Two new articles I’ve written have been published! One of them actually came out a while ago (at the end of last year), but because the journal’s website hadn’t updated the information on their ‘latest issue’ page, I just assumed that the issue hadn’t come out yet. The other one just came out this month! Below are abstracts and links to sites where you can download them.


Remember that blog entry I posted a while ago about “Orangutans and/or Babies”? It was based on this article:

Tsao, Tiffany. “Humanity in the Orangutan Adoption Accounts of Alfred Russel Wallace and William Temple Hornaday.” Clio: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 43.1 (2013): 1-31.

In 1855 and 1878, respectively, the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace and the American naturalist William Temple Hornaday adopted orangutan infants during their collecting expeditions in British Borneo. In the accounts that they produced about their respective experiences, they compared their infants, as well as the mothers and other orangutans whom they shot and skinned, to a wide variety of human beings. This article shows how these different comparisons reveal much about the decline of the “human” as a meaningful concept among European and North American scientists for assessing an individual being’s inherent worth, and the increasing use of other attributes to assess the relative superiority and inferiority of different members of the human race.

Download this article here.


The second article was actually accepted by Comparative Literature more than a year ago. This month, it emerges in all its splendor like a terribly long-metamorphosing butterfly.

Tsao, Tiffany. “A Matter of Postcolonial Life and Death: A Comparative Study of Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights and Ayu Utami’s Saman.” Comparative Literature 66.1 (2014): 95-112.

This comparative study of Wuthering Heights (a mid-nineteenth-century British novel by Emily Brontë) and Saman (a late-twentieth-century Indonesian novel by Ayu Utami) examines the two novels’ respective treatments of internal colonization — a shared thematic concern that only becomes apparent with critical attention to the similarities between scenes found in each work. Read together, the two texts expose the limitations that a unilinear model of the colonization process may impose on life for the colonized subject. Whereas Wuthering Heights figures pre-colonial and colonial modes of life as existing on a single chronological continuum, casting the former as an irretrievable thing of the past, Saman conceives of the two co-existing parallel to each other, the former continuing to exist despite the introduction of colonial culture. By proposing and deploying a process-based model of literary comparison that alternately analyzes the similarities and differences between texts rather than attempting to maintain a balanced view of both at once, this essay also hopes to contribute to recent discussions within the field of comparative literature on how to treat textual convergences and divergences.

Download this article here.


These articles are good news, and may be taken as evidence that all is going well career-wise for old Tiff. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case. I actually received a piece of news a few weeks ago that is making me reconsider, rather seriously, whether I want to continue pursuing a career as an academic. I’d rather not talk about it now. It’s still a little too raw, and I don’t think I trust myself to blog about it yet. I definitely will at some point. But not right now. If you are a regular reader of this blog, I know that you are, if nothing else, a patient person. And for this, I thank you.

My husband and I recently hooked basic access cable up to our TV, which we had previously been using to watch DVDs or videos on our laptops connected by wires to said TV. So now, we have the luxury of doing our work (there is no rest for the weary academic, much less two weary academics) as we bask in the warm glow of quality shows like Border Security and scintillating sci-fi movies like Sharknado. We have, however, begun to notice a line that characters say a lot: one that pops up whenever one character asks others to feast their peepers on something really important – say, a mutilated body, a deadly new strain of virus under a microscope, or an armada of scary-looking alien spaceships about to attack the planet. “Come here,” they’ll say. “You’ve got to see this.”

Sometimes, the individual will even take the trouble to walk into the next room to get the attention of the person whom they wish to alert. “What is it?” the pre-alerted person asks. “I can’t explain,” the alerter answers. “You have to see this for yourself.”

Of course, it’s not like Justin and I watch shows or movies for their plausibility. But this line, or variations thereof, is something we have definitely started noticing more. Sometimes we wonder why the person has to see it for him or herself? Why can’t the character just give the other character just a little indication of what’s to come – like a teaser or an abstract? “What is it?” “A dead body. But you might want to take a look anyway.” More often, we wonder how such an important piece of news can wait. The fact that an armada of rapacious aliens is poised for attack seems like something that you should bring yourself to convey with all due rapidity and perhaps as loudly as possible, even if your hasty descriptions won’t do sufficient justice to the cunning designs of their mounted death-ray cannons.

Receiving replies about things one has applied for, at least in academia, bears certain similarities. This year, like every year, has been a year of rejections. Rejections mingled with some successes, of course, but nonetheless, many rejections. As I have noted in past posts, being open about one’s failures is something that I think we instinctively shy away from – nobody likes a loser – but I do think it’s important. Hence I’ll share two (out of several) of mine with you here. I applied for a visiting research scholar fellowship at Kyoto University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies. My application was unsuccessful, but they sent the news by post and it took a while for the physical letter to reach me. In the meantime, since the date by which they said they would inform all applicants had come and gone, I decided to write to them. A week later, I received  a reply:

Dear Dr. Tiffany Tsao,

We are sorry for our late reply. Our letter was  dispatched to you on Oct.25 so we believe it already reached or will soon rearch you.


  CSEAS Fellowship
  Center for Southeast Asian Studies
  Kyoto University

Never mind that the letter contains a typo. To harp on something like that would be petty. The more pressing question (at least to my anxious self) was: why didn’t they just tell me what the answer was? They knew what it was. But I had to see it. For myself. “Dear Dr. Tiffany Tsao,” they were telling me, “You’ve got to see this.” Of course, at this stage, I already suspected the answer, and when the letter arrived, I found my suspicions were right. (In case anyone didn’t see it coming, the answer was no.) But why not just tell me and put me out of my misery? To be fair there might have been culturally specific conventions regarding etiquette that I don’t know about. And I have directly contacted other institutions about the status of job or fellowship applications before and received direct answers (as far as I can remember, always “No”). But I don’t think it’s just a Japanese thing. When receiving replies about article submissions to journals, the subject-heading, similarly, never gives anything away.

One of my more recent article rejections – from the journal Indonesia - was sent via an email message titled “Local Color, Environmentalist Discourse, and Dayaks.” This is, more or less, the subject about which I wrote my article (though if they wanted to be even more detailed so as to better jog my memory, they might have included something relating to literature or the literary somewhere in there). What did it contain, I asked myself as I stared at it sitting in my inbox, my whole being tingling with suspense. An acceptance? A revise and resubmit? What? It turned out it contained a desk rejection, which was rather demoralizing to say the least. It really is a bummer when you’re told by a journal that publishes on all things related to Indonesia that the editors have decided flat-out that your article (on Indonesian literature) couldn’t even potentially make a sufficiently valuable contribution regarding knowledge of the country.

I speak jokingly of the matter now, even though this made me pretty depressed for a long time. After I had bucked up a bit though, I did some editing and submitted it to another journal – one for literary studies, the conventions regarding which I’m far more comfortable with anyway. So far, the news has been favorable. This journal puts submissions through a two-stage process. In the first stage, submissions are sent out to two reviewers who send their assessments and recommendations back to the editorial staff. Fortunate articles are then sent to the editorial board who apparently reject more than half of the articles that have made it to them. The message contained news telling me that I had made it past the first stage with two favorable recommendations: a “publish” and a “publish after minor revisions.” I now have the opportunity to make my revisions before it goes off to the editorial board.

So in short, good news! But the email message had an amazing poker face. Titled so neutrally even the most enthusiastic of close-reading undergraduate lit majors wouldn’t have been able to glean anything from it, it read: “Re: Your [journal name] submission.” Or “You’ve got to see this.”

Gasp. I opened it. The body of the message informed me that an electronic copy of the letter they had sent to me in Australia was attached. Nothing more. You’ve got to see this.

Gasp. I clicked on the attachment, which is actually highly unusual behavior for me if I receive a message like this in the evening. Having been fool enough to open such messages before – ones that have contained more disappointing news – I have enough experience to know that such bad news will simply make me so agitated that I can’t sleep. But for some reason, this evening, the evening of December 31st 2013, the eve of the New Year, I opened the attachment. And finally saw it with my own eyes. It was nice to have something to celebrate in addition to the passing of 2013, but I think I would have been okay with a little less drama in the unveiling.

Good news, everyone! I finally finished the first draft of a short story that I’ve wanted to write since 2004. That’s nine years. I have friends who have children who have been experiencing conscious existence for less than a third of that amount of time. That’s one year short of ten years, which is a decade. Decades are the units of measurement by which we categorize whole swathes of our recent past: the music of the ’80s, the fashion of the ’70s, the zeitgeist of the ’60s. Admittedly, the story’s incubation period still falls short of that of the 17-Year Cicada, but it outstrips the 9 months of a human baby by 99 months. And since we’re approaching 2014, it’s actually been in incubation for longer.


I don’t know why it took me so long to write. To be fair to me and to the story, I didn’t work at it continuously. I made an initial attempt in 2004, wrote down the first scene and basic premise in a Microsoft Word 2003 document, then gave up. I didn’t have what it took to write it. I didn’t know what it would take to write it, but whatever it was, I didn’t have it. So I decided to let it age. Ripen, if you will. Its icon resided in an icon of a folder labelled ‘Play’ (as opposed to ‘Work’) that was doggedly transferred through successive computers via floppy disk, then USB memory sticks, then a fancy shiny sleek external hard drive.

Early this year, I felt compelled to open ‘er up and see what was there. All of it had to be scrapped, except the essential core. That was good, still good after all these years. And I tried to see what I could do about trying to make it work once again. This time I sought inspiration from other sources: I needed to describe opulence. So I re-read The Great Gatsby and Tender is the Night, which was lovely, but incapacitating. It took months for me to stop doing terrible imitations of F. Scott Fitzgerald and to write the story how it needed to be written.

It’s been very satisfying to finally have the story done after all this time, and done in a way that I’m happy with. But it’s also been a bit frustrating because I feel as if it confirms what I’ve long suspected: that I’m a slow writer. And by nature, I’m extremely impatient. So together, it’s really the worst combination. One half of my brain is already envisioning my self taking gargantuan leaps and bounds over the pesky mountain range that has dared to interpose itself between me and the horizon of my inevitable success. It is yanked back abruptly by its other half, who has stooped down to tie its left shoelace very calmly and slowly and with painstaking care, and to examine its other shoelace and retie it also very slowly and with maddening precision. Deep down, I know this other half is probably the better half. The half who cares about quality and craftsmanship. But I often believe this only halfheartedly and envy all the speedy geniuses gamboling happily in the fields beyond the stupid mountain range standing in my stupid way.

The story’s working title is “The Ballad of Tiny and Sammy.”

Orangutans and/or Babies

Research takes you in the wildest directions. For example, in the course of doing research for my dissertation (which seems ages ago now), I stumbled across writings by a British and American naturalist who, separately, conducted orangutan-hunting-and-collecting expeditions in Borneo in the 19th century, and who also adopted orangutans in the course of doing so.

The British naturalist was Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with roughly the same theory as Darwin did regarding evolution, and whose letter to Darwin outlining the theory spurred Darwin to finally finish up and publish The Origin of Species. Wallace became increasingly quirky over the course of his life, and eventually became among other things, a devout Spiritualist and an impassioned crusader against vaccination. But in 1855, he was a promising young naturalist energetically engaged in collecting specimens of new species of flora and fauna in the Malay Archipelago. And that year, he adopted a baby orangutan whom he bathed, combed, and fed from a bottle. The circumstances leading to his adoption of the infant were somewhat disturbing: his main reason for coming to Borneo was to obtain specimens of orangutans, of which the mother of this infant was one. He described the incident in a letter home (which he included in his autobiography My Life):

I was out shooting in the jungle and saw something up a tree which I thought was a large monkey or orang-utan, so I fired at it, and down fell this little baby – in its mother’s arms.

It is a strange letter, as you can see, because it pretended that the mother and the baby were not orangutans…which they were, as became clear in the other written accounts Wallace produced about his orangutan daughter. Here is a drawing of her, which was included in his 1869 travel narrative The Malay Archipelago:


The non-orangutanness of orangutans became a feature of the other written accounts Wallace produced of his orangutan daughter as well. In the same letter quoted above, the infant was described as a “a dear little duck of a darling” and a “half-nigger,” and the mother was described as a “madwoman” and a “wild ‘woman of the woods.’” In another account written for Chambers’s Journal in 1856, he compared the orangutan baby with two human freak exhibits touring Europe at the time: two children supposedly belonging to the “Earthmen” tribe and two children dubbed the “Aztec Lilliputians” – advertised as among the last of their respective races. This is a photo of the Aztec Lilliputians, taken by Nicolaas Henneman in 1853. (The photo comes from the Christie’s website.)


William Temple Hornaday, the other naturalist whose accounts of orangutan hunting and adopting intrigued and troubled me, is actually more famous for being one of the earliest champions of wildlife conservation in the United States. He campaigned tirelessly to save to the American buffalo from being hunted to extinction. As a young naturalist, he made his own orangutan-hunting trip to Borneo in the 1870s as part of a larger collecting trip that also covered Ceylon and the Malay Peninsula. In his published account of the trip, entitled Two Years in the Jungle (1885), he wrote:

…I would not have exchanged the pleasures of that day, when we had those seven orangs to dissect, for a box at the opera the whole season through….When we finished there was a small mountain of orang flesh, a long row of ghastly, grinning skeletons, and big, red-haired skins enough to have carpeted a good-sized room.

Grisly, to say the least. Like Wallace, however, he adopted a baby orangutan – a male whom he dubbed “The Old Man,” who would dine with him at table, share his bed, and play with him.  Below is a drawing of the Old Man from Two Years in the Jungle:


Hornaday, like Wallace, also drew comparisons between the orangutans he encountered and various types of human beings. His “old man” he described mostly favorably: “His eyes were large, bright and full of intelligence, and he had a forehead like a philosopher.” However, at one point, Hornaday conducted an experiment on his baby, plopping him in water to see if he would swim, which he did not: “he only turned horizontally in the water and remained a foot below the surface, stiff and helpless.”

Funnily enough, this little experiment, which one might consider inhumane, wasn’t necessarily out of line with scientists’ attitudes towards babies at the time. Prompted by the conviction that the human infant functioned more like an animal than a human, and more like a member of a primitive human race than a more advanced one, and that studying its development could therefore yield insight into humanity’s evolutionary past, scientists began to take a keen interest in children. One Georges John Romanes developed a scale that mapped human infant development against corresponding levels of development reached by other forms of animal life: an infant at seven weeks was equivalent to a mollusk, at four months was equivalent to a reptile, and at fifteenth months was equivalent to an ape or a dog. Louis Robinson went so far as to subject sixty babies under a month old, half of whom were less than an hour old, to hanging from bars in order to test the extent of their physical similarity to apes and monkeys [1]. Here is a photo of Robinson’s experiments included with the entry, “Reflex Action (Physiological)”, in A Dictionary of Psychological Medicine (1892), edited by D.H. Tuke:


Other observations made by Hornaday about the likenesses between orangutans and human beings in Two Years in the Jungle include the following: 

Let such a one (if, indeed, one exists to-day) who is prejudiced against the Darwinian views, go to Borneo. Let him there watch from day to day this strangely human form in all its various phases of existence. Let liim see the orang climb, walk, build its nest, eat, drink, and fight like a human rough. Let him see the female suckle her young and carry it astride her hip precisely as do the coolie women of Hindostan.

The comparison to coolie women isn’t necessary a flattering one. Of “Hindoos,” Hornaday had low opinions: “No one is more cringing, fawning, and servile than the Indian low caste native when he is hungry, and no one is more arrogant, disobliging, and inhuman when he is well-fed and housed. I am not ashamed to say that I hate the “gentle Hindoo.”

Of course, Hornaday thought poorly of many specimens of humankind. A few decades later, in 1903, he wrote an article for a children’s magazine (St. Nicholas) on one of the zoo’s chimpanzees where he wryly noted that though Chico was “ugly and repulsive…in some respects he seemed more human than the Australian savages we read about. The Australian black fellows are quite as ugly and repulsive as Chico, but they can talk more, and have better thumbs; so they can be considered as on our side of the line.” Hornaday wrote at greater length on the superiority of certain animals to some humans in The Minds and Manners of Wild Animals (1922), observing that the human species varied greatly from the highest to lowest, and that “the mind and emotions of the lowest men parallel and dove-tail with those of the highest quadrupeds and birds.”

Throughout his life, Hornaday consistently demonstrated a remarkable inability to regard human beings as distinct from or innately higher than other forms of animal life. For example, in his Tales from Nature’s Wonderlands (1924)—a children’s book about animal wildlife—he placed a chapter on the Dyak people of Borneo between a chapter on “The Great Red Ape of Borneo” and “The Great Mountain Gorilla of East Africa.”

More infamously, however, this disregard for the distinction between animals and humans led Hornaday in his capacity as director of the New York Zoological Park to house and display an Congolese man named Ota Benga in the Primate House alongside a chimpanzee and an orangutan. In response to several black ministers’ complaints that the exhibit was degrading because it undermined the humanity of the black races, Hornaday pooh-poohed the accusations, stating when interviewed by the New York Times in September 1906 that he had intended the exhibitions to serve “purely as an ethnological exhibit…I am a believer in the Darwinian theory…but I hope my colored brethren will not take the absurd position that I am giving the exhibit to show the close analogy of the African savage to the apes. Benga is in the primate house because that was the most comfortable place we could find for him.” Here is a photo of Ota Benga and a chimpanzee that accompanied a piece entitled “The Story of Ota Benga, The Pygmy” in the July 1916 issue of the Zoological Society Bulletin


What I find most interesting about the orangutan hunting and adoption accounts written by Wallace and Hornaday is how the different kinds of human beings they chose to describe the orangutans they encountered betray so much about the uncertainties circulating in the larger western scientific intellectual community at the time regarding the “worth” and “quality” of these different kinds of human beings.
A more fully fleshed out version of these thoughts and observations will appear at some point in an article that has been accepted at Clio: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History. But it won’t have these really interesting illustrations and photos accompanying it. Where I work currently, I don’t have separate funds to pay for the inclusion of visuals along with my article (the prices aren’t excessively high, but they’re enough that I don’t want to pay for them out of my own pocket). And in any case, I thought that more people would probably get to enjoy them if I included them here. They’re all in the public domain, and all can be found in online scanned versions of the texts, which can be found in archive.org, or from the link to the Christie’s site I include above. Enjoy! Or be perturbed. Or more likely, experience both at once.

[1] The brief summary of the development of “baby science” is derived from Sally Shuttleworth, The Mind of the Child: Child Development in Literature, Science, and Medicine, 1830-1900 (New York: Oxford UP, 2010).

A New Publication

Two friends once commented on how in academia it’s easy to forget to celebrate accomplishments. Take publications: you spent a long time writing something, reading reviewers’ comments, re-researching and re-writing it, possibly going through another round of the same, and then finally getting notice that it will be published several months or perhaps more than a year later. So when it finally appears in print, you sort of forget that it’s something to celebrate! 

So consider this a celebratory post for an article recently published in the Journal of the History of Ideas. It presents a re-reading of the some colonial British accounts as environmentalist (rather than anti-environmentalist as they’re often assumed to be). Below is the relevant information (and a link). And if you can’t access it without paying a fee, do feel free to email me (tiffanyatsao at gmail dot com) and I can send you a copy.

Tsao, Tiffany. “Environmentalism and Civilizational Development in the Colonial British Histories of the Indian Archipelago (1783–1820).” Journal of the History of Ideas 74.3 (2013): 449-471. 

Abstract: This article argues that the British Histories of the Indian Archipelago written by William Marsden, Thomas Stamford Raffles, and John Crawfurd can be read as documents advocating better care and protection of the natural environment in the region. Extant scholarship has tended to discourage such a reading, although the writers express many beliefs and sentiments that suggest their ascription to what have been identified as early environmentalist views. The environmentalism of the Histories, however, rests on the belief that human cultivation was necessary for nature’s well being—a belief now seen as antithetical to the values of modern-day environmentalism. 




A little less than two weeks ago, I was invited to participate in a books launch at a bookshop in Newcastle for two books: Boey Kim Cheng’s (or ‘Kim Cheng Boey’s’, depending on where you want to situate the Chinese surname, before or after the personal name) latest volume of poetry, Clear Brightness, and an anthology of poems entitled Contemporary Asian Australian Poets, edited by Kim Cheng, Adam Aitken, and Michelle Cahill. It wasn’t an initial launching: Kim Cheng’s book had been launched in Singapore and Sydney before this, and the Asian Australian anthology had been launched at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. But because I hadn’t been able to attend the anthology launch (I had to teach class), the publisher and Kim Cheng kindly invited me to do a reading of the poems I’d written that were included in the anthology.

Contemporary Asian Australian PoetsI was very honoured and very nervous because I’d never read my poetry out loud in public before. It was a really wonderful experience though. I couldn’t have asked for a warmer, more friendly audience (several colleagues from the university were in attendance). But what really did astound me during the evening was the realization of how many amazing individuals had come together to make the event happen.

David Musgrave, founder of Puncher & Wattman, had organized the launch and, of course, arranged for the production of the actual books. Introducing both books with much grace and humour was Christopher Pollnitz, who recently edited a critical edition of DH Lawrence’s uncensored poems. Boey Kim Cheng (pictured below) read some poems from Clear Brightness. And Ivy Ireland and Murrie Harris opened up their beautiful and cozy new bookstore – The Press Book House - for an evening to contain it all. (Ivy’s also in the photo below, to the right.)

image I’ve been to several launches, many of them not particularly memorable. And I’m probably biased in favour of this one, because I got to participate in it and because so many people I knew were there. But I’d like to think that this was a particularly nice book launch. If I had to choose a word to describe it, I think ‘toasty’ is a very good one, and perhaps very suitable for any book launch, whether being shot out into the universe for the first, second, or third time. A toast to good books launched well. May they travel far and wide, or at least nestle someplace and make a home.

This is the second year that I’ve been working as a lecturer at The University of Newcastle while residing in Sydney…or rather, an outer suburb of Sydney. The first year, I managed to condense my teaching to two or three days in a row per week, and I would catch a train up north (about 2 hours and 45 minutes to campus), stay over with two friends in their apartment for one to two nights a week, and then head back down. The friends, however, moved to Sydney at the beginning of this year, and being really tired of the very long commute, my husband Justin and I moved to a Sydney suburb further north, which resulted in a shorter commute of an hour and a half (by car…and far enough up north that I don’t have to deal with traffic) for me and an hour’s commute by (crowded) train for Justin, who works at the University of Sydney. I like to joke that we moved so that we both now have equally hellish commutes.

In any case, commuting by car meant I had to make some changes. On the train, I could do work, and I frequently used the time to read articles for research, read the literary texts I was teaching in class, or simply write on my laptop. I contemplated doing the same thing while driving, but I get headaches when I read the car. Oh, yes: it also seemed rather dangerous. But even though the car undoubtedly has its perks (e.g., not having to deal with the inefficiencies of the New South Wales public transport system; not having to be disgusted at the fact that some passengers apparently think it acceptable to exit the train after leaving the remains of their Hungry Jack’s meal all over the seats), it has its drawbacks (the amount of gas/petrol it uses and the fact that one has to pay full attention while driving). And the thought of having to spend 3 hours each commuting day not doing anything ‘productive’ annoyed me to no end. I could be writing or preparing for class! I could be knitting sweaters for other people’s dogs, which I don’t do anyway, but might do if I had those three hours! I could be learning ballet, which I probably wouldn’t, but you never know! I could be participating in important conference calls with the new pope! You get the idea.

To commute: to travel between where one lives to where one works. To commute: also, to exchange something for another thing. One initiated another: I decided to exchange the written word for sound for the sake of ‘getting things done’ on the drive up, got myself a subscription to Audible, and began listening to audio books.

I certainly had considered audiobooks before, but only to dismiss them as a cop-out from ‘actual’ reading. I don’t know if it’s a type of snobbery that comes with being a literary academic, but to me it had always been of paramount importance to be able to read a text for one’s own self, to have the text in all its virgin purity before one, unmarked, and with pencil in hand, proceed to stake my claims, underlining, circling, adding commentary and cross-references. Even as an undergrad, when buying used books, I turned up my nose at the ones that had too much highlighting or underlines. I didn’t want to be influenced by someone else’s interpretations. I took and take great pride in reading texts ‘for myself’, and even in reading a text a second or third time and seeing what my self three years ago, five years ago, ten years ago, thought about a book in comparison to what my present self thinks about it now. How has my focus shifted? What new aspects of a poem or novel or story or essay interest me now?

As a ‘good’ postcolonialist, I know I should be on my guard against privileging print over orality, text-based cultures over ones in which histories and stories were passed down through spoken word. But is privileging a text read over a text read by someone else for me a similar kind of snobbery? Perhaps it is, in some way. What it is, certainly, is a fear of losing control of interpretive agency. But there is a pleasant aspect of losing control as well, as I’ve found. Having books I’ve always been meaning to get to be read to me, like they were when I was a child lolling lazily on a sofa in my father’s lap as he did the appropriate ‘voices’ for each character. I don’t know if this is something else I should be on my guard against. But I do like how I finally have time to do ‘fun’ reading–the reading I never get to do at the end the day because my eyes are so tired from looking at print for a living.

This is what I’ve read so far:

The Kite Runner

Gulliver’s Travels

The Old Man and the Sea

Nicholas Nickleby

The White Tiger

and currently, River of Smoke

I suppose I don’t mind being lazy for this stage of my life.