Scan barcode
hopebrasfield's reviews
215 reviews
The Great Divide by Cristina Henríquez
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I received this for free via Libro.fm! If you love audiobooks, consider signing up for their ALC program: https://libro.fm/alcprogram
***
I chose this because of the narrator, I will read pretty much anything Robin Miles narrates. (I guess I trust her judgment in addition to loving her narration style, but I also have no clue how that all works so maybe I'm due to get a dud at some point! Unsure!)
Great book if you're into time-expansive, multi-character books. I also felt like I got a good picture of what building the canal entailed--not in a "use this instead of historical docs" kind of way, but in a "use this to get a better picture in your mind of all the sorts of lives involved in the building of the canal" sort of way.
Memorable quotes:
"Perhaps the problem, he thought, was that a person needed faith to be able to see things that did not exist, to imagine a world not yet made."
"There were times she longed to be different, but she guessed everyone felt that way at one time or another. And so in wanting to be different, everyone was the same."
***
I chose this because of the narrator, I will read pretty much anything Robin Miles narrates. (I guess I trust her judgment in addition to loving her narration style, but I also have no clue how that all works so maybe I'm due to get a dud at some point! Unsure!)
Great book if you're into time-expansive, multi-character books. I also felt like I got a good picture of what building the canal entailed--not in a "use this instead of historical docs" kind of way, but in a "use this to get a better picture in your mind of all the sorts of lives involved in the building of the canal" sort of way.
Memorable quotes:
"Perhaps the problem, he thought, was that a person needed faith to be able to see things that did not exist, to imagine a world not yet made."
"There were times she longed to be different, but she guessed everyone felt that way at one time or another. And so in wanting to be different, everyone was the same."
Yours for the Taking by Gabrielle Korn
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
It was fine! I enjoyed this author's memoir back when that came out and it's kind of cool she's able to write like this, too!
In a way, this felt more realistic than other dystopian novels.I say this because the rich have all the power in the novel, and we're already seeing that now--private fire fighters, bunkers, etc. Was Jacqueline's idea for a gender essentialist "utopia" ridiculous and dangerous? Of course it was. Were the ones trying to help make it better "from the inside" doomed from the start? Yes, they were. Does this track with where things are and where things are going? Sure does!
I wouldn't re-read this but I would be up for an ad hoc book club hangout to talk through the book itself.
In a way, this felt more realistic than other dystopian novels.
I wouldn't re-read this but I would be up for an ad hoc book club hangout to talk through the book itself.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault and Transphobia
Greek Lessons by Han Kang
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
This felt like reading a dream.
Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus
Did not finish book. Stopped at 0%.
Did not finish book. Stopped at 0%.
The start of this book horrified me for many reasons and on a variety of levels. This was and is hard for me to put into words. Thankfully, the author of the threads linked below put it into words for me, and for that I am grateful.
https://www.threads.net/@kneedlesandlife/post/C3wQRdUOUPb/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
https://www.threads.net/@kneedlesandlife/post/C30n451ufkL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
https://www.threads.net/@kneedlesandlife/post/C3wQRdUOUPb/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
https://www.threads.net/@kneedlesandlife/post/C30n451ufkL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexual assault
We Set the Dark on Fire by Tehlor Kay Mejia
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Am I being a puritan if I say I think the plot is a little too much for a YA novel? It feels kind of dark! But what do I know about YA, nothing, I had to look up whether this was a YA or not (which tells me I probably don't know enough about YA to be making that sort of judgment). I didn't hate this, but probably won't read any of the other books in the series.
A Beginning at the End by Mike Chen
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
As always, kind of frustrating by the end. Mike Chen seemingly sees the world for what it is, and is able to imagine that world into new ones (where the characters are set up to begin something new), but ends his books with weirdly neoliberal conclusions. I have no idea if this makes sense! I'm wondering if there's a fanfic audience for re-writing the ending of these books because if so I might find them and read them!
The Romance of American Communism by Vivian Gornick
^ Gornick, toward the end of the book, reflecting on her own life post-CPUSA in the 1970s. What's fascinating to me about this quote is that she is able to reflect on her own liberalization; I'm curious if she saw it as it was happening, or only all these years later. What's also fascinating is that she's saying there was nothing to get excited about for her during a time where we're actually seeing a whole lot taking place! The 1970s, Ms. Gornick, and nothing excited you until you stumbled upon the second wave feminists? Ma'am, they broke into the FBI's office and discovered the COINTELPRO documents around that time, there was plenty going on. At the same time, she's literally using this passage to reflect on how far she fell post-CPUSA, to the point of becoming a "disengaged liberal," which I think speaks to just how empty a person can feel once they've lost their "spot" in the movement.
^ This is near the start of the book and I noted it down because I've also heard Graeber refer to "little a anarchism," and I swear I've been referring to "little o organizing" for a while without having heard those terms--I'm glad to know that makes total, natural sense!
^ Quoting Selma Gardinsky here. Hilarious.
^ This is just before she dives into an interview with Diana Michaels, and just after one with Marian Moran, both of whom talk at length about how the party became this identifying force that helped them to feel like they were more moral than the people around them who weren't in the party. At one point, Diana wants to leave the party because she's upset the CPUSA doesn't play nicely with psychoanalysis. However, she stays because of McCarthyism! As the entire country turns against them, she feels the need to become more defensive and steadfast in her support. This is so fascinating, and who hasn't experienced this in a not-so-great movement or group? It really speaks to the "cultification" of certain political groups.
^ If you're anything like me, you're going to need to take a few deep breaths after reading that passage. I've included it here not because it's a "good line" in terms of being a good analysis of how the world works, but because it's a good analysis of what was going through her head during her re-politicization. And it brings me to something this book taught me: the psychoanalysts did not get along with the communists, and the communists did not care for the psychoanalysts. I appreciate her having spelled it out for me, even if I disagree with her conclusions.
Wait, what about psychoanalysts?
I didn't know about the psych/commie split until reading this book and so it's perfectly possible this was something that only stood out for Gornick.
At the same time, it makes total sense that a group focused on revolution above all else (often to the detriment of your personal life) would not get along with a group focused on internal worlds (often to the detriment of your fulfillment of social responsibilities).
Although several of Gornick's interviewees left the CPUSA post-McCarthy but remained communists and organizers in other settings, many of her interviewees (including, arguably, Gornick herself) rejected that path; instead, they focused their attention and work internally via, for example, psychoanalysis.
I think this is important to know and understand because it's something we're dealing with in our organizing efforts to this day! How many people have been totally burned out from organizing after being overworked and (somehow, simultaneously) underutilized for years and years? How many of those people have turned completely inward versus being embraced by a movement that would allow them to work toward real change? Conversely, how many people have been so suckered into individual "wellness" trends and neoliberal "go to therapy" bullshit that they're unable to see the world for what it is, let alone for what it could be?
In a roundabout way this book helped me to better understand gaps in my own life. As a student therapist I wasn't trained in how to help people as they existed in society (beyond, perhaps, their intimate relationships and families). In organizing work I'm often confused by just how little comrades know re: human emotion, behavior, and behavioral change. I'm not saying I know how to circle those squares just yet or anything--I'm only just now learning we were working with circles and squares to begin with! What I am saying is that my confusion makes much more sense now than it did, say, a year ago.
Further reading (recommended plus "check back in with me later" picks)
Seeing Red: Stories of American Communists is a 1983 documentary available (for now) on YouTube. I really enjoyed this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlQnJwUn7h4&list=PLej1ai3tUrzvCWyjfsRfx8G4qS43Clnzy&index=1&t=5s
I'm currently reading Robin D.G. Kelley's Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression. Gornick mentions the South exactly once, in passing; I think that's pretty telling of her politics (derogatory). https://uncpress.org/book/9781469625485/hammer-and-hoe/
Obviously, Vincent Bevin's The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World is a must-read for anybody interested in the history of communist movements here or abroad. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vincent-bevins/the-jakarta-method/9781541724013/?lens=publicaffairs
I'm also reading Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, which is filling in a few holes for me re psych, anti-colonialism, and organizing work in general, too. https://www.akpress.org/wretchedoftheearth.html
Warnings and caveats
Gornick's book has a lot of issues I won't get into, but I think it's worth mentioning a few specific warnings: there are several mentions of assault that are told in a sort of passing, "isn't this hilarious" type of way. There's also mention of Zionism in a very uncritical way, as though a Zionist could ever be a comrade. I don't recall any of the interviewees being described as Zionists, but she does mention them as having been a part of that group at least a handful of times throughout the book. And finally, this book is totally white. In fact, this is primarily a book about white people in the northeast and how they dealt with the party, primarily in a psychological sense minus any true insight, both during and after its demise.
Do I recommend this book? Not really. Would I talk at you about it for an hour anyway? Probably. Do I regret reading it? Not so much, but I'm a fast reader. I learned a lot, but also realized I knew more going in than I had realized. If you do read it, come talk to me--my voice notes are open!
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
4.0
Notes on notes, and the purpose of this review:
I took a lot of notes while reading this. I won't be attempting to fit all of that into this review, but hopefully the review itself will be helpful if a friend is thinking of reading it or if I'm coming back to remind myself what I did or didn't like or did or didn't learn.
How to read The Romance of American Communism:
There are different ways to approach a book like this: are you reading for the primary source material, the author's analysis, or some combination of the two?
Take, as examples, Sarah Schulman's Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT UP New York, 1987-1993 and Jacqueline Jones' Goddess of Anarchy: The Life and Times of Lucy Parsons, American Radical. Schulman's book I generally enjoyed; her reporting was good, but she could have used better editing, and if you're familiar with her work in general I'm sure you'd agree she isn't exactly the best source for analysis. I also generally enjoyed Jones' book, though my enjoyment was absolutely in spite of Jones' garbage analysis.
Similarly, although I very much appreciated the primary source material in Romance, I was perplexed by Gornick's choices, analysis, and conclusions. At the same time, understanding her analysis and conclusions are important for contextualizing the choices she makes in terms of who she interviews (and how!).
> Schulman: read the analysis with a grain of salt, but do not skip the book itself
> Jones: skip the analysis, steal the book itself if you can, and only read the primary sources
> Gornick: unfortunately, you need to read her analysis because it colors the primary source material in really important ways
A few good lines (though I've saved so many quotes from the primary sources I don't know where to start, this is really just a FEW good lines from the book--there are a lot of things to talk about in this book I can't possibly cover in a review!):
I took a lot of notes while reading this. I won't be attempting to fit all of that into this review, but hopefully the review itself will be helpful if a friend is thinking of reading it or if I'm coming back to remind myself what I did or didn't like or did or didn't learn.
How to read The Romance of American Communism:
There are different ways to approach a book like this: are you reading for the primary source material, the author's analysis, or some combination of the two?
Take, as examples, Sarah Schulman's Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT UP New York, 1987-1993 and Jacqueline Jones' Goddess of Anarchy: The Life and Times of Lucy Parsons, American Radical. Schulman's book I generally enjoyed; her reporting was good, but she could have used better editing, and if you're familiar with her work in general I'm sure you'd agree she isn't exactly the best source for analysis. I also generally enjoyed Jones' book, though my enjoyment was absolutely in spite of Jones' garbage analysis.
Similarly, although I very much appreciated the primary source material in Romance, I was perplexed by Gornick's choices, analysis, and conclusions. At the same time, understanding her analysis and conclusions are important for contextualizing the choices she makes in terms of who she interviews (and how!).
> Schulman: read the analysis with a grain of salt, but do not skip the book itself
> Jones: skip the analysis, steal the book itself if you can, and only read the primary sources
> Gornick: unfortunately, you need to read her analysis because it colors the primary source material in really important ways
A few good lines (though I've saved so many quotes from the primary sources I don't know where to start, this is really just a FEW good lines from the book--there are a lot of things to talk about in this book I can't possibly cover in a review!):
"But I did not feel that urgency, that sense of outraged innocence without which political partisanship is a sham. I felt rather the weary remove of the disengaged liberal. ('What does it all matter? It's hopeless. Nothing will ever change. We are beating with rubber hammers to break down a wall of stone.') I was profoundly depoliticized, unable to see my own image reflected in the history of my times."
^ Gornick, toward the end of the book, reflecting on her own life post-CPUSA in the 1970s. What's fascinating to me about this quote is that she is able to reflect on her own liberalization; I'm curious if she saw it as it was happening, or only all these years later. What's also fascinating is that she's saying there was nothing to get excited about for her during a time where we're actually seeing a whole lot taking place! The 1970s, Ms. Gornick, and nothing excited you until you stumbled upon the second wave feminists? Ma'am, they broke into the FBI's office and discovered the COINTELPRO documents around that time, there was plenty going on. At the same time, she's literally using this passage to reflect on how far she fell post-CPUSA, to the point of becoming a "disengaged liberal," which I think speaks to just how empty a person can feel once they've lost their "spot" in the movement.
"I hear the laughter and grit and self-mockery of countless people who spent a lifetime on the high-tension wire between being a communist with a small c and a Communist: some of whom fell and were horribly broken, some of whom fell, picked themselves up, and went further, some of whom walked the wire successfully and remained whole and strong."
^ This is near the start of the book and I noted it down because I've also heard Graeber refer to "little a anarchism," and I swear I've been referring to "little o organizing" for a while without having heard those terms--I'm glad to know that makes total, natural sense!
“You know why most communists aren’t politically active today? Because they can’t stand the thought of ever going to another meeting!”
^ Quoting Selma Gardinsky here. Hilarious.
"Being and becoming. At the heart of the Communist experience always the question of being and becoming."
^ This is just before she dives into an interview with Diana Michaels, and just after one with Marian Moran, both of whom talk at length about how the party became this identifying force that helped them to feel like they were more moral than the people around them who weren't in the party. At one point, Diana wants to leave the party because she's upset the CPUSA doesn't play nicely with psychoanalysis. However, she stays because of McCarthyism! As the entire country turns against them, she feels the need to become more defensive and steadfast in her support. This is so fascinating, and who hasn't experienced this in a not-so-great movement or group? It really speaks to the "cultification" of certain political groups.
"[...] on the other hand, we saw equally clearly--and this was the heart of the matter--that we had, all of us, internalized the psychology of oppression, and that the psychology and the institutions formed a dynamic as old as history itself. Break the psychology, we posited, and the institutions would crumble. In short: In America in the second half of the twentieth century the power of feminism turned on the realization that social change had more to do with altered consciousness than with legislated law."
^ If you're anything like me, you're going to need to take a few deep breaths after reading that passage. I've included it here not because it's a "good line" in terms of being a good analysis of how the world works, but because it's a good analysis of what was going through her head during her re-politicization. And it brings me to something this book taught me: the psychoanalysts did not get along with the communists, and the communists did not care for the psychoanalysts. I appreciate her having spelled it out for me, even if I disagree with her conclusions.
Wait, what about psychoanalysts?
I didn't know about the psych/commie split until reading this book and so it's perfectly possible this was something that only stood out for Gornick.
At the same time, it makes total sense that a group focused on revolution above all else (often to the detriment of your personal life) would not get along with a group focused on internal worlds (often to the detriment of your fulfillment of social responsibilities).
Although several of Gornick's interviewees left the CPUSA post-McCarthy but remained communists and organizers in other settings, many of her interviewees (including, arguably, Gornick herself) rejected that path; instead, they focused their attention and work internally via, for example, psychoanalysis.
I think this is important to know and understand because it's something we're dealing with in our organizing efforts to this day! How many people have been totally burned out from organizing after being overworked and (somehow, simultaneously) underutilized for years and years? How many of those people have turned completely inward versus being embraced by a movement that would allow them to work toward real change? Conversely, how many people have been so suckered into individual "wellness" trends and neoliberal "go to therapy" bullshit that they're unable to see the world for what it is, let alone for what it could be?
In a roundabout way this book helped me to better understand gaps in my own life. As a student therapist I wasn't trained in how to help people as they existed in society (beyond, perhaps, their intimate relationships and families). In organizing work I'm often confused by just how little comrades know re: human emotion, behavior, and behavioral change. I'm not saying I know how to circle those squares just yet or anything--I'm only just now learning we were working with circles and squares to begin with! What I am saying is that my confusion makes much more sense now than it did, say, a year ago.
Further reading (recommended plus "check back in with me later" picks)
Seeing Red: Stories of American Communists is a 1983 documentary available (for now) on YouTube. I really enjoyed this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlQnJwUn7h4&list=PLej1ai3tUrzvCWyjfsRfx8G4qS43Clnzy&index=1&t=5s
I'm currently reading Robin D.G. Kelley's Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression. Gornick mentions the South exactly once, in passing; I think that's pretty telling of her politics (derogatory). https://uncpress.org/book/9781469625485/hammer-and-hoe/
Obviously, Vincent Bevin's The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World is a must-read for anybody interested in the history of communist movements here or abroad. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vincent-bevins/the-jakarta-method/9781541724013/?lens=publicaffairs
I'm also reading Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, which is filling in a few holes for me re psych, anti-colonialism, and organizing work in general, too. https://www.akpress.org/wretchedoftheearth.html
Warnings and caveats
Gornick's book has a lot of issues I won't get into, but I think it's worth mentioning a few specific warnings: there are several mentions of assault that are told in a sort of passing, "isn't this hilarious" type of way. There's also mention of Zionism in a very uncritical way, as though a Zionist could ever be a comrade. I don't recall any of the interviewees being described as Zionists, but she does mention them as having been a part of that group at least a handful of times throughout the book. And finally, this book is totally white. In fact, this is primarily a book about white people in the northeast and how they dealt with the party, primarily in a psychological sense minus any true insight, both during and after its demise.
Do I recommend this book? Not really. Would I talk at you about it for an hour anyway? Probably. Do I regret reading it? Not so much, but I'm a fast reader. I learned a lot, but also realized I knew more going in than I had realized. If you do read it, come talk to me--my voice notes are open!
In the House in the Dark of the Woods by Laird Hunt
2.0
This was hard to follow and generally obnoxious, but in a very specific way where I know at least one of my friends is going to have this as their favorite book of all time and I'm going to have to be nice about it even if I don't want to be nice about it (but I'll try!). It's like Alice in Wonderland for adults, but bad.
---
A quote:
"Truth has many different drawers and shelves."
I wrote that down but looking back I'm thinking, okay? Yeah? And??
---
I very nearly DNF'd this book, truth be told! But it often takes me a while to "get into" any sort of fantasy. This is marketed as horror, but feels more like a modern "edgy" fairy tale. The original fairy tales are much scarier!
---
A quote:
"Truth has many different drawers and shelves."
I wrote that down but looking back I'm thinking, okay? Yeah? And??
---
I very nearly DNF'd this book, truth be told! But it often takes me a while to "get into" any sort of fantasy. This is marketed as horror, but feels more like a modern "edgy" fairy tale. The original fairy tales are much scarier!
Open Throat by Henry Hoke
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
This book wrecked me. You think you're picking up something short and sweet, but no--you've forgotten to add in time for pausing, noting down a nice quote, thinking through what you just read. Essentially: it takes longer to read because of how well it's written.
Memorable quotes below (with especially good ones in bold text):
“I’m the secret member of town. I stay on the edges, and don’t mess with their tents or their tarps or their supplies, but I hear them talk about me. […] I want to thank my people, but I know if they see me it’ll fuck up our relationship.”
“A father to a kitten is an absence. A grown cat to a father is a threat.”
“My mother taught me to hunt, but my father taught me to *be* hunted.”
“I traded old fear for new fear.”
“Was I a threat, or just on my way out?”
“Old is fine. I’m old because I’m not dead.”
“This is too much. The shudder inside becomes unbearable. I can’t eat everything I’m afraid of.”
“The horror of the sky fire stays in my head for days.”
“When you meet a big cat who will share a kill, you can’t let go of him easily.”
“My lungs are full of ugly. I look down and there are no paws. Any sec, I could step off a cliff. I think I’ve always felt this way. The smoke makes it clear.” THE SMOKE MAKES IT CLEAR.
“These are my new people. They don’t know it.”
“If you feel alone in the world, find someone to worship you.”
“I look again at the picture. That can’t be me, it doesn’t have a smell. I don’t trust screens to tell me who I am.”
“I feel more like a person than ever because I’m starting to hate myself.” I FEEL MORE LIKE A PERSON THAN EVER BECAUSE I'M STARTING TO HATE MYSELF.
“Now even if we leave, we’ll still be here.” [after she takes a pic of them at Disney]
“[…] and what I see in their eyes is what they see in mine: threat”
(The punctuation in these is all wrong; I read via the audiobook, but the physical book seems to have been written almost like one long poem.)
Memorable quotes below (with especially good ones in bold text):
“I’m the secret member of town. I stay on the edges, and don’t mess with their tents or their tarps or their supplies, but I hear them talk about me. […] I want to thank my people, but I know if they see me it’ll fuck up our relationship.”
“A father to a kitten is an absence. A grown cat to a father is a threat.”
“My mother taught me to hunt, but my father taught me to *be* hunted.”
“I traded old fear for new fear.”
“Was I a threat, or just on my way out?”
“Old is fine. I’m old because I’m not dead.”
“This is too much. The shudder inside becomes unbearable. I can’t eat everything I’m afraid of.”
“The horror of the sky fire stays in my head for days.”
“When you meet a big cat who will share a kill, you can’t let go of him easily.”
“My lungs are full of ugly. I look down and there are no paws. Any sec, I could step off a cliff. I think I’ve always felt this way. The smoke makes it clear.” THE SMOKE MAKES IT CLEAR.
“These are my new people. They don’t know it.”
“If you feel alone in the world, find someone to worship you.”
“I look again at the picture. That can’t be me, it doesn’t have a smell. I don’t trust screens to tell me who I am.”
“I feel more like a person than ever because I’m starting to hate myself.” I FEEL MORE LIKE A PERSON THAN EVER BECAUSE I'M STARTING TO HATE MYSELF.
“Now even if we leave, we’ll still be here.” [after she takes a pic of them at Disney]
“[…] and what I see in their eyes is what they see in mine: threat”
(The punctuation in these is all wrong; I read via the audiobook, but the physical book seems to have been written almost like one long poem.)
The Centre by Ayesha Manazir Siddiqi
adventurous
challenging
inspiring
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I feel badly for the author because there's no way I couldn't not compare this to Babel as I read it, even if they're completely different books! I should read more translation-centered plots and then come back to my review, of this book; it's likely this is even better than I realize!
A quote that resonated with me:
"Still, I was lucky that at least the leap was conceivable to me. If you could recognize it, I reasoned, if something in you vibrated in attunement to good work, then surely you also contained the capacity to create that kind of work. And on a good day, I even felt like I'd been working towards it, no matter how haphazardly, the leap over the abyss. I had some proximity, after all, to my desired career. I was tuned into my own curiosity and following it, more or less. And so, I reasoned, I needed to keep myself close to what moved me until something emerged."
(I'm not sure if the punctuation is correct here; I listened to the audiobook and couldn't find this exact quote written out anywhere else just yet.)
A quote that resonated with me:
"Still, I was lucky that at least the leap was conceivable to me. If you could recognize it, I reasoned, if something in you vibrated in attunement to good work, then surely you also contained the capacity to create that kind of work. And on a good day, I even felt like I'd been working towards it, no matter how haphazardly, the leap over the abyss. I had some proximity, after all, to my desired career. I was tuned into my own curiosity and following it, more or less. And so, I reasoned, I needed to keep myself close to what moved me until something emerged."
(I'm not sure if the punctuation is correct here; I listened to the audiobook and couldn't find this exact quote written out anywhere else just yet.)