This week's book:
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
Grade: A
The first 'A' experience I've had with fiction since May. People in the know pointed me to this book, told me it was a great read. I had my doubts, and... great?... well, it had its moments.
I have to say, I really hated the first fifty pages. Which is less than 10% of the book, but still. I didn't hate them quite so much as I hated the first three chapters of 'The Crying of Lot 49,' but it was very close.
See, one of the things I hate most, more than broccoli, more than shrimp, more than almost anything, is writing about writers. I loathe it. I refuse to read a story about a writer writing. It's lazy, it's navel-gazing, and, for Christ's sake, nobody gives a fuck. If you want to be a writer, then write a story, but if you write me a story about you writing I will go to Starbucks in person and slap you with your own MacBook.*
This novel starts out with not one, but two writers. Laid off writers, a husband and wife who have both lost their writing/journalism jobs in New York City within weeks of one another. They move from NYC to Missouri to take care of the husband's ailing mother and Alzheimer's-ridden father, and they've been there for two barely-tolerable years. The story progresses from there.
The writing in the first fifty pages is just... I can't say terrible because it's not. But maybe... rewritten too much? Rewritten by someone other than the author? Once I got past those first fifty pages things changed, the narrative got tighter, the pacing picked up, and it was overall a much better book.
We get to know the husband first, on the day he learns that his wife has gone missing. Nick and Amy have been growing apart since the move from NYC, and things aren't looking up. Then he makes the discovery that changes his world forever.
We learn about Amy from diary entries, from the time she first met Nick to their time in Missouri, as their lives are unraveling. At first we sympathize with Nick, then, slowly, we learn that he is both
more and less than he seems to be, and his time with Amy was fraught
with unspoken resentment and, eventually, downright hostility.
And there's where any plot discussion has to end. Because I did like this book - eventually - I have to resist giving away the plot. It's a murder mystery with plenty of twists. REAL twists, Dan Brown, not like the sputum you puked up in 'Inferno.' The story definitely does not end up in the place I suspected it would at the beginning. Not even close.
For my tastes the writing is a little wordy. I wouldn't want this story to be Hemingway-spare, but I think the author could have easily cut 25% of the description. In and among the twists and the plot reveals, we do get a glimpse of the tension in a marriage, of the different things women and men expect from a relationship, and how things can unravel quickly when those needs aren't met. The people seemed real, the motivations real (if more than a little petty and twisted), and the outcomes real as well.
Go on, read the book. Power through the first fifty pages, it gets much better.
* full disclosure: I actually love 'Barton Fink.' Which is a movie about a writer... writing. But it's the Coen Brothers, which means the story's not really about what it seems to be about, and the exception that proves my rule.
Next week:
Kitchen Confidential by Anthony Bourdain
I think Anthony Bourdain and I would get along fine. While I don't drink quite as much - or at all - and I don't have his love of organ meats or bone marrow, I think we share a sensibility. I did work in a restaurant for four years after college, I think I know some of the stories he's going to tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think it's important to remember that "people in the know" -whether they bend towards "literary mainstream" or "genre fiction" or the "un-classifiable" are by nature elitists. This means they're always looking for the "formula" that fits whatever classification the work tends to resemble. One of those conventions is to write what you know, instead of what you don't know. While I disagree with always following conventions, this is why we have writers writing about writing. Or something similar - English Profs, etc. In other words, your book can be crap (another formulaic pop tune without much artistic substance), but it sells and fits the mold so it's "raved."
ReplyDeleteBut like with anything in life, what makes a good read and what makes good writing are highly subjective. And all of those pages were ultimately influenced (and perhaps revised in some way) by people behind the scenes. Now, if the writer wants to publish traditionally she/he often has to compromise. Editors can be asses and bitches who bring their own subjectivity to the table. It sucks, but ultimately it's all about the bottom-line for that publisher. Of course, I'm not familiar with this author so I'm not sure how much pull & clout she has behind the scenes either. Who knows...who really cares. I think there's something to gain from every book, even if it's painful to read and sometimes you can't make it all the way through.
It's also important to remember that you can't possibly please every reader - I think it's more important to finish writing the book the best way you (and perhaps a team of word-loving business people) know how.