In the New Yorker...

[Jeff Wrangler]

Lawrence Wright's story in the July 6 & 13 issue about the efforts of five families to secure the release of their children, held hostage in the Middle East, is another sad, horrifying--but gripping--article that needs to be read--even if you recognize some of the names and know what's coming.

[serious crayons]

I haven't read the story and I kind of like magical realism, so I'll tackle it and let you know.

Looking forward to getting your opinion!

How awkward that must have been interviewing her!

I was dreading asking about that tragedy/scandal (trandal? scagedy?), but the rest of the interview was interesting. The book she had just published features a priest who had appeared in one or more of her previous books. In this one, early on the priest starts disrobing for bed and turns out to be a woman. Louise claimed she herself did not realize the priest was a woman until she was writing the scene. That stretched my credulity a bit, but you never know -- many authors claim that their characters seem to have lives and wills of their own.

Another amazing thing that happened was that a neighbor who has horses allowed us to put the boys on the horses and pet them. We were talking and she complemented me on the boys. I suddenly realized that she thought I was their mother!! I said I couldn't take the credit, it was due to my daughter, but thanks for the compliment! Okay, none of this has to do with anything in the New Yorker! Oh well!

But you've got to tell it somewhere! I've twice been mistaken for my own children's grandmother -- technically biologically possible since I was 36 and 37 when they were born, but not the most flattering assessment. Your mistaker was much nicer!

[Jeff Wrangler]

Many authors claim that their characters seem to have lives and wills of their own.

Annie Proulx among them, IIRC.

But you've got to tell it somewhere! I've twice been mistaken for my own children's grandmother -- technically biologically possible since I was 36 and 37 when they were born, but not the most flattering assessment. Your mistaker was much nicer!

Somebody once mistook me for my father's brother. Flattering to my dad, perhaps, but to me, not so much. 

[serious crayons]

If you haven't already, go immediately to your July 20 issue and read Kathryn Schulz's "The Really Big One." Then, when you are thoroughly freaked out and terrified, read Dave Eggers' "Hollister," which has a sort of serious point but iis light and funny much of the time.

I made the mistake of going in the opposite order. So now I've started reading George Packer's "Dark Hours: Violence in the age of the war on terror." So, you know, that should be realaxing.

[Jeff Wrangler]

If you haven't already, go immediately to your July 20 issue and read Kathryn Schulz's "The Really Big One." Then, when you are thoroughly freaked out and terrified, read Dave Eggers' "Hollister," which has a sort of serious point but iis light and funny much of the time.

I made the mistake of going in the opposite order. So now I've started reading George Packer's "Dark Hours: Violence in the age of the war on terror." So, you know, that should be realaxing.

I read Packer's first. (Well, actually, I read Anthony Lane's movie reviews first.) Things Packer had to say about the role of Al Qaeda put me in mind of a certain smug, conspiracy-loving Canadian who believes the U.S. is responsible for everything that's wrong in the world, but let be, let be. I'm looking forward to the Dave Eggers piece.

Actually, I even looking forward to the Jon Lee Anderson and Dexter Filkins articles, as well as the Kathryn Schulz piece.

[Front-Ranger]

If you haven't already, go immediately to your July 20 issue and read Kathryn Schulz's "The Really Big One." Then, when you are thoroughly freaked out and terrified, read Dave Eggers' "Hollister," which has a sort of serious point but iis light and funny much of the time.

I made the mistake of going in the opposite order. So now I've started reading George Packer's "Dark Hours: Violence in the age of the war on terror." So, you know, that should be realaxing.

I read "The Really Big One" first, then "Hollister." They were both good articles. I can't say I was terrified or freaked out. Maybe I am deadened to crises since there have been so many of them.

[serious crayons]

I read "The Really Big One" first, then "Hollister." They were both good articles. I can't say I was terrified or freaked out. Maybe I am deadened to crises since there have been so many of them.

I was freaked out because, while I myself have never endured a life-threatening crisis firsthand, I did have many friends who lived in New Orleans during Katrina and I endured a close-call hurricane while i lived there and I've known towns around here get struck by tornadoes now and then -- including, on Saturday, the hometown of a former best friend -- and of course, there's the odd blizzard and so on.

But this described a crisis that would dwarf those, that would be far worse than the Japanese tsunami and for which the area is far less prepared. When it said (quoting from memory) "Of all natural disasters, a tsunami offers the least chance of survival" or talked about how, once the earthquake devastated your big city and entire coastline, your problems had only just started, because once the shaking stopped, you'd have less than 10 minutes to get your shit together enough to run like hell for your life -- disregarding the lives (the article implied, though of course I could never totally do this) of anyone else, including your family members -- but that you probably wouldn't make it anyway and would immediately find yourself under 100 feet of water floating amid submerged semis and the like ... well, yes, I found that fairly freaky. Give me a blizzard any day. Even a hurricane.

And what I found most astounding of all is how few people have ever even heard this was a problem. I know I hadn't.

[Jeff Wrangler]

But this described a crisis that would dwarf those, that would be far worse than the Japanese tsunami and for which the area is far less prepared. When it said (quoting from memory) "Of all natural disasters, a tsunami offers the least chance of survival" or talked about how, once the earthquake devastated your big city and entire coastline, your problems had only just started, because once the shaking stopped, you'd have less than 10 minutes to get your shit together enough to run like hell for your life -- disregarding the lives (the article implied, though of course I could never totally do this) of anyone else, including your family members -- but that you probably wouldn't make it anyway and would immediately find yourself under 100 feet of water floating amid submerged semis and the like ... well, yes, I found that fairly freaky. Give me a blizzard any day. Even a hurricane.

And what I found most astounding of all is how few people have ever even heard this was a problem. I know I hadn't.

The Weather Channel--leave it to the good ol' Weather Channel--has a program, the title of which now escapes me (of course), about hypothetical natural disasters striking major metropolitan areas. I once caught one, or part of one, episode about an earthquake--and, presumably--a tsunami--striking Seattle, so the idea of something like that happening has at least crossed my radar.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Started to read the Schulz piece at lunch today. Holy crap! 

Kinda cool how they put together the history of the earthquake of 1700.

[serious crayons]

Started to read the Schulz piece at lunch today. Holy crap! 

I know, right? That piece was so vivid that since reading it on Saturday a couple of times I've found myself thinking for half a second that an earthquake and tsunami actually HAVE hit the Northwest

Kinda cool how they put together the history of the earthquake of 1700.

She leaves no stone unturned in building the airtightness of the case. (Block that metaphor!)