Tag Archives: book club

The Fake: Not to be confused with The Fraud

Is it an accident that I’ve read two (great) books in as many months concerned with the stability of truth? Maybe. Probably more that I am so worried about ideas of reliability, trustworthiness, agreed upon Facts that I dwell only among books that share my anxiety.

In this – great – one by Zoe Whittall we follow Shelby and Gibson as they each meet and fall for (in different ways) Cammie, a spectacular con-artist who convinces them both of a series of escalating tragedies that have befallen her and why she needs their help. Eventually the lies unravel (so much to be carried by that metaphor) and Cammie is caugh out. Shelby insists none of it is her fault. That the lies upon lies owe to some kind of mental illness and that an intervention and support can help Cammie – perhaps, she speculates, Cammie is a narcissist and if she was only helped and better understood she could find her way back to the truth. Such hope proves misplaced, but still the reader is offered this explanation for harm. And while the book does – in its epilogue at least – point to the persistence of that harm – how Gibson can never properly trust again, how Shelby’s own mental health deteriorates following the dissolution of her friendship with Cammie – it doesn’t go quite as far as The Fraud in making the connection to our current moment of fractured relationship between what is said/read or seen and what is true.

Which is fine. It doesn’t have to be a novel about the end of shared facts. It can be – as it is – an excellent consideration of relationships, of how we grieve, and most importantly of who and how we trust.

If we imagine a future where we need to teach ourselves more intentionally how to tell what is true from what is declarative fiction the Fake would be high on my reading list. Oh, so yes, that time is now, so go on, read it.

1 Comment

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction

Tom Lake: A book to bury your nights

Ann Patchett’s Tom Lake sucked me up and spat me out a few days later. The sort of book you don’t notice you’re reading until hours later and you have turned prune in the tub or the clock is – traitorously – telling you its well past your very last possible bedtime. Which is strange because it’s not a book that’s “about” very much. Which is to say it isn’t very plot-y. It is instead a book about how we become, how events that once shook us fade into memories we can only loosely sketch the contours of later.

On its surface the story is that of Lara and how she was briefly an actor, briefly going to be a very famous actor, briefly the lover of an eventually very famous actor Peter Duke, briefly someone else. A story she is parcelling out for her adult daughters as they work the days of pandemic lockdowns on their (albeit occasionally-overly-pastoral-and-idealized even though it is supposed to be pastoral and idealized) family farm.

There’s a beautiful scene where Lara is explaining to her daughters why she doesn’t regret or question the decision (though it wasn’t really her decision and on every occasion where she’s offered the chance she still chooses Peter?) to leave Peter and be with their father, plainer-than-steady-reliable Joe. She explains it something like Peter is a carnival ride – wild, epic entertainment, but always going to leave you feeling sick and disoriented and so you’re relieved to get away. It’s mostly persuasive. The reader doesn’t question that Lara now – Lara of three grown children and an established farm – doubts anything about Joe. Their relationship reads as perfectly solid and deep (and probably overly pastoral and idealized). And still it’s surprising that this wild ride of Peter Duke can be so thoroughly – seemingly – parcelled as fond memory instead of what he is – a symbol for an alternate life she could have led, another path had only small changes happened or not.

It is, of course, the mirror to the reader – an invitation to cast back across the life to ask where these moments of rupture and decision have been and will be. Deliberate words there – rupture and decision – those moments that change is made for us and those where we (apparently) exercise some direction on what will come next.

So, too, the reader gets to reexamine for themselves the way in which the experience of cataclysmic event – a pandemic – becomes, necessarily, something we remember with distant curiosity: do you remember when we wiped all the cereal boxes with lysol wipes before the came into the house? As if we can forget the terror of uncertainty and interminability that accompanied that particular distorted time for the privileged (me) that experienced it from within my home.

For Lara the remembered story within the lockdown days of the ruptured change of her summer at Tom Lake offers us that promise and threat: it’s all change; none of this will last.

In that theme it is also a book of parenting and death: my favourites. Many scenes of her recollection of her daughters as small children with sticky hands – (let us agree this is an image that has Done Its Time and can be retired, even while yes, many toddlers do have sticky hands) and brutal awareness of their Full Adulthood, the way in which that ‘longest shortest time’ wrenches the parent in the repetition of the call to cherish it, to savour it, to hold on to it – as if we didn’t know, is if we weren’t constantly pressingly impossibly aware of how temporary and tender it is.

And how we will full circle to the graveyard that holds the generations of the family on the farm (but will it if Emily maintains that children shouldn’t be born into a world so fractured? And isn’t she right?) – so sacred in its promise of final redemption that Peter Duke pays untold dollars for the privilege of burial there – and the promise that all of them, all of us, meet there as what can we do but watch on double time the inevitability of the change.

Savour this one then and – certainly, as it was always certain – enjoy the end.

Leave a comment

Filed under American literature, Erin's Favourite Books, Fiction, Prize Winner

The Fraud: What, truth?

You can’t read Zadie Smith’s The Fraud in 2024 and not feel cold shudders of recognition for how easy it is to distort/create truth for an audience willing to believe – or disbelieve – anything so long as those fabricated facts meet their aims.

Set in the 19th century, historical fiction does its best work here by using the past to illuminate pressing truths of the present. The novel follows the infamous trial of a man claiming to be Sir Roger Tichborne – who had bee presumed dead at sea. The “Claimant” – despite being very obviously a butcher and not an aristocrat – continues to insist he is Sir Roger, and finds swelling numbers of supporters willing to accept his – clearly fabricated – claim to be the real Sir Roger. His supporters, like the Claimant, explain away the obvious and glaring inconsistencies by way of conspiracies against him by the press and others. You don’t have to squint too hard to see the connections to our Current Political Moment.

I guess that’s not really what the book is entirely about – it’s also about Eliza, who lives with her comically terrible author-cousin, William Ainsworth, and tries (albeit unsuccessfully) to edit his horrible books. In Ainsworth’s new wife – once his maid – Eliza debate the credulity of the Tichborne trial and in doing dramatizes the fundamental crisis of our moment: We cannot agree on basic facts of reality. In Eliza’s rational understanding she knows and believes the Claimant to be utter nonsense, but finds herself wanting to trust the absurd possibility that he could, indeed, be Tichborne.

As the reader-surrogate, while Eliza debates within herself the possibility of the utterly implausible (as well as in the morality of taking money she knows to be earned through slavery; and of the ethics of letting Ainsworth continue to believe he is a good writer when he is Definitely Not; and of the ease with which we might lie by omission when it comes to the border of love) we, too, are called to defend our conviction of what we believe True, and how far we are willing to go to bend that truth to accommodate the feelings of those we love.

1 Comment

Filed under American literature, Fiction, Prize Winner

The Invisible Life of Addie Le Rue: Improbable, Excessive Adjectives and Many Smoky Eyes

People on Goodreads really like V.E. Schwab’s The Invisible Life of Addie Le Rue and so do all the readers that kept it on the bestseller list for ages. I do not. Heretic!

Sure it has some of the vibes of The Time Travellers Wife (which against my better judgement I loved) and a little bit of The Shadow of the Wind in that the devil features alongside used bookshops, but despite these cousins in delightful bath reads, this one is a dud.

Following Addie Le Rue after she makes an ill-advised deal with the devil for “freedom” but finds herself cursed to live forever without ever being remembered by anyone (making it impossible to do all sorts of practical things like earn money or have an apartment or write things down – all these petty annoyances catalogued over hundreds of dull pages), the novel is something of a romance when Addie meets the also-cursed Henry and falls in love (Henry’s curse is for anyone who meets him to fall in love with him – which doesn’t sound so bad if you ask me). Then we have to spend several hundred pages attentive to whether Addie will find a way to convince the devil who BY THE WAY has become her lover over the past three hundred years (which doesn’t seem nearly long enough for the eternal being of the dark, but quibbles) to let Henry go.

No, the most annoying part? Like all these sorts of epics – let’s call The Hundred Year Old Man syndrome – Addie finds herself in altogether too many improbable historically significant moments and meeting altogether too many historically significant people. I mean she’s only three hundred years old. There aren’t that many wars and revolutions and discoveries and Moments in 300 years and yet she finds herself in the middle of all of them. Literally hanging out at the cafes with Voltaire and then watching Franz Ferdinand get shot – though strangely quiet all through the Depression.

I know this is not a book premised on being believable, and surely there has to be a way to keep a reader engaged through 300 borning years of history that are otherwise just her waiting for her annual date with the devil and for her eventual meeting with Henry. But – stick with me – let me suggest then that this would be much better rewritten as a short story, or maybe a 200 page novel with a couple of choice historical scenes. As it is… bloated and boring.

And this reader wanted to like it for its faintly feminist whisper at the outset of a 17th century woman not wanting to marry and have children. But the of course, we couldn’t have this be a Good Romance without having her give it all up three hundred years later for a man – with bewitching green eyes and rumpled bedsheets. GROSS. (not that I have anything against green eyes, per se, but you get what I mean).

Oh – final point of complaint. It is the kind of writing that finds the only way to describe something is to describe it with three adjectives – always. Like the air is always moist, dank and dreary. And Henry is always charming, witty and kind. Enough!

Leave a comment

Filed under Bestseller, Fiction, Worst Books