I'm already conflicted by this book, so I'm taking the lazy way out and merely listing my reactions as I posted them on Goodreads:
"This seems too clever for its own good. I kind of hate it so far. I'm sticking with it, but find the encapsulation of a subject's life in a single paragraph annoying. Is this just one stream of consciousness intertwining characters together in what amounts to short stories? Fine, if it resonates." 05/28 page 85
"And just that quickly... I've been horn-swaggled into thinking this might be without merit. The "X's and O's" chapter - a (the?) Scotty chapter - is amazing. Jonathan Franzen said (or wrote - don't have the original source) that a writer should write in the third person unless a distinctive first-person voice offers itself. I hoped that these short stories intertwined would resonate and Scotty's first-person narration of meeting an old friend, his isolation, etc., certainly has resonated with me."
This is a deeply-flawed work of genius. I rank Egan in a club with Paul Thomas Anderson, David Foster Wallace, and Lev Grossman (to name a few).
In all of these, my admittedly amateur critique sees brilliance in prose indelibly marred by something else- too clever technique (Wallace, Egan), overlong (Anderson) or derivative (Grossman).
All of these artists have equally indelible gifts, all of them having the prose and insight to quickly establish a human condition.
I'm so confused I don't know whether to rate this a 1 star or 5 star. So, 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment