Category Archives: Fiction

The Purchase: Unlikeable Characters

In my biased view, Linda Spalding had an exciting plot to work with: Quaker settlers head to Virginia to set up house and farm and have to reconcile their beliefs with slavery, greed and “American” individualism. All the trappings of a terrific plot: cold winters, butter churns, trading pigs with neighbours and miserable wives. And gosh darn’it but those settlers make the most of their tired (but well loved by me) plot line: they struggle, they suffer loses, they compromise, they prosper. Oh sure, the compromises are meant to be fraught and compelling: how does the Quaker father make sense of his sons enlisting? or buying slaves? or his daughter engaging in sex out of wedlock?

But because We Don’t Care At All About the Characters it’s hard to care about these apparent moral/plot crises. We’re meant – I think – to be horrified that Mary continues to enslave Bett when she’s bound, by faith and promise, to free her. But I don’t know anything about Mary – what does she like? why does she fall in love with Wiley? what makes her happy? sad? – and so her decision is just as believable to me as if she had carried Bett to freedom herself (which, by the way, she ends up doing – with no apparent change in character to make sense of this radical shift). Instead the novel makes heavy handed declarations like “this (moment) (bird on the window) (breakfast of porridge) changed everything for Mary” and then suddenly she’s off doing something entirely different. I can’t even say something “out of character” because I don’t know anything about her character. And then! The father, Daniel, I only know to do the exact, predictable thing his character is set up to do. So if the characters aren’t entirely opaque they are entirely wooden. Blerg.

I may be belabouring my argument now, but let me just say again that the potential of this plot – and there is potential! – is all but lost in the mire of terrible character development. Too bad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction, Historical Fiction

Death in Summer and The Love of a Good Woman: I Expected More

So two books and one post ought to tell you something (and yes, the something is that I’m a little behind on posting). 

First up – The Love of a Good Woman

So you know my deal with short stories and my deal with Alice Munro (hate the former, love the latter, the complexity of this hate-love keeps me up at night). So why did I find this collection to be… less than satisfying? I don’t know. I think maybe I had some weird and misplaced expectation that these stories were going to link together more – I kept waiting for a bit more resonance. Of course the usual Munro things stayed true: her genius, the capacity for a single sentence to capture an entire character/setting, the thrust of a verb… so no complaints with the stories themselves, more a complaint with the stories as a collection. I just wasn’t thrilled.

Cue – Death in Summer

I’ve been meaning to read more of William Trevor since discovering him with “Love and Summer” (like discovering “Madonna” as a pop star – I must have been living under a rock not to know about him). So on a recent used-book-store adventure with S. I bought a couple of his books. I was giddy with the prospect of more genius (maybe my problem with both writers is that I expect perfection and am crushed when I read only really, really, utterly, brilliant, genius?). The book delivers knockout descriptions, but is lacking in plot coherence. It sets itself up as a murder mystery, but unfolds as a Sunday tea in the heat of summer: lazy, oppressive and plodding. That reads a bit cruel, and I’d take it back, except I didn’t like the book (gasp! did I say it? yes, I did) – I love Trevor, think he’s genius, but wasn’t at all captivated by this one. I’ll try the other one I bought and hope for better things. Until then…

Leave a comment

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction, Prize Winner

Under Budapest: Breathtaking

                             It is such a pleasure to write this post. My former McMaster colleague (I suppose we’re still colleagues? alumni colleagues?) and occasional writers group members Ailsa Kay has published a breathtaking novel that I just loved. It’s something of an odd relief to love it – there’s a bit of nervousness in reading a novel written by someone you know (what if I don’t like it?) – with the only risk now that I won’t do anything close to justice to how great of a read it is (and note that I’m not often one for reviews filled with effusive praise).

The plot is described on the back of the novel as a “jigsaw puzzle” and I suppose that’s an apt comparison (with a caveat): the early chapters offer apparently discrete plot pieces with separate settings and characters. As each subsequent chapter unfolds, however, the reader finds edges to the pieces that echo earlier chapters in a way that confirms the pieces do in fact fit together. For instance, I was amazed how the repetition of a single word “veritable” proved enough of a narrative cue to pull this reader back to the earlier narrator and connect the two pieces. The caveat is that I think the puzzle comparison makes too much of discrete parts. The only real gap is from the first chapter to the second and from there on this reader felt quite sure that the unfolding plot was crafted in such a way that the pieces were not “scattered” so much as deliberately and thoughtfully placed – one following the other. I suppose, though, there is some of the triumph that comes from assembling a puzzle – in watching as the whole picture takes shape and in seeing the connections. 

What is most remarkable is the way Kay achieves this pulling together. The seamless (and truly remarkable) ease in which the third person limited narration moves allows the reader to know more than any one character and so to see the whole in a way the characters themselves cannot. For this reader I felt an agonizing frustration as I wanted to share – to yell! – at the characters what I knew so that they might avoid making mistakes and poor choices.

This care I felt for the characters is somewhat surprising given that they are, for the most part, not overly sympathetic. Tibor, in particular is just. so. sad. His anxiety combined with his fumbling attempts at coming across as self-assured are cringe-worthy. His mother (name escapes me at the moment) oh wait – Agi/Agnes – is superbly drawn with her different modes of being in Toronto/Budapest as clearly marked as the change in her name. 

Oh! Speaking of Toronto/Budapest: what a novel for setting! Think back to *The Night Circus* and the brilliance of setting there – this book sees setting (as the title suggests) as integral to the plot and characters, and is a character in and of itself. Budapest has a personality just as much as Tibor or Agi (and to a lesser extent Toronto) that makes the unfolding history/mystery all the more compelling as it reads like a biography rather than simple description. 

**Some spoilers**

While I could gush all day I ought to register my few complaints – I was not totally sold on the betrayal of Agi by Gusomethingsomething for Zsofia. Gu***’s explanation of his sudden devotion reads a bit thin, and I might have rather the affair been an ongoing thing rather than something that emerged in the moment of the revolution. Though as I write this I see some symbolic merit to this origin point, I still feel the treachery to be too sudden to effect the kind of torment Gu*** goes on to feel.

**spoilers done**

That said I cannot – I can’t! – recommend this book with any more urgency or conviction. Go read it! The combination of genius plotting, masterful character development and an utterly rich setting makes it impossible to put down and a true delight to read. 

(note: I’m predicting a bestseller – so read it now while it’s still hip to be in the know about the hottest new read) 

Leave a comment

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction, Prize Winner

The Light Between Oceans: Ruined by the epilogue

The Light Between Oceans* takes a thought-experiment as plot: on a desert island you and your husband find a baby, you’d like to keep the baby and so you do, even though your husband has reservations, years go by and the baby becomes and is yours until you discover elsewhere on the island the grieving, *real* mother of the baby. What do you do? Do you return the baby? 

Into this murky moral waters M.L. Stedman enters in the later two thirds of the novel. The first third of the novel is taken up with introducing this moral problem and is executed brilliantly: characters are well developed, the setting (an isolated lighthouse post) feels just this side of clever in terms of a too obvious metaphor and shifts between third person limited narration are made smoothly and in ways that enrich our understanding of their relationships.

But once the moral quandary arrives Stedman is overextended. His characters steadfastly adopt one position – the wife is for keeping the baby, the husband for returning her – without believable, let alone compelling, wrestling with the moral question. It is as if after making this moral problem utterly concrete in the scripted plot Stedman opts to return to the ethereal thought-problem by having the two characters stand in for moral positions rather for the whole people they have been up until the midpoint. 

I stayed interested in the question even as my concern for the characters disappeared, and was (I’ll admit) impressed with the way Stedman resolved the question (a resolution I won’t spoil in case you’d like to read it).

Until. Until the epilogue. I’ve been trying to think of one good epilogue I’ve (ever) read and am coming up empty. This novel keeps with the tradition of ruining perfectly good endings by needing to end *again.* Why can’t the author trust the reader with being unsettled? Why should we as readers expect a neat solution or consolation? Don’t we read, in part, to look and poke at these questions in the safety of a novel where we trust the author to give us a believable – not necessarily comfortable – conclusion? Reading the epilogue made me distrust all I’d read before as if it was all a setup for this pat dismissal of the possibility – perhaps the necessity? – that these characters should suffer and *continue to suffer* because of their choices. 

So if you can commit to *not* reading the epilogue (and to ignoring the increasingly forceful last few sentences of each chapter that insist on including references to light, dark and shadow in case we’re likely to miss that we’re in a gray area and need the moral guidance of the “light”) then you might well enjoy this novel. Everyone else seems to be reading it and it will give you an opportunity to weigh just how much you love your (partner) (child) (mother) (sister) and whether you love your own happiness more.  

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiction