I'm liking Ron Charles more and more and more, and
this video review of Jonathan Franzen's Freedom makes just makes me giddy.
Over at Critical Mass, the blog for the NBCC, Wyatt Mason
writes about Roth's "tenth, short, and perfect novel, The Ghost Writer." I agree with Mason; this is one great novel, and a great place to start if you're looking to get to know Roth. Here is
my review. It wasn't my first Roth, but it is the book that made him one of my favorite writers of all time (if not my favorite).
This promises to get interesting. Anis Shivani of
The Huffington Post has posted his list of the
fifteen most overrated contemporary American authors. As usual, he makes some great points. Often when I see these, though, I think, "Okay, so they are bad. Now, tell me who is good -- and why the difference." Shivani promises to follow-up with the most
underrated contemporary American writers. Followed with similar lists for American writers of the past century, and going further to include lists for the global writers.
Patricia Zohn interviews Jennifer Egan at
The Huffington Post. I still think
A Visit from the Goon Squad is one of the best books of the year.
New York Magazine has a nice
look at independent bookstores in the City, which are rising "against all odds."
At Reading Matters, Kim has featured my blog on her
Triple Choice Tuesday. My choices?
The Ghost Writer,
So Long, See You Tomorrow, and
Butcher's Crossing. Pop on over and see my fresh, brief write-up of each title.
For Independence Day, the Huffington Post has a slide show of
fifteen great independent publishers, featuring a few of my favorites --
Open Letter,
Archipelago -- and a few I didn't know about.
New Directions is a model of perfection, and I agree. I have stacks and stacks of books from these three presses, and I'm anxious to see what the others have to offer.
Michiko Kakutani's
review of Jacob de Zoet is surprising in its lack of substance. It's mostly just a plot rehash (which I think gives away a bit too much). It's boring to read and insightless, where I usually enjoy her reviews even if I disagree (as I do here). I'm not saying my reviews are better, surely, but this is pretty poor for
The New York Times daily and from a Pulitzer-winning critic.
In the new issue of
The New Yorker, James Wood
takes a look at The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet: "This is to argue not that David Mitchell should be more like Tolstoy or Conrad or Beckett but, curiously, that he might be more Mitchellian—that the reader wants a kind of moral or metaphysical pressure that is absent, and that has ceded all the ground to pure storytelling."
The Paris Review blog has a
Q&A with Jennifer Egan, author of
The Goon Squad, a piece of which was published in
The New Yorker and discussed
here.
Click
here for the
Never Let Me Go trailer. I didn't like the book as much as I hoped I would, but the trailer makes the film look good.
____________________________
Click here to see what's happening in the fiction of each issue of The New Yorker.
Last Five Issues:
____________________________
And yet I have found no one who has read Home who has liked. Many cannot finish it. I am very disappointed.
Ahh, you’re looking in the wrong places then, Candy. I have read many reviews of it that are very positive. Several who read the whole Orange Prize shortlist put it at the top of their list. And I know at least one person who read and didn’t like Gilead but loved Home, showing that you don’t need to like one to enjoy the other. Not saying there aren’t those I respect who didn’t enjoy it, but I have found them to be the minority.
Candy: Check out Lizzy’s Literary Life review (her site is on the blogroll) for someone who really liked it. In fact, Lizzy did an online shadow jury of six of us today and it was an even split between Home and Burnt Shadows (interestingly, the two books were at the top and bottom of almost everyone’s list — it was just that some lists seemed to be upside down, if you get what I mean). From some of your observations on other books, I think you might actually like this one. I didn’t (too much religion for this non-believer) but I did finish the book and it is very, very well-written. You’ll find my thoughts on the National Book Award posting here — I didn’t express an opinion much beyond saying that it was obviously a book not written for people like me.
I’m a nonbeliever too though, Kevin, and I loved Home. I had more exposure to religion as a youngster though, probably. This had less of a religious element than Gilead, and more happened that I was interested in. It’s interesting that Lizzy loved Home without having read Gilead – as you know, I wasn’t sure if that would work; glad it did.
I did know that Colette and also how much you liked the book. I think the reason that I couldn’t engage with it was that the continuing debate between Jack and his father not only had no meaning for me, it rankled beyond annoyance because Jack becomes such an empty, manipulated character. Glory’s situation is quite a bit more interesting — and I think better developed — but it didn’t overcome my feeling that I was being manipulated by the other part of the book. Obviously, others did not feel the way that I did.
I have a visceral hatred of religion and religious books so no I have no intention of reading this. I can’t wait to get to Burnt Shadows however. I submit that there are always two groups with any book although not always black and white. That seems to be the case with Home. I am well away into The Wilderness and think it is fantastic.
If you want to avoid religion but still get a sense for Robinson’s skill, Candy, I highly recommend Housekeeping. It won the PEN/Hemingway when it came out (and was a finalist for the Pulitzer), and it doesn’t have any religious overtones like Gilead or Home. There is Biblical imagery, like flooding and such, but I don’t see how someone can read literature and not get many doses of that.
True. I’ll keep Housekeeping in mind. Thanks.
Hm, I don’t mind books which have religion in them at all, especially when they show how flawed it is, as most do. I didn’t care for Gilead but there is one thing I really liked about it, and that is how wrong Ames was about Jack. He held a bias that was untrue, and no amount of praying and godliness was going to change that. Only listening to Jack could do that, which he eventually does.
Similarly, in Home, Jack’s father is flawed in his reasoning. He thinks he’s being a good, compassionate man trying to accept Jack, but he doesn’t really accept him, does he? He feels superior, the thing about some religious people that really rankles with me. Glory is such a good friend to Jack because she does not feel superior, and in a strange way I think she looks up to Jack. The building of the siblings’ friendship was beautifully told.
Kevin, it’s interesting that you saw Jack becoming an empty character, whereas I would say that’s how the father developed. Jack showed more compassion in looking after his father than perhaps his racist and bigotted father deserved.
Candy, would you avoid Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit by Jeanette Winterson? I read it recently and I have not laughed so hard at a book since Owen Meany.
Personally I was a bit disappointed with Home after I loved Gilead so much. I found it more “ordinary”, and Jack remains a frustrating mystery.
I plan to reread it some time though, because I might have been in the wrong mood for it.
Colette: You are right — “empty” is probably the wrong word. I agree with your assessment of the relationship between father and son and the latent superiority the father both feels and shows. My frustration with Jack as a character was that he just accepted that definition of the state of play.
See Trevor, you probably should have read the book sooner and we wouldn’t be spoiling it for you with all these obscure discussions. I haven’t read Gilead but I do seem to notice that those who have read both showed a marked preference for one or the other. Once you have read Home I will be looking for an explanation of why this is so.
Ah, now I understand your frustration with Jack and I had forgotten that you hadn’t read Gilead, Kevin. Unfortunately, I think you have to get all the way through Gilead to understand Jack, even though Robinson says it should stand alone, and certainly some people loved Home without having read Gilead, e.g. Lizzy Siddal. I note that she didn’t have any sympathy or empathy for Jack, and I think that’s what you lose by only reading Home.
I am going to accept your point and I am still not going to read Gilead. I do intend to read Housekeeping, since I am intrigued by Trevor’s insight that the title is actually subtle reflection of American law.
I’ve been only slightly paying attention to the Home discussion as I plan to read it. When I do though, Kevin, I’ll try to figure out which I like better and why that might be so.
As for Housekeeping being a subtle reflection of American law, that might be more of a suggestion than an insight. I couldn’t believe how many zoning ordinances, primarily meant to keep a certain traditional type of family in an area, reference “housekeeping” as a term that somehow encompasses that. The book does contain the literal and metaphoric meanings of “housekeeping,” but it also deals with family law (always in the background) and unconventional families.
I’d love to know if this was intentional or if it’s just a nice coincidence that made the book come together for me in a different way than it would for other people. Does anyone know Marilynne Robinson’s Twitter account??
Argh, another person who hasn’t read Home! I blogged on it anyway – thinking readers might help me out but now I think I might be in trouble!! I’d be interested in your thoughts on Gilead if you have time though! Vicki
Hi Vicki, you can find my intial thoughts on Gilead here. I will be reading Home but I don’t know when yet. I still don’t have it, so I’ll probably at this point wait until it’s out in paperback. It’ll come up here, though!
I adored Gilead. Home is Gilead from another perspective but I didn’t enjoy it as much. Just seemed to be endless days of not much happening, yes, life is like that, but it doesn’t always make for a great read. It fills some of the gaps from Gilead, though.