Category Archives: British literature

Vernon God Little: What we avoid

There’s no question DBC Pierre’s first novel, Vernon God Little, is an excellent piece of fiction. The book takes a school shooting in Texas (is it Texas? Somewhere near Mexico, anyway) and explores the community reaction to the event – spectacle, denial, scapegoating – through the darkly comedic story of Vernon, falsely accused and prosecuted for the crime. The first person narrator of Vernon is masterfully represented in his fixation on shit and young women, as well as use of diction, phrasing, pace and image that moves past conjuring a character to allow the reader to fully accept and inhabit him (if not identify with – a problem to come to). The narration also does well to explore his complicated feelings around the massacre, the (failure) of adults to take responsibility or engage with grief, his expectations of justice and the justice system and his attempts to reform himself and his relationship with others.

Despite the brilliant narration and the timely thematic questions (what is the role of the press in perpetuating/perpetrating crimes? how does collective culture sublimate grief? how do we understand and make sense of the senseless? what are the effects of poverty on access to justice?) I read this book knowing it was great, but feeling at a remove. If literature is great because (and if) it can allow (or require) the reader to adopt different perspectives, to explore experiences unavailable in lived experience AND because it is masterfully constructed in literary technique, Vernon God Little shines in the latter and wavers in the former.

I should say this book sat on my shelf at work for eleven months before I finally read it. And not because I lacked time or opportunity. I tried reading it twice before. It wasn’t until I’d forgotten my book at home and it was a choice between no novel (a gasp of impossibility) or Vernon God Little that I gave it sufficient time (the 60 minutes of my lunch break) to get invested enough to read the whole thing. It wasn’t a novel that grabbed me. Is it that the first person narrator repulsed me a little? Maybe. (and maybe he’s meant to) It’s not that the experiences in the book are too far removed for me to care about – all kinds of my favourite books are those that I love precisely for their ability to take a seemingly distant experience and make it relevant and poignant for me and to let me see my world and relationship to it differently – it seems more the case that Pierre didn’t do enough to make these foreign experiences connected to this reader. There wasn’t opportunity for empathy, or even sympathy, no chance for identification or care.

So I read the book with a respect for the writing, an understanding that it was an important topic and explored with great literary skill. And yet I found myself unmoved and unchanged in its reading. Uninterested in what becomes of Vernon. Is that a problem of this reader or of the book? You read it and tell me what you think.

Leave a comment

Filed under American literature, Book I'll Forget I Read, British literature, Fiction, Prize Winner

The Lost Diaries of Adrian Mole: Mediocre

Loathe as I am to say anything negative about Adrian Mole (being, as I am, a lifelong reader and admirer of Sue Townsend’s work) I found the “Lost Diaries” a bit of a stretch in terms of plot and tone. It wasn’t as funny as I’m used to and seemed more like a franchise grab than like anything really innovative or exciting was happening with Adrian’s character. Disappointing.

Leave a comment

Filed under British literature, Fiction, Funny

Blackout: History! War! Time travel!

        So I loved *Blackout*. Not only for the fact that its set in WW2 (is it weird to have an immediate attraction to a WW2 novel? probably.) and not only because it features historians and historical fiction and not only because it’s about time travel and the risks therein. No, I also loved *Blackout*  for its masterful use of form to play with the readers’ expectations and sympathies.

The book opens with a split chronology as the reader moves between 2060 and the Blitz. In 2060 the time traveling historians are busy planning their research trips: finding period costumes, implanting period knowledge (the dates of bombings, available technology, current cultural references) and language (American accents), determining a back story, a job and necessary papers. Throughout these sections the reader is presented with bits of information from the third person omniscient narrator that suggest all is not well with the technology of time travel; however, the historians themselves remain entirely oblivious to the potential hazards of their upcoming trips.

Meanwhile, the Blitz chapters introduce us to our three protagonists – Polly, posing as a nanny for evacuee children; Merope, posing as a shopgirl on Oxford street; and Mike, posing as an American reporter covering the evacuation at Dunkirk.

SPOILER ALERT**

As the reader becomes familiar with the general pattern of chapters – 2060, WW2, WW2, 2060, WW2, WW2, 2060, 2060, WW2 etc. –  the reader comes to expect a necessary “return” to 2060 as inherent in the structure of the book itself. So when the three characters find themselves *stuck* in their respective WW2 temporal-spatial locations and unable to access the “Drop” that is meant to return them to their own time, the reader is jarred right along with the characters as the reader too, finds herself without access to 2060. The chapters narrating this period simply stop, allowing the reader to feel the same disorientation, anxiety and bewilderment as the characters: what *has* happened to 2060? And we don’t find out! The narrative ends without letting the characters OR the reader return to 2060 and so we are all left puzzling whether the course of history has been changed such that time travel *no longer exists* or whether their colleagues in 2060 have met some unfortunate end or whether they have simply been “lost” by their 2060 protectors.

And perhaps this will be my frustration with the novel – even if it’s a necessary frustration in order for the brilliance of the book to be realized – I would have liked the book to resolve these questions. There’s a second part to this series – All Clear – where presumably the conflict is resolved or at least further climaxed, but for this reader I could have done just as well with a serious division between the two parts but the amalgamation of the two parts in one text. I suppose I’m just not a fan of the deliberate cliff hanger that requires seeking out the next book. I can easily borrow it from the library or download it, but wouldn’t it be just as easy to package it as one narrative in the first place?

Small complaint for an otherwise fascinating book that does terrific work highlighting the complexities and possibilities of formal play.

Leave a comment

Filed under British literature, Fiction, Mystery

The Sense of an Ending: Near Perfect, but for the… ending

       Julian Barnes gets it so right in “The Sense of an Ending.” The novel(la) asks and attempts an answer at questions of how we remember our own histories, what makes for an exceptional life, and how we can reconcile the story we tell ourselves about who we are now with the “evidence” of our past actions and beliefs.

Our protagonist spends the first half of the novel narrating a pivotal experience from his adolescence/young adulthood – narrating it with a self-conscious awareness that his narration can only ever be partial and biased (but not an overly obsessive or intrusive self-consciousness, rather the gentle thematic reminders that history and memory might claim to rely on evidence and testimony, but in the end are only ever versions based on ever-shifting “facts”). The second half of the novel narrates how our protagonist must revisit and revise his version of his history, his memories, after new information – new “facts” – come to his attention. This attempt a revision, or attempt at reconciling long held memories with “realities” of the past, or contrasting memories, all result in the “sense” of an ending – the illusion of a conclusion, the ethereal trace of something like resolution, when in fact all we know at the end of the book is how incomplete, how false the certainty of a memory, how inadequate our capacities for recollection.

And this is my only quibble with the book – otherwise I really did find it to be exceptional – is that the ending that we’re given to the narrative reads as too dramatic, *too* showy, and its unnecessary. The brilliance of the book until that point is the banality of the events, the quotidian dramas that make the protagonist so brilliantly human and allowed this reader to so clearly empathize. Which is not to say that I’d do away with the climatic unpacking of the tangled threads of memory and actual experience, but rather I’d have appreciated a slightly less punchy actual experience – in other words, the climatic drama did not need to be so dramatic. Should not have been, actually, as it took away from the subtlety of the thematic exploration of what we can and what we pretend to know about our past and about our selves.

And as an individual with what I like to call a “partial memory,” or an “episodic memory” — I do not have a memory that allows for either sequence or certainty. I forget conversations, experiences, interactions and remember only brief moments, emotional impressions and that which a photograph prompts — I found this book a refreshing reminder that I am not so different from those who have “normal” memories/memory faculties – in that while those people might imagine a sure-r narrative and may be able to more convincingly recall their stories to themselves, they are, in the end, all but stories. And so perhaps my fixation with the historical and the fictional, with that which exists in the space between fact and imagination, has most to do with this – with my understanding of my own mnemonic incompleteness and my fantasy that I am missing out on a plenitude others experience. Julian Barnes reminded me that what I (imagine I) miss out on might just be the experience of memory for all of us, and that the certainty we imagine is just a sense, just a trace, that we use to account for our lives in a way that allows ourselves a story about the kind of person we are (or wish we were) and a story we mix up as true.

1 Comment

Filed under British literature, Erin's Favourite Books, Fiction