with the teacher’s authority intact for guiding novitiates. That certainly was my experience as a college instructor.

I loved selecting, teaching, and discussing (or more appropriately discoursing on) the work at hand. What I despised to no end was marking my students’ papers, which were poorly written, generally incoherent, and pretty pedestrian in their interpretations. And most literary instructors I speak with tend to echo this sentiment—although I’m happy to be flamed to the contrary.

Marking papers probably explains why I became an editor: I grew tired of commenting on people’s dry runs. If someone is going to write poorly, and I’m going to have to redline it into readable prose, I might as well make sure the fruits of my labor see light of day in published form.

In some ways, I miss those halcyon days of teaching literature. I even sometimes miss the stress and strain of writing literary criticism—no easy task, even for me. But the idea of teaching students to write literary criticism, as if that constituted training for a profession other than, well, writing literary criticism (which is not even a solid basis for the art of book reviewing), is a misbegotten notion that serves no one else other than the instructors who recognize this chore as the price they must pay for the pleasures of reading and discussing literature worth talking about.

One of my favorite people in New Haven is my second cousin Andy, who happens to live two blocks away from us, down the street, with his wife, Karen. Lest you think this is all about how wonderfully tight-knit my family is, and how great it is we live so near to one another, blah blah blah, let me jump right in and say that it sounds that way, but in fact, it’s not true, and the reality is weirder. Andy grew up in Chicago and I never even met him until I was 25 years old. He moved to New Haven about four years ago because of Karen, who, it turns out, grew up just outside of New Haven. But they met in Ann Arbor and courted there, and as for their winding up living two blocks away, that was a total fluke. Karen landed a job in Westport, and rents there were so high that they chose to live in New Haven instead. And the nicest apartment they saw, when they were looking around, was on my street. So heigh-ho, here’s my cousin Andy and his wife Karen, and we see them all the time, and believe you me, our parents are all thrilled. It’s very cozy.

Andy and Karen are completely brilliant and wonderful people and they prove it to me on a fairly frequent basis, the most recent of which was when Andy suggested that there be created a Slow Mail movement, akin to the Slow Food movement. As someone who has pontificated at some length about the glory of letter writing, and how sad it is we don’t do it more, I glommed onto this right away, of course. (I’m sure Mark Oppenheimer would too — I seem to recall hearing his NPR-friendly voice over NPR airwaves recently talking about this very subject.) Andy posted a status line on Facebook saying something along the lines of “Hey: Slow Mail. Anyone else think this is a great idea?” And he generated more than a few comments, among them someone’s suggesting that he do a Google search for something called the Letter Writers Alliance.

Well, I don’t know if Andy ever did that Google search, but I sure as hell did, and within an hour I’d convinced myself to join the organization. If you go to http://www.16sparrows.com/shop/Letter-Writers-Alliance.html then you too can join the LWA. It doesn’t cost a lot of money, which is good, because it’s kind of a silly thing to do, but boy, when I got my packet in the mail from them, I thought, “This is worth every penny.”

The LWA was founded by some stationers who make what they describe as “greetings cards for sarcastic, quirky folks.” (That phrase along made me desperately wish that I was still the buyer for Atticus; how I would have loved to put these cards on display.) So they’ve got a lot of snarky cards, which are way fun (if, all right, not for everybody), and clever stationery designs, and then they’ve got the LWA, which has a mission statement as follows:

“In this era of instantaneous communication, a handwritten letter is a rare and wondrous item. The Letter Writers Alliance is dedicated to preserving this art form; neither long lines, nor late deliveries, nor increasing postal rates will keep us from our mission.

As a member of the Letter Writers Alliance, you will carry on the glorious cultural tradition of letter writing. You will take advantage of every opportunity to send tangible correspondence. Prepare your pen and paper, moisten your tongue, and get ready to write more letters!”

I have several friends who gave up Facebook for Lent. One of them, a guy who lives in Idaho, sent me a Facebook message about two weeks before Lent began, asking if I would write to him, on paper, during Lent. I said, “Of course!” I did, using LWA stationery. I admit that I didn’t use a fountain pen, but even so, it was a pleasure.

It’s Valentine’s Day (aka VD).  Maybe you’ve got it covered with your favorite mating personage, your significant other(s), your steady, your squeeze, your spouse (or the person who would be that if the laws of the land permitted), but … maybe not, maybe you’re looking to connect, somehow, someway.

Maybe you turn to craigslist, home of the online hookup, or maybe you’re not quite ready to go virtual yet, so you look at “Missed Connections” hoping against hope that someone out there, someone whose path you’ve already crossed — in line at Subway, at the bank, on that same path you walk every day to class, on the subway — is desperately seeking you again, to get your digits, your screenname, the key to your city . . .

Chad Raines, of the local band The Simple Pleasure, has concocted the music, lyrics and book for Missed Connections, a guilty pleasure based on online personals, up for its final showing today at Yale Cabaret, and it’s a blast of sound, movement, and cagey, collective jeering at the pathetic losers we all risk being when we’re lookin’ for love, or, if not love exactly, then at least that special someone who will let you massage his or her feet …

Pick your favorite moment: the phys ed girl, suffering from diarrhea, pining for the guy who will examine her stool (how much more intimate does it get?), or the guy at the Subway, intoning, in a hilarious Barry White take-off, how he noticed that girl in line with him, but was scared off when she ordered for two; or the gent with binoculars who likes to watch his neighbor take out her trash; or the pissed-off, stood-up woman who gives us a lesson in etiquette: if you’re married and seeking discreet connection on the side, it’s just not cool to be a no-show to someone else who’s married and seeking same … there might even be a sitter’s fee involved!

The songs are high volume and extremely active.  Jennifer Harrison Newman once again choreographs the impossibly small “stage”at the Cabaret — including a line dance, led by Raines, that’s so close you might catch a spray of sweat.  Director Christopher Mirto keeps the show loose and juicy, but also cheerily inviting — it feels at times like we’re at “dating camp” and the cast are our counselors, trying to get us out of our shells.

There’s never a dull moment because you never know what’s coming next — erotic tableaus, condoms flung to the crowd, a get-up and boogie number with lyrics shouting “woman for woman, man for man” rather than “celebrate good times, c’mon!”

And who knows, when it’s over there might even be a line on craigslist for you: You were at Yale Cab last weekend with some bozo and/or bimbo you clearly weren’t that into. I was the ____ with the ______.  Hope to see you there in two weeks (Feb 25-27) when the Yale Cab will feature Radio Station, inspired by the work of Shogo Ohta and the Pacific Performance Project/East.   Come alone, if you dare…

Missed Connections
a new musical by Chad Aaron Raines
directed by Christopher Mirto

How you gonna meet your missed connection?

If you’re not interested in food skip this piece.

No, I take that back. You don’t have to be interested in food as in Food. What I want is people who like to eat. Do you like to eat? Good, then keep reading.

Everyone talks about Alice Waters. Alice Waters this, Alice Waters that. Berkeley is Heaven (unless you’re Caitlin Flanagan, in which case it seems to be a special circle of hell, and I don’t know why she doesn’t move to the East Coast, but there it is). Fa la la la la la. I’m tired of it, and I am really damned tired of reading proclamations on food and eating from someone who just can’t seem to get it that most of the country does not live in Berkeley, California. I know I’m not the only person who’s got serious Alice Waters Fatigue. So for those of you who like to eat, and to Eat, and who like food and Food, and who like reading about it, let me make a recommendation. I promise I’m not about to tell you to read Michael Pollan.

Please go read any book by John Thorne.

I know he gets reviewed sometimes Big Places and I’m always so thrilled for him. The food magazines have always sung his praises. But at the same time, not once in my life have I ever talked to someone who knew who he was. I’ve never had someone idly look at my bookshelves and see all the John Thorne and go, “Oh, you like him too?”

I had no idea who John Thorne was until I read Laurie Colwin (sorry to bring up her name again, but it’s true); in one of her cookbooks she mentions a pumpkin tian that he wrote about. I have no interest in eating pumpkin so I didn’t really think about John Thorne again until several years later when I was browsing in a bookstore (why do I remember this? it was Atticus) while coming down with a cold. On a whim I bought Thorne’s Simple Cooking, and while nursing my cold at home I read the book from cover to cover and could not believe how incredibly good it was.

I mean not that it was an incredibly useful and informative cookbook — which it is — but that it was just so well written. John Thorne is, hands down, in my top five American writers writing today. But nobody reads him except diehard foodies (as far as I can tell). Even though he’s smart and opinionated and reasonable and funny and wonderful. Even though the books are beautifully designed, about as appealing as books can be (all published, I think, by Farrar, Straus, Giroux, and designed by Jonathan Lippincott, who’s from New Haven by the way; Lippincott has designed some of the most handsome books in my recent memory, and Thorne’s are right up there)…

One of the great things — the noble things — about John Thorne is that he writes about food that is born out of and meant to be eaten in climates harsher than the Bay Area. Thorne currently lives in Maine, I believe (or maybe the Berkshires, I can’t remember now); he’s writing always about food for cold climates. Food in places that really do have four very distinct seasons, maybe even plus mud season. Which is a totally different thing from what Alice Waters is always pontificating about, which is food in what would be for most of us a seriously alternate reality. John Thorne’s reality is much more like mine. It’s sloppy. It’s not really very virtuous. It’s not about having truffles on hand at all times, or mincing about talking about the divine walnut oil I found in the South of France. It’s about buying a bag of beans because it’s cheap and then figuring out the best way to make the best damn meal out of it (his chapter on baked beans — oh, how I love it, almost as much as I love baked beans). Foodies who are in New Haven ought to read John Thorne, for sure, but foodies everywhere who want an antidote for Alice Waters Fatigue (not recognized by the DSM-V, but maybe in future editions) should please go find his books.

Simple Cooking
Outlaw Cook
Serious Pig
Pot on the Fire
Mouth Wide Open

I noticed in the New York Times an obituary for Jack Litman, an attorney who defended a lot of people who weren’t such nice people. He handled a few notorious murder trials, and the Times named two in particular: one, the Robert Chambers/Jennifer Levin trial, “the Preppy Murder,” which I actually remember, dimly (I was a teenager when it happened), and also a murder trial that was called “the Yale Murder.”

It was interesting to me that the Times made a point of referring to the Yale Murder, because, what with the latest big Yale murder, the Annie Le case, in all the coverage of that case I kept looking in the media for a reference to the earlier murder, and never saw it. I would have thought that someone would have brought it up, but, no, it never happened.

The only reason I know about the Yale Murder is that someone once asked me to locate a copy of the true crime book that it inspired. I located a copy for the customer, and then, because I like reading true crime, I got another copy for myself (finding it by chance at a junk shop, ironically, after putting actual effort into finding the customer his copy). I still have it. It’s a bright magenta mass market paperback. Presumably for legal reasons the publisher was prevented from using Yale blue…

Now out of print, the book tells the story of the people involved in the case — Richard Herrin and Bonnie Garland, two Yale undergrads who were involved in a relationship that had a bad ending (when Herrin killed Garland in her parents’ Westchester house). This happened in the 1970s, and while I was here at the time, I was too young to have been aware of it.

I find it sort of weird that the “original” Yale Murder has become such an obscure historical fact, even here in New Haven, where I feel like we all have such long memories for things like this. People talk about Penny Serra like it happened yesterday. But the “Yale Murder”? Nope.

Maybe it’s because Bonnie Garland wasn’t actually murdered in New Haven. But even so. Even so. It’s a Yale crime. Where did it go in our collective memories? Bonnie Garland is now, it seems, just a little note in Jack Litman’s obituary.

Directed by Tom Ford, from a script by Ford and David Scearce and based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood

It’s hard not to notice that A Single Man’s timing seems a little awkward. For starters, there’s that inevitable confusion with the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, and the fact of both movies having to do with horn-rimmed sad sacks who feel trapped in the peculiar quicksand of 1960s Americana.

What’s more, maybe it’s just too late now to get a great film from Christopher Isherwood’s 1964 novel of one day in a closeted man’s suddenly lonely life. Certainly director Tom Ford and co-writer David Scearce seem to take that seminal gay-lib text for granted. An established fashion designer who made his name peddling erotically flamboyant luxury, Ford sees A Single Man as sedulous diversion: just one long and lovely and carefully struck pose.

In 1962, as Soviet missiles are piling up in Cuba and college kids are giving up in Los Angeles, Colin Firth is George Falconer, quite clearly the best dressed professor of English ever to have walked the Earth (although in that regard he is not without competition). Having just learned of his lover’s death, George has taken to radiating sartorially magnificent grief, thinking suicidal thoughts and trudging around in his splendid home. He has a support system of sorts, cobbled together from a fetchingly boozy best friend (Julianne Moore), a flirty student in a fuzzy sweater (Nicholas Hoult), and a full-on come-hither hustler (Jon Kortajarena), but nothing quite lights George up like the memory of his soulmate, who’s played in flashbacks by Matthew Goode.

In fact, Ford and cinematographer Eduard Grau take that lighting up very literally, setting it off as a periodic efflorescence from their meticulously pallid status quo. As if Firth’s face, here a marvel of emotive subtlety and control, somehow weren’t enough to get the point across. That’s really the best and most confounding thing going on in here: an extraordinary central performance without which the whole movie, flan-like confection that it is, might completely collapse. It’s astonishing to see how nimbly Firth navigates the simultaneous numbness and volatility that mourning can bring. And it’s frustrating to see him, along with every other shrewdly self-possessed performer in his supporting cast, not so much directed as tastefully arranged within the frame.

Given the milieu of a hazy, uneasy neverland somewhere between conservative cultural nostalgia and foundational progressive mythology, it’s no surprise that Ford should want to reduce all of A Single Man’s feeling to a languid fashion-mag swoon. (Is that moment set in front of a billboard for Hitchcock’s Psycho actually meaningful, or just something the filmmaker saw in another movie once?) But his characterization of the dapper, depressive George risks reinforcing a mopey and preening stereotype — the core of queer vanity behind a veil of hollow flair — that Isherwood sought preemptively to peel away. Funny, and sad, how times have changed.

I was delighted to come across the utterly appropriately titled blog White Readers Meet Black Authors, “your official invitation into the African American section of the bookstore,” maintained by novelist Carleen Brice. There is little I can say about this blog that Brice hasn’t said already, from the video she has on the blog itself to the piece she wrote in December 2008 for the Washington Post. When she started the blog, New York Magazine viewed it as a publicity stunt, and it is that. But Brice is also getting at something very real about the book market; just read the blog and see if you don’t agree with her. But more importantly, read the blog for the books she champions.

Thanks to White Readers Meet Black Authors, I’ve been devouring Victor LaValle’s The Ecstatic, and his latest book, the very well-reviewed Big Machine, just might be next. I bought both at the same time at McNally Jackson, and the woman behind the cash register smiled.

“Going on a LaValle bender?” she said.

“It looks that way,” I said.

She nodded. “You won’t be disappointed.” I believe her.

I’ve recently received the four volume set of The Paris Review Interviews. These books, colorful inside and out, are a pleasure to look through and laugh or cringe at the pith and wit of the 20th century’s best writers. Here are some noteworthy excerpts from my morning skim:

Interviewer: Are there any authors you’d like to have known but haven’t?
Harold Bloom: No. I should like to have known fewer authors than I have known, which is to say nothing against all my good friends.
Interviewer: Are there any characters you would like to have known?
Harold Bloom: No, no. The only person I would like to have known, whom I have never known, but it’s just as well, is Sophia Loren.

*

Interviewer: Do you ever think about where your creations are coming from while you’re in the process of writing?

Stephan King:Once in a while, something will declare itself so obviously, that it’s inescapable. Take the psychotic nurse in Misery, which I wrote when I was having a tough time with dope. I knew what I was writing about. There was never any question. Annie was my drug problem, and she was my number one fan.

*
Interviewer: Was your adolescence a calmer time?

Elizabeth Bishop: I was very romantic. I once walked from Nauset Lighthouse-I don’t think it exist anymore-which is the beginning of the elbow (of Cape Cod), to the tip, Provincetown, all alone. It took me a night and a day. I went swimming from time to time but at that time the beach was absolutely deserted. there wasn’t anything on the back shore, no buildings.
 *

Interviewer:Have you ever drawn from those years (childhood) for story material?

Dorothy Parker: All those writers who write about their childhood! Gentle God, if I wrote about mine, you wouldn’t want to sit in the same room with me.
Interviewer:What, then, would you say is the source of most of your work?
Parker: Need of money, dear.
Interviewer: And besides that?
Parker:It’s easier to write about those you hate-just as it’s easier to criticize a bad play or a bad book.

*

Interviewer: What tools do you require?
Ted Hughes: Just a pen.
Interviewer: What do birds mean for you? The figures of the hawk and the crow-so astonishing. Are you tired to death of explaining them?
Hughes: I don’t know how to explain them. There are certain things that are just impressive, aren’t there? One stone can be impressive and the stones around it aren’t. It’s the same with animals. Some, for some reason, are strangely impressive. They just get into you in a strange way…

*

Interviewer: a Blackjack?
Jack Kerouac: It’s a blackjack. Bill says, “I pulled out my underneath drawer, and underneath some nice shirts I pulled out my blackjack. I gave it to Danny and said, ‘Now don’t lose it, Danny’-Danny says, ‘Don’t worry I won’t lose it.’ He goes off and loses it.”
Sap…blackjack…that’s me. Sap…blackjack.
Interviewer:That’s a haiku: Sap, blackjack, that’s me. You better write that down.
Kerouac: No.

For someone who’s made a living for a long time talking about books and being looked at as a wide, eager reader, an odd reality is the fact that no one has ever believed me when I’ve tried patiently to explain that there are entire categories of writing I truly never think about. Whole genres are of basically no interest to me. I might know a little about them, be able to recognize some big names, might even be able to steer people who’re into a particular genre toward something that they might like — while I myself never go near the stuff. In general, I do not read mysteries or science fiction or fantasy; I don’t read military or political history or self-help books; the only travel writer I’ve ever read willingly is Bill Bryson, who hardly counts, in my view, since I think he’s really a humorist; and I don’t read poetry.

I don’t even think of poetry as being important most of the time. It’s an indulgence. Usually a whiny indulgence, I feel. It’s navel-gazing, I think to myself in my nastier moments. And usually so humorless, and undisciplined. Who needs it? (Don’t try to argue with me; just chalk it up to personal taste and move on; the point of this is really not to debate the value of poetry or poetry reading, just to make it clear that, ok, I’ve got this bias, it’s ugly, and I admit it.)

There are some poems I am attached to, though, and there are a handful of mystery novels I love and read over and over again. I’ve yet to find a science fiction novel that interested me, though. And military history? Um…. no. Hasn’t happened for me yet. But you never know; I was thinking I might read Charlie Wilson’s War some day, and even thinking that thought was a major step.

That said: I am a huge, huge, huge fan of Nicholson Baker, and have been since his first book came out in the late 1980s. I was a clerk at Atticus when The Mezzanine came out, and I read it (god knows what brought it to my attention, but I bought it, and I read it over and over again). Since then I have devoured almost all of his books. Some of them are on my yearly re-read list. I admit I couldn’t get through Checkpoint, and I was never able to spring for his book on newspapers, and I haven’t read Human Smoke (the subject matter didn’t really appeal to me, but maybe I’ll get it to it someday). Otherwise, though, my rule of thumb is, If Nicholson Baker’s left his fingerprints on something, I want to get my hands on it as soon as possible.

So my perfect husband gave me The Anthologist recently — Baker’s new novel. I had planned to save it to read while on vacation next week. However, I was unable to wait and I’m now closing in on the end of the book, reading it in snips when not traveling or preparing for a New Year’s Eve shindig or cleaning up and recovering from said shindig. And here’s what blows my mind about this — I am tearing through this book even though it’s about poetry. It’s about poetry, for god’s sake. I don’t give a crap about poetry. And I really don’t give a crap about poets who write about nature, possibly my least-favorite subject in the world - yet Nicholson Baker has managed the impossible, which is to get me to utter the following sentence: “I think I might read some Mary Oliver one of these days.”

I’m now packing for my vacation and selecting the books that will come with me — only a few, as the place where we’re going has bookstores I plan to peruse at length. But we’ll be taking The Anthologist with us on the trip — my husband (another Baker fan) is going to read it as soon as I’m done.