Category Archives: Mystery

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks: Something not quite right

           There’s something off in Rebecca Skoot’s *The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks*. It might be the wiff of pretension from the author – she’s the only one who over understood how to approach/respect the Lack’s family? – or maybe it’s that secretly this book is very much about Rebecca Skoot becoming the author she wanted to be and this goes more or less unacknowledged in the frenetic attempts to foreground that this story belongs to the Lacks family and that Skoot is “doing a favour” by writing it. As if she’s not benefiting from the story – from Henrietta – too. Oh sure, she tells us that she’s funding the research with credit cards and student loans, but this reader is skeptical. 

So yes – I’m concerned about the authorial tone – both the tone of the author and the author’s tone as one that has authority (wham bam!).

That said, the book presents an *incredibly* interesting and accessible account of the life of Henrietta Lacks and the history of the HeLa cell, cell culturation. It asks provocative questions about who owns biological materials, whether ‘life’ can be subject to patent and ownership in the first place, and who ought to benefit from medical advances that rely on human subject participation. It raises questions about the end of life, the bound between living and non-living material (indeed, one of the more interesting chapters looks at how HeLa has become its *own* organism, but unfortunately doesn’t go into much depth here).

I suppose the aspect I most enjoyed of the book was its ability to weave between the personal narrative of Henrietta and the scientific “biography” of the cell and the medical field (like the Biography of Cancer – this book allows that an unconscious living thing might be just as fit a subject of a biography as any person). The introduction to HeLa as something that is *everywhere* and the supportive player in much medical advance was humbling for this Humanities scholar: I didn’t know; I should have known.

But all the same. There’s something not quite right here. I want to cry “exploitation!” but the book goes to such painful lengths to promise that no one has been exploited, quite the contrary: everyone here are friends. And yet… I’m not convinced.

Leave a comment

Filed under Mystery, Prize Winner

State of Wonder: The Horror, the horror

Here’s how I think it happened:

Ann Patchett read Conrad’s *Heart of Darkness* and thought, “hey – there’s something interesting going on here: snakes make neat metaphors!” And she entirely missed the bits about colonialism. 

So she set *State of Wonder* in the present day Amazon and made it about the quest for a pharmaceutical way to prolong fertility. The premise sounds so rich and so fruitful (kind of like the jungle?!) with all kinds of ethical questions about whether fertility ought to be extended, about the exploitation of the environment and indigenous cultures for the benefit of consumption and about the relationship between science and nature. Not to mention the usual colonial questions that *Heart of Darkness* invites. 

But what the reader gets is a mystery plot with a well written setting and a jumble of thematic questions that don’t come out anywhere close to coherent. With the hodgepodge of symbols and the patchwork and the wavering attempt at taking on moral questions it reads as a mess. And annoying mess for the lost potential. 

1 Comment

Filed under Book I'll Forget I Read, Mystery, Worst Books

The Secret History: Whiz, Bang!

       I’m behind on my blogging by TWO books! Sincerest apologies to those of you waiting with bated breath to find out what I read on the great family cottage vacation 2012. And the scoop? I made my way first through Donna Tartt’s *The Secret History* which I finished now TWO weeks ago (and so my review will necessarily miss some of its usual punch as I find myself fiddling about in my defective memory…). 

The story opens its first scene with the murder of Bunny. And then back tracks in time to invite the reader to follow along in discovering how six young people could murder a friend. The plot proper begins with our first person protagonist arriving at his liberal arts college and finding himself – nearly by accident – enrolled in a highly selective Greek program: he will be taught all of his classes by one professor and in a class with only six other students. The plot builds slowly – the book comes in at just over 500 pages – with the layering of character motivations, complex relationship and the kinds of influences they are suspect to (the usual sorts of influences that 20 somethings should worry about – alcohol, procrastination, sleep deprivation, sexual desire – but also the more pernicious influences of their narcissistic professor, their callously indifferent classmate (psychotic?) and the danger of rationalism taken to its extreme). 

For our protagonist events and decisions seem to happen *to* him, as if by accident or change, evoking questions of free will, determinism and ethical behaviour. Indeed, that the students are all intensively studying Ancient Greek nicely aligns with the thematic concerns with the extent of individual will, the hazards of an overly rational mind, the limits of community and the perils of group persuasion. 

The novel doesn’t spend all its time in these heady philosophical questions; rather, the richly layered and complex plot pulls these questions to the fore without explicitly evoking them in a marvellous demonstration of the literary possibilities of a well crafted mystery-thriller. 

I’d strongly recommend this one to anyone interested in such a literary thriller. It comes with full character development, unpredictable – even as it is self-reflective – decision making by such characters, and an entirely suspenseful plot. Well done. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiction, Mystery, Prize Winner

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