calisthenics

+ anil's ghost was very good, no need for intimidation. there are obvious connections to don delillo's the names, first in the subject matter - loosely speaking, archeology and murder - but really in the conclusions and questions of truth and history and meaning. delillo's focus on meaning and language uses archeology and the tactile stuff of history as an exercise of sorts, while i think michael ondaatje comes to archeology first, and finds within it the same issues that delillo initially sought to explore. anil's ghost is very much about history, how we record our lives not only intentionally, in script or on tape, but in our bones and paths, even after we die.

i've read several reviews that seem to take it to task for not being more expository, more willing to castigate those responsible for whatever crimes it may discuss. in essence, taking the novel to task for failing to change the world, or more precisely for abandoning its apparent didactic task. honestly, now, in that case why read a novel when we have the news? the novel tells us how to read the news. we have facts, yes, and facts about conflicts, yes, but no sense of the truths and histories informing the situation from any angle.

and to suggest that anil's ghost fails in its didactic destiny, to say nothing of intent, is to have completely missed the little jabs that the novel itself takes at liberal internationalism.

+ don delillo mentions a moment where he realised that language was not just a tool, but also a subject in his work. americana predates this moment, i believe. there is a category of delillo's novels that i find stands apart - americana, cosmopolis, and players. i'm more nervous for than intimidated by his other 1970s novels.