Archive for the 'forgettable' Category

Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

This is going to be one of those promised short reviews.

All kinds of people recommended and loved this collection of “humorous” autobiographical essays. I find this a little disturbing. I suppose it’s just another example of how out of sync I am with… well, most people.

To me, he came off as quite mean and rather off-putting personality-wise. Like those clever, cruel kids in the schoolyard. The others laughed because they were terrified that if they didn’t they would be the next target. He’s obviously a very sharp fellow, but seems quite proud of the fact that he makes little or no effort.

He appears to be a member of the “ironic” crowd. This largely involves being sarcastic, looking down on everyone and everything and embracing kitsch.

At a recent reading he was recommending a book that told you how to zombie-proof your house. Why anyone would waste two seconds of their life on this is beyond me. It’s not even mildly entertaining. It’s just dumb.

Then there’s his comments about the Louvre:

The last person to ask the author a question inquired whether or not he’d been to the Louvre yet. Sedaris had once written that he wouldn’t go to said art museum because they didn’t allow smoking.

“I’ve been in Paris for eight years and I’ve never been to the Louvre,” Sedaris said. “Now it’s like it’s almost too late to go.”

His logic was that after holding out this long he doesn’t want to give up being the only person living in Paris who hasn’t been to the famous museum. Instead, he prefers things like local art auctions.

“I just like art better when there’s a price tag on it,” he said. “Even if you can’t understand it, you can make sense of it if there’s a price tag.”

If this is humour, I certainly don’t get it. I’ll end with a quotation from this book; for me, it sums it all up.

“…like all my friends, she’s a lousy judge of character…”

Now that’s funny — whether it was intentional or not.

Tags: , , ,

Regeneration by Pat Barker

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

(First of a trilogy, it’s followed by The Eye in the Door and Ghost Road .)

I wanted so badly to like this. World War I poets, post-traumatic stress, early psychiatry… how could you go wrong? I read them over Christmas. It was this or Milton, I couldn’t make up my mind. Should have gone with Milton.

The whole trilogy suffers from "historical fiction" disease: very thoroughly researched, but the characters are one-dimensional, the dialogue stiff, the plot stagey. The first book is the best, but that’s not saying much. At least it centers on the poets Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. The second and third books center on the least interesting character who does some not-so-believable things, shows all known symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (look at my research! cries the writer) and who becomes increasingly tiresome to the point that you are hoping he will die in a gruesome fashion. When I reached the end of the third book I was ridiculously happy that I was rid of him.

The awkwardness of the writing is downright painful and the clichés are embarrassingly plentiful. She also seems to take a real relish in the graphic details of the horrors of war. This sort of thing can be extremely effective, of course, but here it just feels gratuitous. As does her obsession with homosexual sex. Again, it feels added on. Why? Maybe in an attempt to make the books more "edgy" and therefore more likely to be considered literary fiction? That’s my cynical guess. If it’s something else, it’s between her and her therapist. Anyhow, it doesn’t add anything to the story.

The Middle Parts of Fortune by Frederic Manning I would say the whole experience was pretty forgettable, except that a few months later, rooting about in a second-hand bookshop, I came across a novel entitled The Middle Parts of Fortune . It was written by Frederic Manning, an Australian who fought in the First World War.

As far as I can tell, this is not a widely known book. A limited edition was published privately in 1929, but when it was published for general circulation in 1930 (under the extremely regrettable new title of Her Privates We ), the editors heavily censored and re-worked it to make it "less offensive" to the ever-delicate general public. Amazingly, the novel wasn’t published in its original form until 1977! (I guess by then people stopped passing out and hitting their heads on the furniture at the sight of the word fuck .)

Remember that tiresome character of Pat Barker’s that I mentioned? The one who became the primary character in the final two books of her trilogy? Well, he bears a striking resemblance to the main character in Manning’s book. Very striking. Only in his book, this character is developed and revealed in subtle and interesting ways. There is, of course, graphic violence, but it is an integral part of the story that’s being told. It really is hard to get over the number of similarities. One difference: The Middle Parts of Fortune is well-written and moving. The sad thing is no one talks about it.

P.S. A couple hours later, shuffling the book piles into order, I was feeling a little sheepish about what I wrote here: insinuating that Pat Barker may have nicked characters, scenes, etc. from an obscure novel written by a WWI soldier. What’s the matter with me? I thought. I’m getting way too suspicious, too quick to accuse. What do I know, maybe Barker’s talked all about Frederic Manning, said what an inspiration he was, how much she owed him.

I decided I’d delete my insinuations and just say Manning’s novel was better. Leave it at that. As I came to this conclusion, I was flipping through Barker’s "The Eye in the Door" one last time before I was put it into the "off to the second-hand shop" pile. And that’s when something caught my eye. I’d completely forgotten the name of a secondary character: Charles Manning. A rather masochistic sex partner of Barker’s protagonist.

This is all too much. This is how it must feel to think you’ve seen a UFO. I have no idea what it means. Common name? Coincidence? Very strange hommage? Am I making too big a deal out it? Too much shoddy contemporary fiction may have finally driven me over the edge. I am open to suggestions.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Human Traces by Sebastian Faulks

Sunday, April 20th, 2008

“Why am I reading this?”

A unfortunate thought to have on page 251 of an 800 page novel. And for the reader to be noticing page numbers…

I knew a kid in high school who used to agonize over reading assignments. He always knew exactly how many pages an assigned book had and what page he was on. He would formulate various complicated mathematical comforts: “I read three eighteenths already. So, nine more pages and I’ll be seven forty-thirds of the way through.”

Then he would put the book between his palms and squeeze hard while peering with one eye (like a mad cockatoo) at the location of the bookmark. Was he aiming for a more accurate assessment of the bookmark’s location? Or was it a physics-defying attempt to will said bookmark closer to the end? Other humans sure are mysteries.

Unfortunately, I can see how someone reading “Human Traces” might be driven to this sort of behavior.

But I digress. (This was supposed to be a mini-review! “Where’s the mini?” you’re probably asking yourself. “Hell, where’s the review?” Well, the review part will be mini. I’m just avoiding it. I’m still uncomfortable saying negative things about live authors.)

Okay, here we go. I picked this book up because of the subject: the early days of psychiatry, Charcot’s lectures, madness… sounded like something I’d quite enjoy. Sadly, not.

I read somewhere that the author spent five years doing research for the historical backdrop of the book. Shame he didn’t put an equal amount of time into the characters. They’re clichéd types without any discernible character arcs.

There’s another problem here that I’m finding in so many modern novels these days. I call it the “chummy effect”. The main characters are all painfully chummy. It’s unearned and unbelievable. Their relationships have no complexity. It’s like bad television. Plus, they all speak in the same voice: they don’t speak from their own history, point of view and agenda. (John Dufresne has a wonderful section on how to write good dialogue in his book: “The Lie That Tells a Truth: A Guide to Writing Fiction”.)

Throughout the whole novel there’s a distinct feeling of putting in time. Like being stuck in traffic. We plod through scene after tiresome scene wherein no one has anything very interesting to say and nothing very interesting happens. Time passes, your fingernails grow, the earth’s magnetic pole shifts ever so slightly to the left.

Then there are the little careless blunders that always make me think the author may in fact be watching television while writing. Things like: “She wiped her hands down the front of her dress…” Two pages ago, the character put on a “plum-coloured silk dress with a tight bodice and a full skirt”. That’s some fancy hand towel!

Another example:

“…managed to extend a yellowish, choreatic hand to the decanter on the sideboard and pour another glassful for the guest.”

Choreatic is in the OED as “archaic, no longer in use”. It refers to St. Vitus’s dance. Would it have killed him to say “shaky”? What is the point of yanking out a word like that here? Maybe if it was in dialogue, used by a doctor. But from the narrator?

The author can produce the occasional pleasing physical description — a hand on the bark of a tree, the smell of dusty upholstery in summer — that feels precise and hypnotically calming. As for “the early days of psychiatry, Charcot’s lectures and madness”, you’d be much better off reading a non-fiction book on the subject. Sadly, “Human Traces” is just time-filler. Plodding, pseudo-literary historical fiction.

Life is too short. (Life is probably too short for this length of amateur book review as well. Thanks for reading to the end!)

Tags: , , ,

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

Saturday, August 18th, 2007

I normally have a policy of not mentioning contemporary fiction that I didn’t like. The reason being that all the published writers I know google themselves. I absolutely hate the idea that I might discourage anyone or make them feel bad. The only time I break this rule is if the book is truly, deeply awful and the author needs to be stopped from wasting trees or, if the author is insanely over-hyped, winning awards (therefore quite likely to be delusional about the quality of the work) and rolling in piles of money.

The Kite Runner falls into the second category.

The covers of this book were bristling with those familiar, gushing clichs: “Powerful.” “Haunting.” “Moving. “Genuine.” “Riveting.” “Unforgettable.” Exhausting. Ooops, that last one is mine. But it’s how I feel being assaulted by all this manic, hysterical selling. There was even a review quote on the spine, as well as a NYT Bestseller warning — I mean boast. The word “powerful” actually appears six times on the outside of the book. Strangely, three of those six times are from the same NYT review. Guess they were proud of that one. As the too oft quoted Shakespeare line goes: “I think the lady doth protest too much.”

So I ended up starting this book with Dostoevsky-level expectations, when all I originally had in mind was reading something based in Afghanistan–as I know shamefully little about it, past or present.

The impression I had throughout was of a rather strained first novel with a lot of structural flaws. Not to mention that emotionally, it felt dishonest. I didn’t get much of a feel for the country and virtually none at all for the people because the narrator is a little overprotected rich kid. The “harshness” is TV-style and the violence clichd and unreal. The first third is the better crafted, after that it devolves and by the last third we are reading an outline for a screenplay: plant, pay off, plant, pay off. It almost gives you motion sickness. And he just keeps hitting the beats; again, bad TV comes to mind. The ending is insultingly TV-ish: unreal and neatly tied up. Does anyone actually think that life is that simplistic?

There was one section that completely stood out, in a very odd way. It’s a scene in a hospital where a doctor is described as having a “Clark Gable” mustache, blinding white teeth and looking like a soap opera star. Then there is a highly technical one-page description of the character’s injuries. At the time, I thought, okay, he did some research and shoveled it in a bit heavily. But that scene kept coming back to me as just being, well, strange. Like it had some subliminal neon thing going on. Why? I did a bit of rooting around on the web… and wouldn’t you know it, the author is a doctor.

Now, I’m going to say something completely politically incorrect, so brace yourself. I think the reason this book is so hyped and popular is because people are always curious about the people they are–how shall we say it–subjugating? crushing? bombing the crap out of? Britain was obsessed with India, France with everything Egyptian (Napoleon), then the South Pacific, then Africa… Chinese scholars are fascinated with the Tibetan cultures China is doing its best to annihilate. If you look at the front page of the author’s website, you can see the two active ingredients here: guilt (note the author’s UN work video and the “ways to aid Afghanistan” section) and curiosity (”Buy the book!”).

If it hadn’t been hyped to death, I wouldn’t be angry. This is a slipshod “product”, more marketing than substance.

  • Search

    • "Let's go swimming and have Martinis on the beach," she said. "Let's have a fabulous morning."
    • Goodbye, My Brother
    • by John Cheever
    • I tell myself that we are a long time underground and that life is short, but sweet.
    • Alcestis
    • by Euripides (translated by Richard Aldington)

    • What business Stevinus had in this affair,---is the greatest problem of all;---it shall be solved,---but not in the next chapter.
    • The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman
    • by Laurence Sterne