Review Index

Contact:

Email me at mookseandgripes [at] gmail [dot] com

Follow me @mookse

Transparency Statement

If the book reviewed was sent to me for free by the publisher, I have indicated as much in a caption under the book's cover image.

For a detailed explanation of my review policy, click here.

The New Yorker Fiction Forum

New Yorker Original Cover

Click here to see what's happening in the fiction of each issue of The New Yorker.

Last Five Issues: ____________________________

2012 Book Awards

  • National Book Critics Circle Award
    • Winner: Edith Pearlman's Binocular Vision
  • The Story Prize
  • PEN/Faulkner Award
    • Winner: Julie Otsuka's The Buddha in the Attic
  • Hemingway Foundation/PEN Award
    • Winner: Teju Cole: Open City
  • Pulitzer Prize
    • Winner: No award given
  • Best Translated Book Award
    • Winner: Wieslaw Mysliwski: Stone Upon Stone
  • Orange Prize
    • Winner: May 30, 2012
  • International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award
    • Winner: June 13, 2012
  • Man Booker Prize
    • Winner: October
  • Nobel Prize in Literature
    • Winner: October
  • Giller Prize
    • Shadow Winner: Early November
    • Winner: Early November
  • National Book Award
    • Winner: November
____________________________

2011 Book Awards

  • The Story Prize
    • Winner: Anthony Doerr's Memory Wall
  • PEN/Faulkner Award
    • Winner: Deborah Eisenberg's The Collected Stories of Deborah Eisenberg
  • Hemingway Foundation/PEN Award
    • Winner: Brando Skyhorse: The Madonnas of Echo Park
  • PEN/Malamud Award
    • Winner: Edith Pearlman
  • International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award
    • Winner: Colum McCann's Let the Great World Spin
  • Nobel Prize in Literature
    • Winner: Tomas Tranströmer
  • National Book Award
    • Winner: Jesmyn Ward's Salvage the Bones
____________________________

2010 Book Awards

  • National Book Critics Circle Award
    • Winner: Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall
  • The Story Prize
    • Winner: Daniyal Mueenuddin's In Other Rooms, Other Wonders
  • PEN/Faulkner Award
    • Winner: Sherman Alexie's War Dances
  • Hemingway Foundation/PEN Award
    • Winner: Brigid Pasulka's A Long, Long Time Ago and Essentially True
  • Pulitzer Prize
  • PEN/Malamud Award
    • Winner: Nam Le & Edward P. Jones
  • Orange Prize
    • Winner: Barbara Kingsolver's The Lacuna
  • International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award
  • Nobel Prize in Literature
    • Winner: Mario Vargas Llosa
____________________________

2009 Book Awards

  • National Book Critics Circle Award
    • Winner: Roberto Bolano's 2666
  • PEN/Faulkner Award
  • Hemingway Foundation/PEN Award
    • Winner: Michael Dahlie's A Gentleman's Guide to Graceful Living
  • Best Translated Book Award
    • Winner: Attila Bartis: Tranquility
  • Orange Prize
    • Winner: Marilynne Robinson's Home
  • International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award
    • Winner: Michael Thomas's Man Gone Down
  • Man Booker Prize
    • Winner: Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall
  • Nobel Prize in Literature
    • Winner: Herta Müller
  • National Book Award
    • Winner: Colum McCann's Let the Great World Spin

J.G. Farrell: Troubles

I’m afraid I won’t be able to review any more of the Lost Booker shortlist before the voting period ends on Friday — but at least we got that extra week, right?  I still don’t think the public was given nearly enough time to read and properly vote on the winner, especially when there are a couple of long, dense works that should be strong contenders.  Troubles (1970) was one of those long, dense works.  It took me quite a long time to read.  Some of it was because I have been incredibly busy with work, taking away my nights and weekends to the detriment of my reading and blogging, among other things.  However, it wasn’t only the work that made this a long read.  Troubles, though a pleasure, is a heavy historical work dealing with a very complicated mess.  In a matter of pages, many things can happen, each with its parallel meaning, so I ceded to the book’s demand and slowed my pace.  I’m glad I did, too, because in the end I was happy to have spent so much time with this book on my mind.

Troubles is part of Farrell’s Empire Trilogy, books that take a snapshot of the British Empire in various states of decay.  Also included is The Singapore Grip, which I haven’t read yet, and The Siege of Krishnapur, one of my favorite Booker winners.  Troublestakes us to Ireland in 1919.  Major Brendan Archer has survived France in the Great War and is on his way to Ireland to meet up with his fiancée, Angela, an Anglo-Irish daughter of the once-wealthy Edward Spencer.  The Spencers own the Majestic Hotel in Kilnalough.  Just a generation or two ago, the hotel was a thriving, luxurious abode of the gentry.  In 1919 it has a few remaining elderly guests whose presence brings the past more sharply in relief; they feel like ghosts of a better past still haunting the grounds.  Here is how Farrell introduces the Majestic; he devotes to it his first lines in the novel:

In those days the Majestic was still standing in Kilnalough at the very end of a slim peninsula covered with dead pines leaning here and there at odd angles.  At that time there were probably yachts there too during the summer since the hotel held a regatta every July.  These yachts would have been beached on one or other of the sandy crescents that curved out towards the hotel on each side of the peninsula.  But now both pines and yachts have floated away and one day the high tide may very well meet over the narrowest part of the peninsula, made narrower by erosion.  As for the regatta, for some reason it was discontinued years ago, before the Spencers took over the management of the place.  And a few years later still the Majestic itself followed the boats and preceded the pines into oblivion by burning to the ground — but by that time, of course, the place was in such a state of disrepair that it hardly mattered.

The state of disrepair is obvious to the Major when he arrives.  He is surprised to find rooms that haven’t been touched in years, rooms where cats are thriving, and eventually, trying to find a suitable room, he has inhabited a good number of the Majestic’s space.  As he arrives, a bit disoriented, the Major is surprised not to have Angela waiting for him.  He meets her father, her brother Ripon, and many more inhabitants before encountering Angela as she sits taking tea.  She had written him so many letters, but he is surprised to find she is not at all how she was in the letters or indeed as she was when they first met.  Not that that meeting had been anything impressive:

They had kissed behind a screen of leaves and, reaching out to steady himself, he had put his hand down firmly on a cactus, which had rendered many of his parting words insincere.

Still, over the course of the years since that kiss, he felt confident that they were engaged.  One of the best features of Farrell’s writing, however, is how he creates ghosts in the narrative.  The Major rarely meets with Angela throughout the course of the entire book.  And there are other ghosts in the narrative.  First is Sarah Devlin, one of Angela’s friends and the woman with whom the Major will fall in love.  Where Angela is Anglo-Irish, Sarah is pure Irish and a Catholic:

“Angela told you all that, of course.  But you’ve forgotten the most important thing.”

“What’s that?”

“The fact that I’m a Catholic.  Yes, I can see that she told you but that you regard it as a fact too shameful to mention.  Or perhaps you regard it as good manners not to mention such an affliction.”

“What absolute nonsense!”

“Pay no attention, Sarah got out of bed the wrong side as usual.”

“Be quiet, Ripon!  It’s not nonsense at all.  Ripon’s father calls us ‘fish-eaters’ and ‘Holy Romans’ and so on.  So does Ripon.  So will you, Major, when you’re among the ‘quality.’  In fact, you’ll become a member of the ‘quality’ yourself, high and mighty, too good for the rest of us.”

“I hope not to be so bigoted,” said the Major smiling.  “Surely there’s no need to abandon one’s reason simply because one is in Ireland.”

Though the Major falls in love with Sarah, and though we do encounter her every once in a while, she still is, for much of the book, an absence felt.  Months go by without their meeting, and she haunts the Major all the time.  He even finds a warm room full of sheets in which he retires to imagine her with him.  Farrell’s humour can be highlighted (the whole book is full of comedy) by looking at a few passages with the Major and Sarah.  Here he the omniscient narrator speaking about the hopeless Major:

Until now, incredible though it may seem, the Major had never considered that love, like war, is best conducted with experience of tactics.  His instinct helped him a little.  It warned him, for instance, against unconditional surrender. (“Do with me as you see fit, Sarah.”)  With Sarah he somehow knew that that would not work.  He was learning slowly, by  experience.  Next time he had a love affair he would do much better.  But to the love-drugged Major that was not much consolation.

And here is a bit of the comedy of manners that comes out:

Although his indifference to her had been amply demonstrated, the Major still could not prevent himself from haunting the couple, in the hope of getting further opportunities to demonstrate it.

Of course, the book has a very dark side.  There is a lot of destruction going on and a lot of death offstage (and onstage, periodically).  Which brings up another conspicuous absence: the Sinn Feiners, the rebel Irish who are, according to Edward Spencer, destroying the country.  Or, according to others, the Patriots who will settle for nothing less than home rule.  There are frequent tales of a Sinn Feiner shooting a cop or blowing up something, but we almost never see one.  And even when there is a group of them present, it is written in such a way that we can feel them but not see them.  It’s wondrous how Farrell does this.

In this context, Troubles becomes an intricate allegory of the British Empire in Ireland.  The Majestic, it is obvious from page one, represents the Empire itself.  But the Major’s motives for being at the Majestic are tied to the historical context.  The cats, the bamboo, the statues, the sea: all come together in surprising ways.

But, if allegory scares anyone, Troubles is also a great historical read.  Farrell is not obviously allegorical, as some are.  His narrative goes on naturally and one need never look for symbols to understand the tragedy that is occurring in the lives, historical and personal, in 1919 Ireland.

J.G. Farrell: The Siege of Krishnapur

[This book was shortlisted for the Best of the Booker 2008.  The other five are The ConservationistMidnight's ChildrenOscar and Lucinda, The Ghost Road, and Disgrace.]

Before you read the book:

Of the Best of the Booker shortlist, The Siege of Krishnapur (1973) was the most pleasant surprise.  It came in New York Review of Books Classics edition, which while stylish gave the book the feel of an academic historical piece.  I enjoy academic historical pieces, but not for the same reasons I enjoy a good novel.  Still, I feel very smart when I read a book like this on the subway.

The novel is, as the title says, about a siege that happened at Krishnapur in 1857.  In his afterword, Farrell claims to have gotten a lot of his material from actual accounts, even in ”in some cases with the words of the witnesses only slightly modified.”  So its roots really are, in a way, academic.  But Farrell has a good story-telling style, and it never seemed to me that he felt constrained by diaries when writing his prose.  In fact, I wish that Unsworth’s Sacred Hunger had been written in a similar style – the language is good and meticulous, poetic yet simple, and does an excellent job setting the historic atmosphere with a sense of formality without being stifling.

With the ominous arrival of several batches of chapatis, one of the main characters, the Collector, begins gearing up for trouble from the Muslims.  At first, his fellows think he is just being a silly old man, a bit cracked after so many years.  Chapatis, even if undesired, are hardly cause for alarm.  But an attack does come, and the residents are forced to live under siege for months, watching their friends die around them.  On that level, this book is a rather thrilling adventure novel at times.  Farrell manages to express the excitement and fear at the same time as he relays the strategies of the defense, making it informative as well as entertaining.

My favorite aspect of the novel, however, was its discussion about civilization, colonialism, and “ideas” of progress, all from an early Victorian perspective.  Most of the characters, at one point or another, have to examine how they feel about their position in both India and in the greater construct of “civilization.”  There is a lot of pride, of course, and I particularly enjoyed how Farrell displayed that pride with ironic undertones.  For example, when one soldier dies, a speech is given:

Providence has denied his country the privilege of decking his youthful brow with the chaplets which belong to the sons of victory and of fame, but his deeds can never die.  The pages of history will record and rehears them far and wide, and every Englishman, whether in his island home or a wanderer on some foreign shore, will relate with admiration what George Foxlett Cutter did at the siege of Krishnapur!

Even though I have to admit it looks like Farrell basically watered down Henry V for this passage, I have a feeling that’s what these Englishman would have done too, making it authentic and comic.  There are better, more subtle passages, almost on every page.  It was entertaining and perhaps did feel a bit overdone after a time.

Since the book takes place soon after the Great Exhibition, that event provides another nice backdrop to the conversation.  Farrell delights in making his characters comment on the inventions they thought were brilliant (which are absurd by today’s standards) and those that they thought were absurd (some of which we use all the time today).  It was hardly original, but it was fun and, as I said, surprisingly pleasing to read.

One of my complaints is that much of the book felt disconnected with its historical context (other than the Exhibition which really just allowed Farrell to comment on how naïve these colonizers were).  I felt a strong desire to get more placement, to have more of a perspective from the Muslims, to know some other events that led up to the siege, not in great detail, but a little bit more.  Sure, I know about the time period in a general sense, but there had to have been some specifics.  Then again, this book is about isolation inside a siege, a siege that turned out to be rather insignificant even in its own time.  The lack of context fits nicely into that feeling of isolation.

Probably not a Booker I would have shortlisted, but I can see why it was chosen.  It is an impressive piece from the unfortunately short life of Farrell.

After you read the book:

One part I particularly liked was after the siege ended and Lieutenant Stapleton finds Louise emaciated and stinking.  Fluery, who smells worse, probably doesn’t notice her smell, but at this point he doesn’t care.  They’ve been through it together, and a superficial thing like that, another dig at civilization’s sensibilities, does not bother him.  Stapleton has the military experience, and the arrogance that comes with it, and Louise he no longer considers Louise a catch.

That said, I never admired Fluery much.  I don’t think I much cared for the Collector either.  But perhaps that’s another reason I liked the novel.  I didn’t see these characters as representing whatever Farrell held up as an ideal.  They were both flawed, both had their ideals changed, and still didn’t come out much better in the end.  Their lives are visibly altered because of the siege, but they feel no real connection after the years pass.  I can respect an author who allows this to happen to his characters.

Baymak Kombi Servisi geciktirici sprey online dizi izle