5 posts tagged “fiction”
This was my first Pynchon book. I have always heard lots of great things about this author, so I was eager to read it. Now, I just don't know what to say about it.
A story about covert postmen? They were organized and stealthy...like a cross between organized crime and martial arts experts. Maybe they were mobster-ninja mailmen? Oh, and of course, they were British.
If this makes little sense, this is sort of the way the book was written. One rambling, coincidental scenario and story after another.
It was interestingly far-fetched, and the style matched what he was trying to say about life. Although it did keep the characters at a distance--probably more commentary about life though.
It was also nice to see a woman at the forefront of a detective story. Not so crazy about the fact that she was also a bit flighty, emotional, and even hysterical at times.
So, imagine Play It As It Lays (it's California, it's drugs, it's the 60s) but with more a sense of humor and then set it in a noir background and you might start to get a sense of this book.
Also, I could not help but think about the ending to Eyes Wide Shut. That might sound strange, but both are about secret societies and leave the main character wondering if anything that happened was actually real.
A story about covert postmen? They were organized and stealthy...like a cross between organized crime and martial arts experts. Maybe they were mobster-ninja mailmen? Oh, and of course, they were British.
If this makes little sense, this is sort of the way the book was written. One rambling, coincidental scenario and story after another.
It was interestingly far-fetched, and the style matched what he was trying to say about life. Although it did keep the characters at a distance--probably more commentary about life though.
It was also nice to see a woman at the forefront of a detective story. Not so crazy about the fact that she was also a bit flighty, emotional, and even hysterical at times.
So, imagine Play It As It Lays (it's California, it's drugs, it's the 60s) but with more a sense of humor and then set it in a noir background and you might start to get a sense of this book.
Also, I could not help but think about the ending to Eyes Wide Shut. That might sound strange, but both are about secret societies and leave the main character wondering if anything that happened was actually real.
In college I was taking a philosophy class and happened to watch the movie Trigger Effect. It's not a memorable movie but it stunned me because I was absorbed in trying to understand Hobbes's State of Nature. Suddenly it all made sense. I wonder if some student out there is having the same experience with this book. (The Road is vastly superior to Trigger Effect in case you're wondering.)
But the fact that society is based on two things: people and trust--that's the same message in all three. Of course, that led to all kinds of thoughts about how I live in a place with three main rules: never admit you're wrong, take as much as you can from everyone in every situation, and patience is a vice. And I wondered just how close Connecticut is to full on cannibalism.
OK, my personal nightmares aside, I did find this book haunting. I have been thinking about things--birds and food and aspirin and the general point of life--for days now in a new light.
But the ending...I don't think this book could have an adequate end. There's no point if the characters die, right? And if everything works out in the end it's just a cheesy cliche. I think the author did the best he could in light of this horrible corner he painted himself into, but the ending just didn't quite work for me.
But the fact that society is based on two things: people and trust--that's the same message in all three. Of course, that led to all kinds of thoughts about how I live in a place with three main rules: never admit you're wrong, take as much as you can from everyone in every situation, and patience is a vice. And I wondered just how close Connecticut is to full on cannibalism.
OK, my personal nightmares aside, I did find this book haunting. I have been thinking about things--birds and food and aspirin and the general point of life--for days now in a new light.
But the ending...I don't think this book could have an adequate end. There's no point if the characters die, right? And if everything works out in the end it's just a cheesy cliche. I think the author did the best he could in light of this horrible corner he painted himself into, but the ending just didn't quite work for me.
Saying this book was pretentious would be easy. In fact, it probably is the most pretentious thing I've ever read. But leaving it at that is not the whole story.
Why is it pretentious? There is little description of place or people. Time switches between around 1700 and 2000, (making it difficult to understand what is happening in the beginning). Dialogue happens without an explanation of who is saying what. And the characters in the 1700s are using rural English slang of the time, something few are probably familar with.
Why it is interesting in spite of those things? Thursbitch is a real place in England. It has a strange past and a cryptic stone was once erected there in memory of one of its residents. The author seems somewhat obsessed with the area's history and only talks about the place's "secret" to other academics.
This book is what House of Leaves wishes it was. Whereas House of Leaves is hollow at the end because the "secret" is just made up, this story really is shrouded in some kind of mystery.
And I also happen to be a sucker for anything that involves the concept of time. The time anomalies and symbolism in this book are really well done.
If nothing else, this book made me aware of a place that would one day be very interesting to visit.
Why is it pretentious? There is little description of place or people. Time switches between around 1700 and 2000, (making it difficult to understand what is happening in the beginning). Dialogue happens without an explanation of who is saying what. And the characters in the 1700s are using rural English slang of the time, something few are probably familar with.
Why it is interesting in spite of those things? Thursbitch is a real place in England. It has a strange past and a cryptic stone was once erected there in memory of one of its residents. The author seems somewhat obsessed with the area's history and only talks about the place's "secret" to other academics.
This book is what House of Leaves wishes it was. Whereas House of Leaves is hollow at the end because the "secret" is just made up, this story really is shrouded in some kind of mystery.
And I also happen to be a sucker for anything that involves the concept of time. The time anomalies and symbolism in this book are really well done.
If nothing else, this book made me aware of a place that would one day be very interesting to visit.
Instead of reading the next book on my list I read Story of the Eye. It's on the 1001 book list and only a hundred pages. My main impetus was to read something quick.
I can definitely see why people were shocked back in 1928.
One thing struck me. I have never heard of a murderous egg fetish.
The rest of it was just unpleasant--rape, insanity, blasphemy, murder, golden showers, suicide--but not indescribable.
The egg thing. That's unique. Sick, but unique.
I can definitely see why people were shocked back in 1928.
One thing struck me. I have never heard of a murderous egg fetish.
The rest of it was just unpleasant--rape, insanity, blasphemy, murder, golden showers, suicide--but not indescribable.
The egg thing. That's unique. Sick, but unique.
Anyone who has heard about House of Leaves has probably also heard it described as "the scariest book ever written" or "so freaky I couldn't finish it" or "I have a hard time living in my own house now." I have been quite intrigued for some time.
First, I would say for its form this book definitely deserves to be in the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die book. Part of the rationale for the list is to map the evolution of the novel's form through time. Sometimes it is hard to discern why a novel fits that definition, but not for House of Leaves. And if you are at all interested in the history and/or structure of the novel, I could not recommend this book more highly.
In some way the format is more like a film than a book. If a character enters a small space the words decrease. If he falls, so do the letters. It's a bit daunting, and some have called it annoying, but it plays with the novel's form in a way that is reminiscent of a poetry.
Second, it is a story within a story within a story within a story. That format is very well thought out.
Third, the whole thing is based on a false document based on a false film based on a false event. It is sophisticated and yet profoundly simple--alternating between textbook format and journal-like entries.
There are at least a half a dozen themes running through the book. One I found particularly interesting was art (namely writing, photography, and film) and insanity. Everyone in the book who could be called an artist meets a bad end. Writing, in particular, seems to be linked to insanity and/or death.
The form of the book may be innovative (and for me it was worth it just for the retelling of the Minotaur myth) but others might want more out of a 700 page book. Here's the specific problems. For one thing it is wholly unbelievable. Forget that it is fanciful. No one could believe the characters would ever really make these choices if they had been real people. Also, the book is self-conscious. It is difficult to suspend disbelief while reading. The pacing is uneven, and the ending is unimaginative. Finally, it's not the "scariest book ever written." In fact, I have no idea how anyone could possibly find this book remotely upsetting. To me, that's the biggest mystery of all.
First, I would say for its form this book definitely deserves to be in the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die book. Part of the rationale for the list is to map the evolution of the novel's form through time. Sometimes it is hard to discern why a novel fits that definition, but not for House of Leaves. And if you are at all interested in the history and/or structure of the novel, I could not recommend this book more highly.
In some way the format is more like a film than a book. If a character enters a small space the words decrease. If he falls, so do the letters. It's a bit daunting, and some have called it annoying, but it plays with the novel's form in a way that is reminiscent of a poetry.
Second, it is a story within a story within a story within a story. That format is very well thought out.
Third, the whole thing is based on a false document based on a false film based on a false event. It is sophisticated and yet profoundly simple--alternating between textbook format and journal-like entries.
There are at least a half a dozen themes running through the book. One I found particularly interesting was art (namely writing, photography, and film) and insanity. Everyone in the book who could be called an artist meets a bad end. Writing, in particular, seems to be linked to insanity and/or death.
The form of the book may be innovative (and for me it was worth it just for the retelling of the Minotaur myth) but others might want more out of a 700 page book. Here's the specific problems. For one thing it is wholly unbelievable. Forget that it is fanciful. No one could believe the characters would ever really make these choices if they had been real people. Also, the book is self-conscious. It is difficult to suspend disbelief while reading. The pacing is uneven, and the ending is unimaginative. Finally, it's not the "scariest book ever written." In fact, I have no idea how anyone could possibly find this book remotely upsetting. To me, that's the biggest mystery of all.
