Tag Archives: American literature

The Truth According to Us: Why Second Novels Suck

The summer of 2008 was a magical book summer for me (stay tuned for my next post on ‘what I’m reading this summer and what you should read’). I read a series of incredible novels, in some cases staying up all night to finish them. Such was the case with Annie Barrow’s first novel, The Gurnsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (a title that belies the brilliance of the story and makes it difficult to recommend to others because of the constant fumbling about for the proper order of words). I devoured it; I cried in earnest at the ending; I recommended it to others.

So imagine my delight in seeing Annie Barrow’s has a new novel: The Truth According to Us. I signed up for an Advance Review Copy and put aside other books on my to-read list to read it. I filled the bath, poured my wine. Veritably rubbing my hands with excitement.  I anticipated an immersive world full of rich characters and affecting themes. I hoped for the terrific realist American fiction focused on small town life that one finds in Songs in Ordinary Times or Empire Falls or anything by my beloved favourite, Anne Tyler.

Instead I got an interminably dull plot, with unbelievable, unsympathetic, uncomplicated characters, set in the necessarily arid and characteristically tired moment of Depression era, midwestern America. If I had only one word to describe this novel it would be “dust.”  The supposed point of conflict centers around a high-class woman, Layla, who is sent to Macedonia, the outpost of the midwest, to write the chronicle of the town. Layla boards with the once-wealthy-now-rocked-by-scandal-and-poverty Romeyn family and finds herself “embroiled” (I use quotes as embroiled suggests some level of urgency or intrigue, which are decidedly lacking from this plot) in their history. There’s some attempt to raise questions about truth-telling and historiography. The gist? History (capital H) is shaped by those telling it.

This book was the first time in recent memory I’ve properly considered a) throwing a book at a wall b) buying an e-reader (this 400+ tomb -dustdustdust- was my unfortunate and only travel companion on a cross-country trip – I even considered buying a magazine to save myself the horror of being stuck with this thing on the plane).

So what went wrong? You might be expecting some grand theory on the fate of second books (as my click-bait title suggested). Instead I pose this: The Gurnsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society was co-authored. A collaboration between Barrows and Mary Ann Shaffer. It was brilliant. This second, solo effort? Not so much.

Here’s hoping for better luck with my summer reading list. Which brings me to: what do you want me to read this summer? I promise to read the first three suggestions, and consider all others. (note: I put this call out last summer and read all that was recommended!)

1 Comment

Filed under American literature, Book I'll Forget I Read, Fiction, Worst Books

Dear Committee Members: Drop out of University and Get a Job Alreadyear

If only it was as funny to be a part of the dying university as it is to read about the death in Julie Schumacher’s Dear Committee Members. A lot of my job can be likened to the orchestra aboard the sinking Titanic. Rather than changing the conditions – fixing the massive hole in the hull – my job is to distract and soothe (entertain?), but without drawing too much attention to the need for distraction.

Dear Committee Members is a distraction trying very hard to draw attention to the flooding lower decks. An one-side epistolary novel, the story is the whip smart satire of the contemporary university (in particular the Humanities) attempting (badly) to grapple with declining funding, increased enrollments, ‘job-ready skills’ and the promised-not-yet-delivered panacea of technology. Taking about two hours to read, the book is the fastest way you can get a sense of what it’s like to be a humanities PhD in 2015: hilarious(ly heartbreaking/dream-crushing).

The book skewers the disparity within the university between high-profile/high-budget programs and those lesser cousins, takes on the nepotism that undergirds hiring (and tenure) processes and questions the purpose of the university as either job-skills or big ideas (and the validity of the binary itself), by marshalling forth the glut of reference letters a single professor in the creative writing program at a middling university must write over the course of one year. The letters are funny. Very funny. Funny because they show the extent of the damage and the absurdity of a single professor scooping water with a paper cup. And yet scoop he must.

I’m not sure the novel has yet committed to the need to get on the lifeboats; it holds hope for the future of the university. And because we all know I’m secretly an optimist (not a secret), and that I have a yet unshakeable (if probably pathological) belief in the university, I loved the steadfast resolve that concludes the novel. And I love the idea that satire can push us to improve, to ask us whether students might not only deserve something better, but actually get something better. So read it. Then get out and get involved with federal (provincial and local) politics. There’s an election coming and I’d rather not have to swim.

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiction, Funny

The Privileges: Life is easier with money. And other things you already knew.

At one point in my matriculation I had ambition to be an Americanist. I had a giant crush on the writing of Dave Eggers and Jonathan Franzen (which is to say a big crush on justifiably self-confident men/writers) and I thought I could spend all my time reading great big books about American life (as N. well knows, this ambition was short lived and I have since refused on numerous occasions the (allegedly) siren call of David Foster Wallace, Don Delillo and Thomas Pynchon). If memory serves I was mostly preoccupied with the representation of the American family.

Had I read Jonathan Dee’s The Privileges (or had it been available yet – it was published in 2010) I’d probably have added it to my list of novels preoccupied with the American family, the American dream, American life. The jist? The American dream lives! Sort of. True love exists! Sort of.  Here’s the plot: novel open with Adam and Cynthia getting married. Their marriage is funded by Cynthia’s step father (her real father being something of a cipher). They have little money, but much ambition, much sense of entitlement for something more. Chapter close. New chapter opens several years later (consistent leaps of time allow for dramatic changes in circumstance in this novel) with Adam working at a hedge fund and Cynthia at home with two small children – April and Jonah. Cynthia isn’t fond of being a full-time parent. Adam figures out that by insider trading he can make a lot of money. And nobody gets hurt, right? Chapter close. New chapter opens several years later when Adam has – after stealing via insider trading – made heaps of money and opened his own hedge fund. Children want for nothing and are maybe getting a bit snobby as a result. Cynthia remains bored. All that they have is deserved. Chapter close. Several years later. Family wealth now rivals that of a small country. Cynthia has opened a charity. The children suffer from ‘lack of authentic experience.’ I keep waiting for someone to either go to jail or be cannibalized.

As I write this I realize that I didn’t really like the book. I thought I did. I enjoyed reading it because it’s lush. For the same reasons I like watching movies where no one wants for anything, everyone looks polished and fashionable, the houses have the latest technology and sleek design. Because it’s the life the dream promises and makes it out like everyone can have so easily (just put it on the credit card, right? because you’re entitled to that life and if you don’t have the money for it now you will in a few months). The book knows it’s being lush. It purposefully trying to send up and explore  this idea of entitlement (how much more transparent can this attention get than the title). I guess I just felt that the novel got a bit distracted by itself:  the flash of well coiffed women distracted from its own critique. The gloss from the substance.

Speaking of well coiffed women: another similarity with Franzen, the women in this novel are wooden and flat. With ample opportunity for character development – these characters do not lack for conflict-driven-change – both mother and daughter read as predictable and lacking in nuance.

So… where do I land? It’s a pleasure to read in a sort of aspirational I too want to be wealthy enough to buy a pony while also pleasurable for the disdain we (masses) can hold the rich that sort of privilege is disgustingly self-indulgent (even in charity – a thread the novel readily picks up). But when you stop to look beneath the gloss, examine beyond the flash, we find… it’s not that great.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ghost Light: How to get out of paying your taxes

Lydia Millet’s Ghost Lights is so great. It’s funny, dark, complex. It’s a fast read. It takes on the complicated and fraught questions like what agency do we have as individuals? what are our responsibilities to our children and spouses? how do we make sense of tragedy?

*Minor spoilers to come (as in all this gets revealed in the first 40 pages*

You want more context? Sure.The book folks Hal, the IRS tax-guy, as he figures out what his life means in the present and what parts of that life he can control. Hal’s wife is cheating on him. His daughter, paralyzed after a car accident, makes her living as a phone sex… what’s the noun? operator? When Hal’s wife boss Thomas Stern (who prefers to go by T. – a choice he’s made, but can’t control sensing a theme here) goes missing in Belize, Hal decides to go and find him. After years of feeling and acting tethered to the loss of the life that could have been have been (had Casey not been paralyzed), Hal throws himself into the present. Realizes that there’s not much he can properly control. Realizes “he should not think too much. As a rule he set too much store by thinking. Or at least, complacent in the knowledge that thought was the most useful tool available to men – and one so often neglected by his fellow Americans – he relied on it to the exclusion of other ways of filtering information. Thought was the act of conscious cognition but there were alternative processes of the mind that could work around or alongside it” (77).

It’s a novel that looks at what happens when you radically shift your approach to decision making – and realize that you still can’t control anything and that ‘choice’ is entirely dependent on circumstance. Into this realization comes Hal (no accident then that Hal works for the IRS: the only things you can’t avoid in life being death and taxes) who in his effort to do something (rescue Stern, have an affair) proves the limits of choice and action: he spends good chunks of the plot passed out from drinking and having his life happen to him.

So what can you choose? What can you decide? Probably only that you should read this book. Probably not even that.

Stern has gone AWOL from running his fancy-pants company and making bazillions of dollars.

Leave a comment

Filed under American literature, Bestseller, Prize Winner