Are These Good Books?
Over the past 3 years I've read three books that all reminded me of eachother: The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen, Russian Debutante's Handbook by Gary Shteyngart, and Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer. All 3 are first books by young male authors, have something to do w/ Eastern Europe (Lithuania, Czech Republic/Russia, Ukraine), and seem to all share a great love for absurdity. Although I don't regret reading any, I still have to ask, are any of them actually good books?
I just finished Russian Debutante's Handbook and there was much I liked about it. First
of all, it's really funny. I particularly liked his descriptions of the New York Hipster scene and the Prague ex-pat community; he manages to exagerate and steoretype while also making each character unique. Still, I felt this same quality hurt the actual story. For me, these weren't real people, so I could laugh at them or w/ them, but I felt no sympathy. And even though I laughed everyone time I picked up the book, it was very easy to put down since I didn't really care what happened next.
In terms of impact, I think The Corrections is the best book of the three. Although the characters also didn't feel like actual people to me, Franzen is taking aim at modern society and his exagerated characters and plots did make a point. What stuck with me the most was the technologically obsessed family, and I do find myself still thinking about it. Still, he goes on and on and on. And can I really say it's a good book when I only read half? And even in that half I was often skipping? Shouldn't a "good" book be readable (Ulysses lovers need not reply)?
In terms of a good story, I think Everything is Illuminated was my favorite. It has an
interesting plot (young man returning to parent's homeland), some great characters (one of my favorite's ever- the young trash talking Ukranian), and a creative style (switching from the Ukranian to the American, to the fable-like story of the town). But there were some significant issues as well, the biggest of which was that the fable-like story was horribly boring. In the end I would give it a "B", that garnered extra attention b/c of its creativity.
Whether these are bad, good, or great books is of course up to interpretation. But I think for sure all three did commit the sin of trying too hard, or at least, trying too hard to be unique. Reading John Coetzee's Disgrace and various Graham Greene novels over the same period reminded me that a really good book needn't reinvent the wheel. The power and importance of a book should be in its characters and plot and not in its style or gimmick. Perhaps as these authors age they will tone the theatrics to good effect. Or perhaps they are just part of a new movement in which being noticed is the number one priority.
I just finished Russian Debutante's Handbook and there was much I liked about it. First
of all, it's really funny. I particularly liked his descriptions of the New York Hipster scene and the Prague ex-pat community; he manages to exagerate and steoretype while also making each character unique. Still, I felt this same quality hurt the actual story. For me, these weren't real people, so I could laugh at them or w/ them, but I felt no sympathy. And even though I laughed everyone time I picked up the book, it was very easy to put down since I didn't really care what happened next.
In terms of impact, I think The Corrections is the best book of the three. Although the characters also didn't feel like actual people to me, Franzen is taking aim at modern society and his exagerated characters and plots did make a point. What stuck with me the most was the technologically obsessed family, and I do find myself still thinking about it. Still, he goes on and on and on. And can I really say it's a good book when I only read half? And even in that half I was often skipping? Shouldn't a "good" book be readable (Ulysses lovers need not reply)?In terms of a good story, I think Everything is Illuminated was my favorite. It has an
interesting plot (young man returning to parent's homeland), some great characters (one of my favorite's ever- the young trash talking Ukranian), and a creative style (switching from the Ukranian to the American, to the fable-like story of the town). But there were some significant issues as well, the biggest of which was that the fable-like story was horribly boring. In the end I would give it a "B", that garnered extra attention b/c of its creativity.Whether these are bad, good, or great books is of course up to interpretation. But I think for sure all three did commit the sin of trying too hard, or at least, trying too hard to be unique. Reading John Coetzee's Disgrace and various Graham Greene novels over the same period reminded me that a really good book needn't reinvent the wheel. The power and importance of a book should be in its characters and plot and not in its style or gimmick. Perhaps as these authors age they will tone the theatrics to good effect. Or perhaps they are just part of a new movement in which being noticed is the number one priority.
Labels: Books
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 9:33 am
1 Comments:
I have read all three and liked all three. The Corrections was my favorite, but truth be told, I think it would have been a better book without the Eastern European plot line. There was enough drama in that book without it. I got a little bored with Everything is Illuminated, although I think the concept is fantastic.
Will the Eastern European chic go mainsream?
Post a Comment
<< Home