Category Archives: Worst Books

The Luminaries: When do you quit reading?

polldaddy poll=8035045]

So I sort of didn’t like (at all) Eleanor Catton’s The Luminaries. Sure, sure, it won the 2013 Booker Prize. As if a prize committee has never been wrong.

I tried. I really did. 350 pages worth of trying (it’s a 700 odd page book – actually not odd, hold that thought) and I quit. Sure, my quitting this book is indicative of larger patterns in my life (I haven’t yet found a hobby I won’t quit after six months of being totally enraptured: rock climbing! quilting! karate!), but in this instance the book deserved to be quit. I’ll illuminate (ha! get it?) the problems, but first I want to think about why we read books we aren’t enjoying or don’t find meritorious/worthy of reading. Is it masochism? Some sense that because it won a Booker I have to be an idiot for not enjoying it (let’s not discount this as a possibility)? The expectation that maybe it will get better? The feeling that you’ve already committed so much that it would be a waste to stop now? <– this definitely applies to marathon running

So what was my problem? Why wasn’t I the kind of reader who swooned for this piece of historical fiction? There was too much. Too much writing, too much plot, too many characters, too many threads, too many Ideas (like the page counts of chapters should mirror the phases of the moon?). Too little to care about – what was this book about if not solving three weird coincidences? I’m not all that interested in coincidences. Or why they happen. Or for 700 pages. Winding, weaving, blerg. Just… too much (and not like it was thematically interested in ideas of “excess” so I could appreciate the form/content blend – just… too much.)

I should end by saying I didn’t hate all of it. Having played “Industry: The New Zealand Game” on the instance of N. I was familiar with the history of the gold rush and so I enjoyed feeling like a reader-in-the-know (clearly I should have been familiar with this history as a Person Living in the World, but my sense of world history and geography is patchy and for this I am sorry). I enjoyed the mood of the book – I was persuaded by the ill-omens and the murky murk that nothing good was going to happen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bestseller, Prize Winner, Worst Books

Lost Girls: Ice Cold

Rating: If you’re so inclined, or you shouldn’t

I love thrillers and police procedurals. So much. Law and Order is a staple in my life – feeling anxious? watch the predictable unfolding of 44 minutes. With Andrew Pyper’s *Lost Girls” (see a few posts ago for his Demonologist) I wanted to be swept up and riveted by the book. The back cover made me hopeful. The early chapters even more so. But, like the Demonologist, the premise and the opening salvo left so much to be desired.

In reading the acknowledgements (aside: I *love* the acknowledgements in novels. I wish they were longer – see Dave Eggers’ acknowledgements in AHWOSG for a good model – just kidding, but not really) I noticed that Pyper had previously published sections of the novel in journals. I suspect (because the book makes me a detective?) that the few chapters at the beginning – briefly returned later in the novel – focused on the young kids at the lake was a brilliantly written and published short story. But the rest of the novel that tries to take this exceptional opening premise and extend it is just… not good. 

The suspense isn’t suspenseful. I don’t care about our protagonist. I don’t believe his fear. Even if I did, I don’t care whether he’s scared. The unbelievable elements – ghost woman at the lake who steals children – is introduced as a ghost story within the narrative, not as something compelling or real in her own right. As a result the story-within-a-story that lacks the thematic depth that you might expect from a story-within-a-story and instead serves a simple plot purpose: to introduce the complicating “ghostly” element of the murder mystery. It’s a weak way to introduce this element and that the rest of the plot is premised on this weak element means that well… the rest of the plot is similarly shoddy.

So no, I won’t read anymore Andrew Pyper. Even if all the Canadian presses keep telling me he’s all that. I get it. He’s got some great components, and I’m guessing he’s a brilliant short story writer. But going 0-2 makes me less willing to climb on board again.

Leave a comment

Filed under Book I'll Forget I Read, Canadian Literature, Fiction, Worst Books

I Am Charlotte Simmons: Lost Potential

                   This book is meant to be both a character study (as the title suggests) and social commentary on the state of higher education. In both tasks it fails.

I read Tom Wolfe’s *I am Charlotte Simmons* because of a call-for-papers from a journal looking for articles about higher education written by humanities scholars. The scholarship of teaching and learning (my general academic field these days) is dominated by social scientists and their methodologies, and so I was excited by the call because it signaled a space for my training and as impetus for me to “investigate” novels about higher education. 

There are fewer such novels than I imagined (name some, if you can). I remember hearing about Wolfe’s novel when it first came out either in a print review of a radio interview, I can’t remember. What excited me at the time was the idea that the changing nature of higher education was being explored from “within” as Wolfe reported spending months of time *at* American institutions embedded in the student population to get a sense both of the language of students and of their motivations.

The portrait he paints is one of universities gone sour: spoiled by a neoliberal agenda out to make a profit from education, tainted by students more interested in employment outcomes and sex than lifelong learning and the continued social stratification (more pronounced in the American system) of students based on income (rather than, as our protagonist had hoped, based on scholastic ability or ambition).

While this portrait has all the promise of a rich expose, it falls apart as Wolfe seems utterly preoccupied with sex and its details. Scenes of lost virginity, oral sex in public places, lewd behaviour and dress could have contributed to a sense of disturbance or moral debauchery, but as these scenes are void of round characters – and characters are instead rendered as animals – the poignancy of the critique is lost as the characters, made caricatures, are so removed from the readers experience or the fullness of a human character as to be yet more tedious pornographic scenes rather than rich critique. 

Interesting stuff, sure, but so poorly executed *as a novel*. Charlotte, our protagonist, is insufferable. We’re meant (I suspect) to root for her as she overcomes social isolation and puritan prudishness and ambitiously climbs the social ladder at the expense of her prodigious genius and scholarly dedication. I didn’t root for her. Instead I much wished she’d return to late night studying and embracing her inner/outer geek/loser. Not for any reason of wishing her ill, in fact I don’t care about her as a character enough to wish her ill or otherwise, but rather because as a late night studier Wolfe seemed to have a much better sense of her thoughts, feelings and reactions. Which is to say, Wolfe utterly fails in developing this character – she doesn’t adjust her thinking/reactions/feelings as her outward experiences shift (as any character would, even if the adjustment was just a retrenchment of existing thoughts/feelings). Instead we’re left with the same character who began the book only we’re told in didactic moments of third person narration that she *has* changed, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Couple this mystifying inability to develop character in a book purportedly focused on character with a tedious 700 pages and you have a tiresome exploration of what could have been an insightful critique of the neoliberal university. Perhaps that’s my overall complaint – the lost potential in this book. Not the lost potential of Charlotte – because really *who cares* – but the lost potential of a novel exploring the state of higher education. I suppose I’ll just have to write one.

Leave a comment

Filed under American literature, Fiction, Worst Books

The Hundred Year Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared: TERRIBLE

I tried for THREE WEEKS to read *The Hundred Year Old Man Who Fell Out the Window and Disappeared* and while I got 150 pages into the text I couldn’t finish it. It was just so useless. The plot – a 100 year old man (Alan) flees his nursing home, steals a suitcase full of millions of dollars, and is pursued by the millions owners. Meanwhile (in the style of a 4 year old picture book) Alan pick up characters along the way creating a menagerie of misfits. Recipe for humour maybe, but in this case a recipe for annoyance and boredom. Interspersed with the chapters of Alan and misfits we have episodes of Alan’s life – like Forrest Gump we have him show up in the major historical moments of the last century. Not only is this implausible but the plotting makes Alan nothing more than a game piece without his own character depth, development or interest.

It all combined to a be a book where nothing much seemed to happen, waiting for the plot to get going was too much. I stopped reading it. And I’m not apologizing for it. Even though this book came recommended from J. and usually she gets it bang on. And this was just The Worst. Sorry J. 

3 Comments

Filed under Worst Books