From the review by Jonathan Lethem in the NYT
Book ReviewIf we fear ourselves unworthy of the sublimities glimpsed at the summit
of art, what relevance does such exalted stuff have to our grubby
lives? Conversely, if on investigation such works, and their makers,
are revealed as ordinary, subject to the same provisions and defects as
the rest of what we've plopped onto the planet — all these cities,
nations, languages, histories — then why get worked up in the first
place? Perfect or, more likely, imperfect, we may suspect art of being
useless in either case.
and:
Is a lifetime spent loving poems in a fallen world only a poor joke?
And a quote from the book itself:
"He talked about the stars you see at night, say when you're driving
from Des Moines to Lincoln on Route 80 and the car breaks down, the way
they do, maybe it's the oil or the radiator, maybe it's a flat tire,
and you get out and get the jack and the spare tire out of the trunk
and change the tire, maybe half an hour, at most, and when you're done
you look up and see the sky full of stars. The Milky Way. He talked
about star athletes. That's a different kind of star, he said, and he
compared them to movie stars, though as he said, the life of an athlete
is generally much shorter. A star athlete might last 15 years at best,
whereas a movie star could go on for 40 or 50 years if he or she
started young. Meanwhile, any star you could see from the side of Route
80 . . . might have been dead for millions of years, and the traveler
who gazed up at it would never know. It might be a live star or it
might be a dead star. Sometimes, depending on your point of view, he
said, it doesn't matter, since the stars you see at night exist in the
realm of semblance. They are semblances, the same way dreams are
semblances."
[0]