The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera

My sister, Catherine, refuses to read even Book I of Plato's Republic - and this despite my frequent proddings and protestations. Though I have never asked why not, I suspect that she, like a great many of her generation and all other generations, considers herself allergic to Philosophy. It's as though she should not dare read it for fear of bursting into hives or her throat swelling up so much as to suffocate her. Such perceived maladies have sworn too many off of "the love of wisdom."

And so we leave it up to folks like Milan Kundera to trick people into studying Philosophy against their will - dressing the ages-old discipline up as a play, a short story, or, as in this case, as a novel.

Kundera's quarry is a question of reality. What is "the real?" Is it the moments we call "light," when responsibility and concern seem to melt away as we, freed from burdens, rise slowly above the troubled world below? Or is the real world "heavy?" Are we not our truest, best, most authentic selves when life puts the screws to us and we are almost literally pushed by our burdens closer to the world on which we stand? The Philosopher calls this line of questioning "Ontology," the study of a thing's nature or origins, and she could ponder it for hours at a clip - and be ecstatic doing so.

The Philosopher wouldn't move copy, though. To do that, you have to write a story, and it's best if the story is about love. That's essentially what Kundera has done. He's written a tale of couples - Tomas and Tereza along with Franz and Sabina - and tracks the arc of their affairs through countless miscommunications, messy crossings, and an exceedingly long litany of infidelities. The couples do love each other - the author almost pulls muscles to communicate this in the face of so much evidence to the contrary - but so often one lovers affection fails to match the needs and expectations of the other. Tomas, for example, loves Tereza as though she were a gift sent to him down the river in a basket, like Moses to Pharaoh's daughter. What he doesn't seem to understand, though, is that Tereza considers sex intrinsically linked to love and struggles with Tomas' sharing a bed with so many mistresses.

Due to so much wanton sex and crushed feelings, it would be easy for The Unbearable Lightness of Being to devolve into little more than a cheap romance novel. Lucky for Kundera that love also happens to be a tried and true method of investigating and weighing philosophical truths. (Even the staid Plato wrote Symposium.) His interest in these underlying themes of lightness and weight is what saves the book from being tawdry. And it begs the reader to wonder aloud about what it is that makes them real.

We are a sneaky bunch, we Philosopher Kings. And here you thought we never left our ivory towers.

1 Dead in Attic by Chris Rose

It's a story about transformation. And even if that story has been done a thousand times before, it's never been done like this. Because this time it's real and it's for keeps.

Chris Rose is a columnist for the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Yes, that New Orleans, the one which a year and a half ago was literally inundated by a pair of massive hurricanes, a few breached levees, and a dash of bureaucratic incompetence. 1 Dead in Attic is a collection of Rose's columns from the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina through the following Mardi Gras - a short six months that the author found long on stories.

Predictably, Rose's subject covers a broad spectrum. It's the surreal, like his description of the first time back on familiar streets not so familiar anymore. It's the sad tale of young lovers who move back into the devastated town, have trouble adapting, get blasted one night, and decide to commit suicide - only one actually goes for it. And then there's the miracle of one last surviving fridge from a downtown restaurant, stuffed to the gills with the finest and freshest surf and turf, and the feast for relief workers that followed.

While Rose sees New Orleans as all this and more, mostly his vision of the city is as a place which is just too damn resilient to quit anything short of resurrection. He himself gets in on the action, morphing almost overnight from a society pages gossip columnist to a self-proclaimed war correspondent.

There is a certain poetry in the author's style, because the concepts and realities with which Rose wrestles defy any "just the facts, ma'am" approach. It's as though he cannot help but to speak in images, to pour out emotion. The words themselves are easy to read. The ideas are a little harder to consume.

Because I was away and out of the country when Katrina hit and New Orleans turned back into a swamp, there is a sizable hole in my consciousness when it comes to really understanding the magnitude of the tragedy. Having my experience of Katrina filtered through the BBC left me only a vague and faceless impression. 1 Dead in Attic has changed that.

Palestine: Peace not Apartheid by President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter is not an anti-Semite!

Now that may come as a shock to the chair of the Anti-Defamation League or the Israeli prime minister, but then it would also be quite shocking if either deigned to read Palestine: Peace not Apartheid before jumping to their conclusion.

Carter's latest, most controversial book is mostly history - with a touch of memoir - but it is decidedly not screed. If the critics must quibble, they'd be wise to do so with the facts of Carter's presentation. Indeed, he invites them to do just that with a collection of appendices, seven-strong, that trace the problematic Middle East peace process across a 35-year arc - from U.N. Resolution 242 (1967) through Ariel Sharon's response to the Roadmap for Peace (2003).

Attacking the former president's integrity, though, and applying a very technical term with all the grace reserved for wielding a sledge hammer will profit the critic very little.

What is of interest to many readers wading into Palestine: Peace not Apartheid as a crash course in Middle East affairs is a question of blame. "Who is responsible," they wonder, "for the mess over there?" A careful read of Carter's book would generate a laundry list of an answer. Owing to some of its more draconian policies, Israel would be included. But the author frequently notes the disastrous contributions of the Palestinians, other Arab countries, a wide variety of paramilitary factions, and, of course, the United States government. Everyone is responsible, and Jimmy Carter would be the first to acknowledge that.

Of course, responsibility is not the former president's interest. Peace is. Very little of the text is opinion - mostly delivered in the book's final two chapters and almost wholly concerned with how to work out a lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. To Carter, a man who tasted it at Camp David in 1978, peace does not seem a faraway goal. And what's more, it would be a tragedy were peace not to prevail.

I worry that I, too, made up my mind about this book before I cracked the spine. Even if that were true, though, I would still say this much to recommend it: Jimmy Carter knows of what he speaks. His stories from the region - even the most dreadful - exactly coincide with my own.

Blindness by Jose Saramago

Whither human nature - are we naturally good or do we lean toward evil - is a question as old as asking. All people ponder it and most who pick up the pen will, at some point, address it more deliberately. Enter Nobel laureate Jose Saramago and his book, Blindness.

Saramago's enterprise is to wonder aloud about who we really are, and so he follows the old proverbial wisdom and plunges his characters into the honesty of crisis: a pandemic of unexplainable and incurable white blindness. Are we the government, motivated by expediency to quarantine the stricken, even if to do so requires that we also dehumanize them? Are we a certain segment of the quarantined, drunk enough on the "will to power" to become murderous and marauding, wolves to our fellow men and women? Or are we the optometrist's wife, whose vision never fades and whose desire to shepherd the afflicted produces innumerable tiny acts of heroism? It is not at all clear precisely whom Saramago thinks we are, but it is easy to guess who he wants us to be.

Of course, to so clearly distinguish characters and groups would be to do the author a disservice. Saramago's writing is light on things like quotation marks and names that would make identification easy. His style is almost deliberately vague, and even the characters themselves acknowledge how superfluous names are in a world full of the blind. And even as anonymity makes possible all sorts of things - not all of them atrocities - enough constants remain to separate the heroes from the villains.

There is much scattered wisdom in Blindness, and as one so oft seduced by ideas I found myself sometimes just bouncing from one concept to the next. If all one could pull out of this book were some of those quotable pockets of thought, it would still be worth reading.