Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day And How They Feel About What They Do (1997) - Plot & Excerpts
I really enjoyed this book. I read it very slowly, bits at a time, all out of order. I purchased it the week I quit my job at the bookstore, with my employee discount, and got a slow start on it. As the months drifted by, and I started a new job that I enjoyed much more, I kept coming back, a few installments at a time. And then the last couple of weeks I've basically been walking around the apartment with it like a security blanket and I think it's become one of my favorite books.That would horrify five-year old me. "I'll grow up to be the most boring person ever. One of my favorite books will be the most grown-up book imaginable: a big fat depressing boring book about work." (Growing up horrified me when I was small.I can remember looking up at my parents' bookshelves and thinking, "Man. Why would anybody ever want to read that?" And this book is just like that. But it's great, tiny David! It's wonderful hearing from so many different people, seeing the weird tapestry of humanity, what you agree with, what you don't, the good things people say and think and believe and the bad.I'm not at all familiar with oral history. Previously I've read one on the Spanish Civil War, but that's it. I think Terkel does well, although clearly most of his work is invisible.Some bits that stuck with me:1.) Frank Decker, talking about the '67 truck drivers' wildcat strike, which strikes a bunch of nerves for me: the little-kid thing again, loving big trucks, the teenage loner thing, with the romance of loneliness, and then the incredibly annoying labor militant thing, fighting the bosses, the government, and the union. Also, reading this bit, I realized that a professor had lied to me: he'd covered the '67 strike as a journalist, but told me that someone shot a scab truck in New Jersey and it exploded. Decker's version has the truck being dynamited. HAH. Myth busted. Also, property damage only, still technically nonviolent, HA.2.) Anthony Ruggiero, the casually dreadful, arguably reluctant industrial investigator. Because he lives such a weird life. He's a spy, and a private detective, and Buck Henderson, Union Buster . . . Decker's and Ruggiero's accounts, and a lot of others from this book, would make fantastic movies.3.) Rose Hoffman, because she's such an awful person, but still trying, still given space to make her own points and to dig the hole deeper. The fantastic way she romanticizes Polish immigrants (as opposed to, mainly, Puerto Rican ones) is crazy if you've heard as many Polack jokes as I have.4.) Barbara Terwilliger, who is at once so insightful and so blind. This section should be required reading for philosophy-of-work stuff . . . although I guess the whole book's like that. She spends the whole time discussing how her job that she's no longer doing (that involved finding jobs for people) was horrible, but at the same time she talks about how now that she doesn't have to work she feels an absence. Clearly it's a complaint of privilege, but still, "A great poet can make love and idleness fructify into poetry, a beautiful occupation." What a fascinating person.
It took me almost a month to read this and has gotten me a little off-track my reading goal for the year. The concept was interesting, but it was pretty boring overall for me. Written in 1972 and organized into relatively short vignettes, Terkel explores a multitude of occupations ranging from farmer to stock trader to stonecutter to hooker to apartment dooramn. Most of the jobs are in and around Chicago. Given the time, computers/technology didn't play much a role, though several of the subjects mentioned IBMs of some sort that were relatively new. Terkel seemed to focus his subjects on an overview of their typical day, their feelings toward their job (including how it's often perceived by others), and their possible plans for the future. It was a nice overview of some occupations I've never considered much (piano tuner) and some that are now obsolete (telephone switchboard operator). Of all the stories, the ones that stood out to me were:1. The executive secretary who felt that the wife of an executive would be a better wife if she had secretarial experience so she could better "adjust to the boss's moods".2. The hospital aide who I'm 99.99% was a sociopath. Terkel asked her what she feels/does when she hears a patient cry out in pain and she responds "I could care less. If the nurse gets there right away or next year, I don't care... I can't stand them."3. The 3rd grade public school teacher who had serious race/class issues with her students. She belittles the Spanish-speaking students' accents, calling it "horrid" and declares it a "sin" that they don't know how to speak perfect English. My main dislike was that it just didn't feel that relevant; I knew the copyright date when I picked it up, so it's really my fault, but it kept me from being more invested in the book, I think.
What do You think about Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day And How They Feel About What They Do (1997)?
I think I killed Studs Terkel. Since I was a kid I've read omens and augeries into anything slightly out of the ordinary that happens to or around me, so I know my sudden and intense interest in him right before he died can't be a coincidence.This is an amazing book, although I can't imagine reading too much in one go. It's surprising how pro-union everyone seemed to be not so long ago. What happened?If anyone wants mp3s of Studs Terkel interviewing Dorothy Parker, Alan Lomax, James Baldwin, Mahalia jackson, R. Buckminster Fuller, Woody Allen, Toni Morrison, Wole Soyinka, Maya Angelou, Bertrand Russel, Nadine Gordimer, Dr. Oliver sacks, Arthur Miller, Laurie Anderson, or Ralph Ellison, let me know. I might be able to find the Frank Zappa interview, too.P.S. I had nothing to do with Michael Crichton's recent death.
—Dave
Great concept and lots of good stories but ultimately too long and too many pointless stories.The last two stories (the Patrick brothers) were examples of the book’s high points. Each had interesting events to describe and their points of view were unique. The book flopped when people offered their dull and unsubstantiated theories on the various reasons why things happened the way they did. Also, there were many instances of people bemoaning the lack of work ethic in today’s youth. (The book was published in 1974. 40+ years later and the technology is different but the complaints are the same. The complaints about police brutality against black males was another reminder that things can remain static over long periods of time.) The steady dose of job complaints got tiring very quickly.Sometimes the author told the stories of various employees from the same workplace (the Ford automotive plant comes to mind) who worked at unequal levels and who recalled the same events quite differently. Some people (general statement about the book, not the Ford employees) described their dishonesty and malfeasance with surprising vigor. An afterword with repercussions would have been an interesting addition.I don’t recommend reading the kindle version of this book, stick with an actual book if you’re going to read it. You can look ahead and pace yourself better with a physical book. Also, I probably would have enjoyed the book more if I had read it in small bits over a longer period of time while reading other books along the way.
—David Quinn
Does it get better than Studs Terkel? No. It doesn't. Here's a man who created and sustained, all by himself, a particular non-fiction genre that had never been conceived of before. The long, almost unedited interview with the questions deleted. It permitted (and, yes, it's past tense because to my knowledge no one has seen fit to pick up the torch) the entry by the reader into the personal thoughts and values of the person interviewed to a degree otherwise impossible. Of course, I'm sure that Mr. Terkel used his authorial powers to edit what his interlocutors said to him. So that we can't know the extent to which those people have or haven't been distorted. But Terkel's take on the personal story is very refreshing and will remain so. If I had to guess the reason that he has not been imitated, I'd have to say that his technique may well require a degree of charm and interpersonal warmth which others find difficult to generate. "Working" is a treat for those who relish real contact with real people in real situations. To the best of my knowledge, the words you read in "Working" have not been made up or invented by the author. They are those of real people doing real jobs. It's worth a try.
—Rozzer
