There has been a lot of controversy and online discussion of the book, though much of it seems to be from people who haven't read it, or who read it with their minds already made up. Whatever else - I read every word, with an open mind, and would encourage others to do the same.
Short version: I enjoyed many things about it, and had different criticisms from others...
I have done posts on other books in this series - see here.
What a thoughtful, interesting review, Moira. The points you make (the editing, the misogyny, etc.) are well-thought-out discussions of the story itself, rather than the controversy around the book (and its author!). It will be interesting to see where she goes next with these characters.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words Margot. It's a very hot topic at the moment and I tried very hard to be fair-minded in my review, so I appreciate your comments!
Delete"There has been a lot of controversy and online discussion of the book, though much of it seems to be from people who haven't read it, or who read it with their minds already made up."
ReplyDeleteAs Sydney Smith said: "I never read a book before reviewing it. it prejudices a man so"
"Whatever else - I read every word, with an open mind, and would encourage others to do the same."
You would encourage readers to read every word of a book with more than a thousand pages by - at best - a third-rate writer? Unless you were astonishingly well-paid, doing that was beyond your duty as a reviewer.
Oh dear, this made me laugh, you caught me out in sloppy wording: I meant 'only critique the book if you have read it', only so as to remove a huge amount of the discussion. I wasn't really suggesting everybody reads it. Fair cop!
DeleteHow I wish I could tell you that I was astonishingly well-paid.
I've never known whether to envy or feel sorry for book reviewers: getting paid to read books, or getting paid to read books, whether they want to read them or not and whether they're worth reading or not, and then saying something about them, when most books are "neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot... because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth". (It's interesting that when I looked for the exact quotation, I found my mind had bowdlerised "spue" to "spit".)
DeleteThe dramatic critic James Agate maintained that falling asleep was a valid criticism. I can't imagine book reviewers getting away with it.
Have you ever read a strange book called "Fire the Bastards!" by Jacj Green? It's about reviewers' response to a very good and very odd 1000-page novel, "The Recognitions" by Willaim Gaddis. Most reviewers responded the way someone fishing for herrings would if they found they'd caught Moby Dick - complete panic and incomprehension. Evelyn Waugh's father Arthur is only remembered - apart from having the bad luck to be Evelyn Waugh's father - because he had the bad luck to review "The Waste Land".
When I started books blogging, eventually I realized that I could get most books I wanted from publishers, free and in advance of publication. The sad thing is that there was a time when this seemed like the best thing ever, but then astonishingly quickly I was being sent lots of books I didn't want and getting annoyed at MORE parcels. Be careful what you wish for. But basically I think I used to worry about careers and the kind of writing I was doing, but now I am theoretically being paid to lie on the sofa reading books and that seems like an excellent way to finish off.
DeleteI have read The Recognitions, and also JR, though can't say I got on that well with them - but have never heard of the meta-book, it sounds intriguing. I fear I would have been one of his targets!
I once knew someone who was a judge for a major literary prize. I was looking at the huge pile of books in their house and they said 'Oh look, why don't you take a stack of them, you read really fast, and only give them back to me if you think they might be in the running.' I am trying to anonymize this as far as possible, and will not say What Happened Next.
I would gladly give ten shillings to know what Arthur Waugh said about The Waste Land.
Your money's safe! It was "Prufrock" Waugh reviewed: "It was a classic custom in the family hall, when the feast was at its height, to display a drunken slave among the sons of the household, to the end that they, being ashamed at the ignominious folly of his gesticulations, might determine never to be tempted into such a pitiable condition themselves. The custom had its advantages; for the wisdom of the younger generation was found to be fostered more surely by a single example than by a world of homily and precept."
DeleteI think JR is a wonderful book, a masterpiece of construction and one of the classics of misanthropy. A friend said it was like putting the head of W.C. Fields on Mount Rushmore.
As to What Happened Next, my own guess would be: either you said the eventual winner had no chance or none of the books you recommended were even considered. I remember a judge when Alasdair Gray's Lanark was in competition for the Booker who said later that it probably should have won but none of the judges could face reading it again.
Blimey Mr Waugh. He must have been so proud of that too.
DeleteMaybe I'll try JR again, though it is quite an undertaking.
Again, as anon as possible: there is a book that was up for a lit prize - notable biog, vol 2 was in the running - and one of the judges told me that of course none of them had read it, they all knew it had to get the prize as so respectable, so no need to read it, and it was long and full of boring political detaili. I wonder in multi-vol biogs (and frankly it seems to me there is never any need... ) can you predict which vol will be the most dull and plodding? The penultimate?
I've read JR all through about three times, but I often use it for a sortes Virgilianae and open it at random and follow the characters on their deranged way for a few pages.
DeletePolitical biographies are particularly tedious I think. It isn't a form I like - the recent biographies of Philip Larkin and Kingsley Amis took half the entertainment away from them and when you get a biography of a politician who is obliged to take themselves seriously...
I've just tried reading Michael Holroyd's biography of Bernard Shaw - even the abbreviated edition isn't abbreviated enough. Byron Rogers was lucky or wise enough to come on the right subjects and to keep to the right length but most of them just go on and on and...
I haven't read the Shaw, though in general I like Holroyd very much as a writer - I enjoyed his Lytton Strachey biog very much. Too respectful of Shaw? Byron Rogers obviously wonderful (and thank you again). I also like Claire Tomalin - she keeps it short and can make anyone interesting. Laura Thompson shocked me when I first read one of hers - she is very free with her comments on subject's lives, and will say 'Oh come on!' or 'don't do it'. When I was younger I thought biogs should be very literal and fact-based. But then they are so dull, and I eventually realized that I like Laura T saying 'What was she THINKING?' I also think that - as is sometimes the case - I know most of the relevant accepted facts, I'd rather read someone being opinionated than rehashing the same old same old.
DeleteDon't know Laura Thompson. I'll look out for her. I'm afraid Holroyd's biography of Strachey confirmed me in my dislike of Strachey.
DeleteOh I liked him, and was in a whole jag at one time of reading everything, the letters, the Diana Mitford connection, the Carrington story. I did absolutely love the film about Carrington in the 90s. (I'm just reading Alan Rickman's diaries to review them, and he obviously was offered a part and refused it - presumably Strachey, played by Jonathan Pryce).
DeleteYou have to be in the right mood for Laura Thompson, but I often am. She has written about Agatha Christie, the Mitfords, Lord Lucan (in which I am quoted in a footnote though as 'private interview' & you would be hard put to find me) and a generalized book about heiresses down the ages...
Well, I was inhaling all the Strike/Ellacott novels (although always wondering what on earth Robin saw in that waste of skin, Matthew--was that his name?) until I hit a wall with the 5th one. About 1/3 in, I felt like everyone was acting Too Stupid to Live. Maybe after nearly 2 years, I could pick it up and complete it, while waiting for #6 at the library.
ReplyDeleteOr not. You've read them all, Moira. Should I just read the plot description on Wiki and then skip to #6?
I don't think you NEED to have read it to be honest. And I am glad you felt the same about everybody doing stupid things. I know we get used to that in crime books, but it does seem to be excessive as this series wears on...
DeleteI read the first five Galbraiths marvelling at how good they were. I mean, Rowling created something unique and fantastic with the Harry Potter books, and somehow I thought that must have been a one-off, so I was astonished that she could write such good detective stories. (I read "The Casual Vacancy" as well, and while it was certainly not bad, I didn't feel that it was in any way brilliant.) And I didn't mind that the Galbraiths kept getting longer and longer; I still really liked "Troubled Blood" at 700 something pages. But this one? It was far too long in a way that just felt un-edited. (There were a handful of sentences that also felt un-edited.) All the on-line conversations obviously (which I mostly skipped) but also all the long conversations between Robin and Strike which went on and on...
ReplyDeleteBut what is really starting to bother me about these books is the way Rowling seems to take an almost sadistic pleasure in depicting annoying or downright nasty people and then punishing them by having them hurt or humiliated in one way or the other. Is this just me or does anyone else feel that there is something unpleasant about this?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Birgitta. I have similar struggles with the Galbraith books, and as it happens have just now finished the latest one, which I am reviewing - it is out shortly I think. There is so much to admire about Rowling's writing, that I think it's a shame it can get lost in too much extraneous detail. I think there is a lot of transcribed conversations which provide little info, and really should be edited. Is it that no-one dares suggest that to her?
DeleteAnd I totally agree - I am getting less and less happy about some of the violent and degrading events in the books.