This Boy's Life, by Tobias Wolff

I am torn over Tobias Wolff. He writes so beautifully, and the stories are enthralling, but duplicity seems to be the main feature shared by his characters. Of course, everyone lies, in ways big and small. I just find it difficult to sympathize with those who are habitual liars. Then again, what some call lies, others call imagination. This is probably why Mr Wolff is a first-rate writer while I've never exhibited any creativity in a literary sense.

This Boy's Life is a memoir of Mr Wolff's boyhood in the 1950's. His family is dysfunctional to say the least. As I turned the pages, I was filled at once with admiration for his survival skills, and with abhorrence for his natural-born dishonest ways. How on earth could the boy in the book someday become one of the best writers of his generation? How much of the book, even if called a memoir, is true? We're talking about someone with an off-the-charts amount of imagination here. It wouldn't be the first time a writer embellishes a supposedly true story.

Ultimately, the book is still fantastic, well worth reading irrespective of how much it stretches the truth.

Playing for Pizza, by John Grisham

Years ago when John Grisham took the top seller list by storm, I read and enjoyed a few of his books like everyone else. However, it wasn't long before I got bored with his formula. Jeff had to convince me that Playing for Pizza is not the usual product of the Grisham factory.

There are no lawyers, southern cities or conspiracies in this book. It's about a washed-out NFL quarterback's experience of playing a season of semi-pro American football in Parma, Italy. Mr Grisham captures the lovable naivete of the American, and presents it in a humorous light. The detailed descriptions of football games grew tedious, but the overall story is light-hearted and not entirely unbelievable.

What Good Are the Arts? by John Carey

In Part One of his book, John Carey attempts to answer the following questions: What is a work of art? Is 'high' art superior? Can science help (in defining art)? Do the arts make us better? and Can Art be a religion?

Most of us have been brought up to think that the arts hold a special place in our society. We put artists, musicians and writers on a pedestal. We protest if the government cuts funding to the arts. We gladly make donations to the museums and the symphony. I do all of these things, yet over the years, I've often wondered, What is the point?

Mr Carey argues convincingly that a work of art is anything that is considered art by anybody. This is actually rather depressing. Talks of the timelessness of a painting, or the universal attraction of a piece of music, are nonsense. Just look at how unappreciated so many of the artists and musicians were in their lifetime.

The other answers provided by Mr Carey are equally dispiriting. Some of the greatest artists and writers are the least charitable among us. Adolf Hitler was one of the fiercest champions of fine art and classical music. Totalitarian regimes the world over have been the strongest supporters of the arts, far more so than democracies. The conclusion is, not only do the arts not make us better beings, they turn us into elitists who over time can lose all humanity.

Part Two of the book is rather odd. In it, Mr Carey argues that literature is the highest form of art. To me, it make no sense to rank art forms. They appeal to our different senses. Of course, if I were forced to, I'd choose books over paintings and music, but we need all of them.