About book Lost In The Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book (2000)
I understand, I think, the adoration some readers have for Walker Percy's Lost In The Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book. But while I might garner an aloof admiration for Percy's project, I can't generate much love for it. This is partially because Percy worked hard to keep the book “cool” (in the McLuhan sense of the word), and thus difficult to love (surely a “hot” response). It's also partially because I kept getting the sense that even Percy was having trouble whipping up affection for the work.The ubiquity of television seems to have rattled some writers the way the internet does writers today. In 1980, three years before Lost In The Cosmos was published, George W.S. Trow released a shrapnel-grenade of ironic observations entitled Within The Context Of No Context.Trow saw television's accommodation of the immediate and argued that this speed-of-light process of adoption and abandonment created an entirely new context for the viewer: that of no context whatsoever. By essay's end, the only whimper Trow could muster was, “Irony has seeped into the felt of any fedora hat I have ever owned — not out of any wish of mine but out of necessity. A fedora hat worn by me without the necessary protective irony would eat through my head and kill me.” Trow's final refuge was a nostalgia for the era and mores of his parents (which he indulged to squirm-inducing effect in his final publications).Percy's observations are somewhat similar, occasionally even in tone:The salvation of art derives in the best of modern times from a celebration of the triumph of the autonomous self — as in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony — and in the worst of times from naming the unspeakable: the strange and feckless movements of the self trying to escape itself.If Kafka's Metamorphosisis presently a more accurate account of the self than Beethoven's Ninth, it is the more exhilarating for being so . . . Further down the same page:Unlike the scientist, the artist has reentry problems that are frequent and catastrophic. And, if the reader needs any help visualizing the problem, Percyoffers this cheeky illustration: Percy sees television, and particularly Phil Donahue (the ur-Oprah), as the final embodiment of both expressions — the Celebration of the Unspeakable, you might say (“Man-Turned-Cockroach Marries Childhood Sweetheart: Exclusive Footage — Next!”). Throw in Percy's steely adherence to an all-but-extinct pre-Nietzschean classicism, the absurdity of which he wearily acknowledges, and what's not to love about this blunderbuss of eccentricity?Well, there is the insistence on thought experiments as a genre, some of which fall with an undeniable thud. Witness this bit from “The Last Donahue Show”:DONAHUE: C'mon, Allen. What are ya handing me? What d'ya mean you're happily married? You mean you're happy.ALLEN: No, no. Vera's happy, too.AUDIENCE (mostly women, groaning): Noooooooo.DONAHUE: Okay-okay, ladies, hold it a second. What do you mean, Vera's happy? I mean, how do you manage — help me out, I'm about to get in trouble — hold the letters, folks — Etc, etc. Scenes of this nature tend to generate unintended thought experiments of my own. To wit: Reader rolls eyes, sighs loudly and says, “Yes, yes, Doctor Percy: we get it.”Part of this frustration is generated by a frustration I sense (help me out, I'm about to get in trouble) from the author himself. Here's a passage preceding the one I just quoted, from ALLEN'S Point-Of-View:I'm a good person, I think. I work hard, am happily married, love my wife and family, also support United Way, served in the army. I drink very little, don't do drugs, have never been to a porn movie. My idea of R & R — maybe I got it in the army — is to meet an attractive woman. What a delight it is, to see a handsome mature woman, maybe in the secretarial pool, maybe in a bar, restaurant, anywhere, exchange eye contact, speak to her in a nice way, respect her as a person, invite her to join me for lunch . . . what a joy to go with her up in the elevator of the downtown Holiday Inn, both of you silent, relaxed, smiling, anticipating . . . .Here we have a voice that Percy's readers know intimately: that of a self-satisfied roué who has mastered the ability to overlook the considerable impediments of his own character. It is also jarringly out-of-character with the piece that contains it, the bulk of which reads like an awkward parody of a show that could — within the context of no context — already be seen as self-parody.This bit leaves me wondering if Percy didn't originally attempt to place his larger concerns within the context of a novelist — said novelist having already exploited the many suspensions of disbelief a movie-goer permits himself. Reading on, I have to wonder if Percy didn't also attempt the essayist's context, before giving up on that, as well. Lost In The Cosmos is a strange enough book that it might finally have revealed its relatively unique format to Percy by happy(ish) accident. Whatever the case, there are enough uneven (I'd go so far as to say, “indulgent”) passages to prevent the most trenchant of the book's insights from hitting with the force of authority Percy struggled to muster.But then here am I, struggling to muster a little authority of my own. Whatever you do, don't give me the final word — sharper people than I (Tom Bartlett and Alan Jacobs, for starters) think this book is a terrific read. Get a copy and decide for yourself. I'll be returning to The Moviegoer and Lancelot for what I consider to be the deeper and more disturbing insights Percy has to offer.
I read this several years ago and was really drawn in, and loved the tone and organization of the book. On reading it again, I got bogged down in the middle, shelved it for a while, then came back to it and quite enjoyed pushing through to the end. It's hard to explain exactly what this book IS. It's definitely not a self-help book in the sense of offering a theory on how to fix one's life. It's far more provocative and funny than that. Instead, Percy sets up scenarios, throws out a bunch of ideas, follows that with questions, and moves on. There is a section on langauge theory in the middle, and Percy's own comments about it kind of sum up much of the book: for those who aren't really into the more technical (scientific, semantic, etc.) aspects, it will seem far too technical, and for those who are into the technical aspects, it will seem far too simplified. Percy discusses various philosophical issues related to modern life, and our sense of self in a world that essentially encourages alienation from self. There is much about the tension between people clinging to old religious ideas, and people embracing science as a "quasi-religion," and Percy points out that in a lot of instances, people are essentially just naming the same concept in a different way; i.e. the big bang versus God calling everything into creation. Percy makes up hypothetical situations, plops in various characters, and encourages the reader to consider the various possible perspectives using a humourous multiple-choice strategy. Perhaps the end result can be simplified by saying that there is no definitive right and wrong, only different choices and different ways to view those choices. And Percy points out that most of us spend a lot more time engaging in activities that ensure we will continue to avoid knowing ourselves, rather than in trying to understand ourselves. There are things in the book that are outdated (it was written in 1983). For instance, much of Percy's discussion of sexual behavior revolves around the idea of people being bored and so exploring things that had previously been taboo, following from the sexual revolution and its aftermath, which fits in with his overall thesis, but not with more modern understandings of gender and orientation. There's also some racist language, which was delivered with a completely different intent then, but which just sounds ugly now--especially being delivered in the context of future scenarios. Overall, though, the book is worth checking out, definitely thought-provoking and often very funny.
Do You like book Lost In The Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book (2000)?
One of my favorite books. Endlessly entertaining. Has in a wholly unique manner Percy's more interesting satirical material in my opinion. Best understood when read after Percy’s more conventional novels first. A bit idiosyncratic or esoteric when presented to the general reader for the first time in the loose or fragmented literary form or style that Lost in the Cosmos is written in. Hard to understand unless the reader can catch all of the allusions or cultural referents from philosophy, history or "pop" culture, in America prior to the 1980's. A bit outdated, but (when seen in context) a brilliant work from an original author of high talents. Percy provides an excellent outline of "semiotics" that is full of wit and wisdom. Lost in the Cosmos is "tongue in cheek" in the beginning, then grows more serious after the middle section progresses. Tackles many important topics from Percy's peculiar angles of thought with canny charm. Percy's humour is dry, while effective for high-brow entertainment or deep thoughts for serious study. An easy book to miss-understand, a narrow readership will see the way Percy means having acquired the rare gift to grasp the inherent complexities that are inside the covers.
—Kenneth
You have just finished Walker Percy's Lost in the Cosmos. You are prompted to give a brief review on the book. You describe the book as 1.) A unique and alternative way of storytelling, befitting roughly of your zeitgeist, with a tinge of satire and elbow ribbing, but ultimately a humorous book. Yes, it grapples with spiritual and metaphysical questions still unanswered in modern society, but it does not offer answers. Its primary function is to be funny, entertaining. 2.) It is a spiritually wholesome novel that must be taken seriously. It is an attack on the culture and the way we usually answer and grapple with questions. e.g. the ultimate shallowness of scientism, the fraudulence of self-help book genres and that the Self cannot ultimately help itself, the lack of understanding or even confronting of what the Self really is. This is a wakeup call and a dire one at that that has been largely ignored in the three decades even since its publication. 3.) It is a joke, but a joke in the most serious, Kafkaesque fashion. The joke ultimately being the reader itself and the book, much like the abyss, enjoying the last and everlasting laugh. Choose oneA Robotics company out of Japan has just announced their launch of of new robotic dogs. The dogs are marketed and designed as companions, can be replicated to mimic any desirable pet (cat, dog, turtle &c) including hair, sounds, circadian cycles and even, to a degree movement of bodies. They are not service pets, they are meant to be companions. An ambitious and popular marketing campaign is launched to try and appeal to the American consumer. No one is as fondly attached to pets as Americans, the research says. For instance, a dogbot is marketed as saving money on food, flea treatment, and waste management. The dog still walks and "wants" to play catch, can sleep on your bed at night, lick your toes, in short, do all the idiosyncratic, enjoyable things that a dog does. Sales are not good. In fact they are bad, even though no one at the company wants to use that word. The robots are simply undesirable despite a popular TV commercial campaign. The following questionnaire is submitted to the company executives. Of the following which option do you believe is the best description as to why the product failed.1.) People know first and foremost that they are not pets. They are copies, replicas. They are therefore not the "original" or "real" and people want "originals" and "real" things especially when most pets are fairly affordable and not expensive to maintain, even factoring in food. 2.) People actually prefer the trouble of a dog peeing, pooping, carrying fleas and chewing up shoes. Not just from an authenticity issue, but people actually prefer flawed things and beings in their life. Every person sees themselves as flawed and sees all others around them as flawed. A Self is not a Self without flaw, sin.3.) We live in an age and culture that celebrates the concept of "real" even though our definition of this word is tenuous at best. Real depends on perception, but also on the preconception that "real"ness a.) exists and b.) should be celebrated. It is not the product's fault, but instead we should seek to change the culture and attitude.(Choose one). You are writing a review for Lost in the Cosmos. You read the book in one sitting and are enthusiastic about sharing it with others. However, your internet goes out just as you sit down to the computer to type your review. In fact, the television says that the Internet is down for the foreseeable future all over the world. Your goal was to write a review that mimicked the form of Lost in the Cosmos and you knew that the only people that would appreciate it were the people that had already read it; that is, the people in the know about the format and style you are mimicking. None of your friends in real life have ever read the book. In fact, most of your friends don't read recreationally. Perhaps with the Internet down people will begin to read more but you can't be sure. Therefore without the Internet your review becomes unsharable. Despite all this you write the review. Which of the following describes your feelings upon its completion?1.) Disappointment. You can't share the review with anyone and the impetus of a review is that it shares criticism, thoughts, ideas about the book with another. Sharing is at least half of the nature of a review and without sharing it, it is not a review. 2.) Boredom. Overwhelmingly you miss the Internet. The review gave you something to do, but the Internet has engendered a What's Next syndrome in you in which you are always looking for the next thing to do. You are not really worried about the review itself so much as just being able to do something. 3.) Accomplishment. Despite the fact that no one is reading it besides yourself, you know that it is quite objectively a very good review, and you'd like to think that a good piece of work is good work and that whether or not people read it doesn't change the fact that what it is: a review, meaning the existence of an essence of sharing, the other essence present is that, at bare minimum, it is very good. You don't have anyone else to tell you it is good, you just know in a vague metaphysical way that it is. (Choose one)
—Nate
When I put my cursor on the stars they say 1 star(didn't like) two stars(it was ok) three stars(liked it) 4 stars (really liked it) and five stars(it was amazing)so, to me, a three star review is good.I will admit though that it looks better (visually) to have four stars for it to be obviously a good review. I would say I enjoy most of the books I read, so I usually choose three stars for most of them.It would be easier if they just had the thumbs up or thumbs down as a method to rate books. Cheers!
—Raegan Butcher
