Category Archives: Prize Winner

Night: Uncomfortable

     Elie Wiesel’s Night is my cousin’s favourite book. My cousin who has read, I’d guess, somewhere in the neighbourhood of five novels in his lifetime. But he read Night because it’s one of the book we’re all meant to read. And so I read it, too, anticipating it as depressing and unsettling. What I couldn’t have anticipated – and this causes me great discomfort to admit to myself, let alone on a public forum like this – was that I also found it boring. 

My familiarity with the events and tropes of Wiesel’s book arise, no doubt, both from the years I spent absorbed by Holocaust fiction (13-18?) after reading The Diary of Anne Frank and from a culture saturated with the story that, with minor variation, we are all meant to know. But simple familiarity should not so fully dull my emotional reactions, right? And so the way I’ve been able to understand my reaction in a way that doesn’t cause self-loathing or deep concern about my continuing existence as an empathetic and affective individual is through philosophies on boredom (principally Heidegger) that suggest it is when confronted with the profoundly meaningless that individuals resort to a passive indifference: when set against an existential void a (reasonable?) response is boredom.

I’ll also understand my reaction as one to literary form. The narrative tone is, appropriate to the subject matter, flat. The same diction, pace and tone is employed in describing rations of food as is the death of Wiesel’s father. Perhaps it is the case that as all events are treated and narrated as equally affect-less the reader might find the form of the text, if not the content, dull.

This ambivalence, then, is how I’m prepared to understand the book and my reaction. And I’ll entertain conversations with those of you who might have read the book, too, or who might want to comment on my apparent lack-of-feeling. Perhaps I just want to be reassured that I am not callous and am not maliciously, only defensively, indifferent.

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Prize Winner

The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet: I have a lot to say

     So where to start?

The expression “best at the beginning” may not apply in the case of David Mitchell’s (entirely brilliant) The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoett, which opens with the graphic narration of a breech birth. Putting visceral reactions aside, in this vivid first chapter Mitchell expertly lays out the thematic questions of the novel – a dizzying array of concerns from national, linguistic, familial, class and gender filiation and affiliation to the worth of artistic or generous sensibilities in a landscape of commerce and rigidly defined hierarchies of (gendered, military, national) power.

At times I wondered whether the thematic scope might in fact be too broad – the harrowing second part focused on the mysterious monastery, for instance, felt barely introduced before it was over – but I need not have worried so much, as the concluding two parts – a brief 30 pages between the two – weave the (until then seemingly distinct) threads together with such subtly that I worried instead that I had may have been an inattentive reader (I was not!) for not noticing the ever-tightening connections among the three principle plot lines. So bravo theme. Bravo plot.

I have questions about character. It is not the case of a poorly defined or undeveloped character; in Jacob, like Black Swan Green, Mitchell presents entirely fallible, and so entirely sympathetic, characters. Rather, I found Orito’s behaviour to be – in two remarkable scenes – somewhat at odds, and so I finished the book not entirely certain I believed her motivations, or understood the ‘core’ of character: I’m trying reconcile her self-preserving decision in relation to Jacob’s marriage offer with her selfless decision with respect to the monastery. *spoiler* In the conclusion of the text, when Orito explains to Jacob that he need not be forgiven because ‘he did nothing wrong,’ she implies that her knowledge of what happened at the monastery prevented her from leaving – a moral/ethical imperative that superseded her – utterly human – selfish motivation to leave. In conversation with P., who recommended the book, it was suggested that perhaps she acts out of some ‘martyr complex.’ Plausible, and so far, so good: outstanding character development and a fascinating moral question (would I save myself? would you?). But then! Almost as though Mitchell can’t stand to have Orito suffer, she finds on her return that she can trade her knowledge for different duties, and so escape the fate of those she purportedly sacrificed her liberty to be with. Orito’s decision and its subsequent ‘reward’, taken together with the (quite positive) outcome of Jacob’s ‘heroics’ on the watchtower suggest an implicit reward for selflessness, which I’m pretty sure annuls “selflessness.” Or maybe it just suggests that behaving with selfless intentions will result in unexpected reward. (I hear echoes of my time in Sunday school…) In any case, none of these comments should be construed as complaints; in fact, I think it’s clear that my difficulty reconciling the scenes and character decisions demonstrates the complexity of the narrative and its characters. And maybe also demonstrates that I’ve just finished it an hour ago and haven’t (necessarily) properly thought things through.

A final note then on historical fiction. The Publisher’s Weekly review of the book notes that it is a “dense and satisfying historical with literary brawn and stylistic panache.” If I can forgive “panache,” in that sentence, I cannot forgive the implied snub of historical fiction – that Mitchell has managed to attach “literary brawn” (whatever that is) to the otherwise merely “satisfying” genre. Okay, I’m too defensive. But this book is as brilliant as historical fiction as it is as literary fiction (again, let’s try to work out what that might be another day) and we need not get into genre splitting to say that. I do think Jerome de Groot’s observation that historical fiction requires a more ‘attentive reader’ because the genre demands a doubled willingness to suspend belief and to trust the author has some merit in this instance. I admit to previously enjoying only the shadowiest knowledge of early 19th century Dutch trading companies, let alone their Japanese outposts, and so the novel allowed me a measure of discovery not just of human motivations, relationships and sacrifices, but of a historical period and setting utterly unfamiliar. So while Mitchell may not be credited with the brilliant complexity of my favourite genre, I’ll say bravo anyway, as he’s done a tremendous job highlighting just how effective a relationship between the literary and the historical can be in evoking and provoking.

In sum: bravo. 

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Erin's Favourite Books, Fiction, Prize Winner

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian: So. good.

        Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian belongs in several categories of 10-10-12: banned books, books with illustrations, and young adult fiction. It’s also made it’s way on to the (yet undisclosed and unfinished) list of best books I’ve read in 2011. The first person narrator’s honesty coupled with his humour make for a totally captivating tone, which quickly and effectively secures the readers’ concern and care for the brave, fragile and fierce protagonist. Such was this readers’ concern that as the story begins a gradual, but escalating, revelation of grief, I found myself a little weepy, but more than that, a little in awe of a story that so quickly and so honestly invites reader sympathy/empathy.

I should comment on the illustrations not just because this book is categorized (for me) in books with illustrations, but because the cartoons that pepper the pages serve Junior/Arnold as an outlet for emotions he doesn’t understand, and allow the reader yet another window into the complicated and fraught emotional life of a teenage boy.

I admit to being a little floored by how much and how quickly I came to care about Junior/Arnold.

It’s scandalous to me that this one appears on the ALA list of most frequently banned at schools in the US – a tragedy of its own kind that some readers will be prevented or hindered from finding their way to this remarkable story, when really, it ought to be put in the hands of every teenager  reader who has ever felt weird, or felt like they didn’t know how to feel (so… all of us).

Leave a comment

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, Fiction, Prize Winner, Young Adult Fiction

Zeitoun: Novel News

       At age fifteen or sixteen I began a semi-permanent ban on television. The no-television-under-any-circumstances policy lasted from 1999-2001, with a reprieve on Sept 11, and then again enforced as of Sept 12. I began university in 2002, and from that point until the present I haven’t owned a functional tv. I’m still a voracious consumer of news – listening to daily reports on the radio and reading newspapers in print and online – just a consumer of news without the barrage of images to accompany the stories. This consumption pattern meant that in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans I didn’t see (m)any images of the disaster. I certainly heard reports, read stories of the damage, looting, and unpredictably zealous or absent support from the authorities.

So when I read that Dave Eggers – one of my long favoured authors* – had written another news-novel (more on the genre distinction in a moment) about one family’s experience of the Hurricane, I put it on my list. I admit that what I read amounted to novel news to me in the sense of altogether unknown news about the hurricane. I had little idea that so many citizens were wrongfully and illegally detained in the aftermath of the hurricane; I wasn’t sure about the reports of rape, looting, assault (though to be fair, the novel does a fairly poor job of clarifying whether these events did in fact take place; rather, Eggers points out that there were contradictory news reports and leaves it – frustratingly – at that).

Grounding the hurricane (ha!) in the story of one family – the Zeitoun family – allows the reader to care deeply about the disaster because it has been carefully and thoroughly personalized. I wonder whether the Zeitoun family already inhabited a host of compelling issues in contemporary American life, or whether Eggers emphasized these issues in order to craft a more compelling novel (okay, so I don’t actually wonder, but it’s worth asking the question), but whatever the case, the Zeitoun’s embody questions of race, religion, patriotism, the precarious middle class in ways that read as genuine and appropriately complex.

In terms of genre I have a hard time accepting the designation of ‘non-fiction’ (as assigned by my library). The book is a novel, a historical one, perhaps, or what I’m calling here a news-novel. It has the usual plot, characters, and setting, but more crucially in the ‘novel’ designation – for this reader, anyway – it has thematic preoccupations (what can one man accomplish when set against nature? against the state?), symbols (the flood, drowning, risks of water, rainbows, bleh), and a shifting point of view. Much like What is the What the news-novel asks the reader to accept that what is written is for all intents ‘true,’ but allows that in any telling there will be fictional elements. It is, in short, a genre I like.

*I also like Dave Eggers. Those with reservations who have only read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius would do well to try reading something else he’s written. I myself enjoyed AHWOSG, but see a stark (really) difference between the autobiographical work and his news-novels and short stories. So here’s my plug for an author I adore (not like he needs a plug, but still): he’s really very good.

3 Comments

Filed under 100 Books of 2011, American literature, Fiction, Prize Winner