It’s been a dull, rainy week
in North Texas, and for me, personally, a week filled mostly with a medical
appointment, untangling insurance mix-ups, and that kind of busy work. Not much
time for writing, so you can perhaps imagine how delighted I was yesterday
afternoon to host a brief reunion of women I’ve worked with in publishing. The
annual meeting of the Texas Philosophical Society made this reunion possible.
The society is meeting in Fort Worth this year, and most of my gathered
colleagues were headed to a reception that marked the beginning of a weekend of study devoted, far as I can tell,
to the life and work of the late Larry McMurtry. Their list of assigned reading
included the relatively new Larry McMurtry: A Live, by Tracy Daughterty.
I expect them to be most knowledgeable about McMurtry, his puzzling life, and
his many and different books.
Meantime we gathered at the
cottage, and I served them wine and a caviar dip (figured I had to do something
to measure up against the reception they were going to). We talked about
writers we’d worked with, from McMurtry to Larry L. King, about what is going
on with various university presses today, and what we would do differently were
we still running the show; we caught up on news of some folks we hadn’t seen in
a while. We talked a lot about food and cookbooks, though I honestly tried to
steer the conversation in other directions because I didn’t want it to be all
about the book I’m working on.
But a difference of opinion
that came up interested me: some thought in working with vintage recipes
(strange to think of the Fifties as vintage, but that was seventy years ago, so
its historical) you should never change a thing, not one comma or period of quarter teaspoon of salt.
Others (including me) think it’s okay to
adjust the recipes for today’s palate.
It struck me later that the conversation was like the division on the Supreme
Court—originalists vs. moderates—or like religious differences, principally
among Protestant churches: is the Bible the literal word of God or the work of
men, to be taken as a guide rather than carved in stone. I won’t check in on
that one, but I am not a constitutional originalist (mostly because I don’t
think the second amendment is at all relevant in an age of assault rifles). So
I’ve decided I’m not a recipe originalist either.
I also got nice words on what
an original and interesting character my diva chef Irene is—those comments may
spur me to go back to look at the half-written fifth book in the series.
And we caught up on families
and children and grandchildren and, yes, Gayla and I exchanged dog news.
Because these women are family to me. But the big takeaway of the afternoon to
me was that I enjoyed book talk with women who are knowledgeable about books—the
kind of talk I long for and don’t get often enough. I had a long career in
Texas publishing and loved every minute of it. When I said yesterday that I
still sometimes dream that I’m working again, hosting an Autograph Extravaganza
or going to Texas Book Festival, someone asked, “Really? After all this time?”
(I’ve been retired twelve years). “Really,” I replied. “I’m sometimes very busy
about books in the night.”
So for a bit yesterday I was
back in that world, and there was a touch of magic about it.
The philosophical folks are
dining at the Drover Hotel tonight and were told to wear “Texas chic,” whatever
that is—lots of turquoise, boots and jeans for the men I imagine. Seems
perfectly fitting to me for a society that puts two disparate terms—Texas and
philosophy—together. I’m anxious to hear a report.
2 comments:
Sounds lovely! I'm glad you got to go to this. And thanks for your thoughts, too.
Thanks, Kaye. Actually the reunion was in my cottage!
Do hope you're feeling as well as possible--strong antibotics are hard to deal with.
Post a Comment