Sunday, July 20, 2008

Little, Big

About two weeks ago I was rearranging my books and Little, Big caught my eye. I had been thinking that it was kind of a shame I hadn’t finished it. I decided to give it another try. But this time around I established some ground rules.

Basically I read much faster than my usual pace. Kind of a slow scan at times. Anything that seemed too detailed or too weird I skipped. Don’t remember doing that since college.

Yesterday I finished it. I will not give away the ending. Suffice it to say that with the exception of the development of a very strange character, he pulled it off.

Did I understand everything that happened? Definitely not.
Might I have understood more if I read slower? No doubt. But I probably would not have finished the book.
Am I glad I finished the book: Yes.
What was the highlight of the second half: Auberon (Smoky and Alice’s son). He has two relationships and an adventure that are by and large beautiful and insightful. Sometimes touching.

There is still the plethora of characters to get through. Some are annoying; some endearing, and some totally perplexing. Bottom line: There are too many characters.

Then there’s the issue of his punctuation. Although it’s extremely correct I sometimes find his syntax bordering on unintelligible. Or maybe undecipherable. My bias is that I get lost in long sentences. And this book is full of long sentences. Overly long.

That’s the thing about Crowley’s writing. He has a wonderful command of English. That part is a pleasure. OTOH I think he gets carried away in detail. In addition there are numerous subplots in this book. I don’t think the story would suffer at all if about one-third of them weren’t included. OK, I’ll say it: The book is too long.

If I’ve inspired you to think about considering possibly trying to reconnect with this book I have a suggestion. Go ahead. Read the last paragraph. I dare you.

I’ll just say this: It’s really beautiful.

Ed

5 comments:

one of us said...

This is just too odd. I haven't checked on this blog in days. But I just sat down this very minute to write a post about a column in today's NY Times Book Review section (I'll do that in this comment later...), and to my surprise, I found Ed's new entry. Don't tell me that old friends aren't in sync.

About Ed's comments on Little, Big: Very good advice about finishing the book, and especially good advice about how to do it. I'll try it and report back. Skimming is very, very hard for me too. Feels a little like cheating. Makes me worry that I'll miss a critical word or name or date. And of course being a editor-copyeditor-proofreader for 40+ years takes its toll on my reading style. I know many of you can relate to that.

My first reaction to Ed's observations about the substance of L,B is that we don't have to love everything about a novel to love the novel. Just like people... Ed managed to get to the core of this book, to the nugget(s) inside the sometimes tough shell of the book, which is what devoted readers do. Congrats!

I'll try to briefly summarize what I sat down to say before I found Ed's comment. (It's one of the many oddities of blogs that within a day or so the coincidence of our posts won't seem unusual to anyone but me. But for today I hope someone notices.)

The back page essay in today's NYT book rev. section was about YA books --- young adult books. The essay, by Margo Rabb, had a lot of interesting things to say about what books get assigned by publishers to the YA category, how authors feel about this, and how YA books are marketed. Or not marketed. I'm not sure this link will work but I'm sure those of you who want to find the essay online can do it without help from me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/books/review/Rabb-t.html?ex=1374120000&en=a3ac5bf50062c649&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I'm currently reading Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery. It is definitely a YA novel, written in 1908. (Although I just read on wikipedia that the author wrote it for a general audience...have to get back to that later.) I'm reading the book because one day I was browsing through some blogs about books and this title kept popping up as a "must read sometime in your life" book. Not sure why I never read any of the series while it was age-appropriate for me. Anyway, the protagonist is an 11-yr-old girl. And Liesel, in The Book Thief, was also 11 yrs old as the book starts. Reading today's NYT essay made me think about the sort of sweet naivety shared by these two characters. Both are orphans, both have to make major life adjustments because of the loss of parents, but both are hopeful about life despite that. Maybe that's the appeal of YA novels. We don't often view the world through such innocent eyes: Not in our daily newspapers (remember newspapers?), not in books of non-fiction, and not usually on the Internet. The tales told on TV, the information spread via the radio, and the narratives of most movies are told through adult, experienced, even worldly eyes. Through the eyes of people who you would think know just a little bit more about pain, loss, and evil than the young. But you would be wrong.

I'm a little embarrassed to leave this comment. Because it seems so idiotically obvious. But there it is. In all its obviousness.

Going to go find my copy of L,B.
Pam

one of us said...

My comment on your comment.

You mention Leisel in TBT losing her parents. That got me thinking. That's one of the least convincing parts of the book.

How and why did she end up with a foster family? This seemed like an undercover operation because certainly it would not have been sanctioned by the Nazis given that her parents were subversives.

I don't remember being convinced that we really know what happened to her parents. Her brother died. Zusak makes a big deal about that with the first book Leisel steals. That becomes a major point in the narrative. Even if its subliminal, it's constant.

Did you think about the fact that Leisel almost never metnions her mother? And she mentions her father even less. Max seems to be a surrogate father even though she had a foster father who clearly loved her.

And that brings up my last point. When you're living in the midst of such craziness, what is love, what is affection, what is friendship. Surely everything gets mixed up. Do people really accept such craziness as being "normal."

Clearly the answer to that is yes. Otherwise there would not have been thousands upon thousands of Germans who honestly believed that saying they were "just following orders" was actually a defense for the atrocities they committed. Clearly they lost their moral center and honestly did not know the difference between good and evil. Is there any doubt that the Nazis and their supporters were truly evil?

Is it possible that people really didn't understand that? Or did they think they'd really win the war and establish what they thought of as a new order.

The fact is lots of people really believed that.

Ed

Anonymous said...

Nice, good meaty questions...

About the first 4 paragraphs of your comment: To me, none of these things matter. How she got adopted, what exactly happened to her parents, how she felt about her mother, etc. None of that mattered to me. If the author had given us details that didn't make sense, I might care. But I figure it this way: when I read a novel I'm not expecting to get ALL details. My brain fills in what it needs to fill in to make sense of the story. Which makes me think of L,B. I think there were tons of missing details in that book, but Crowley gave us so much info, unlike Zusak in his novel, that my brain failed to fill in details (or even care, which is worse).

I still plan to apply the "Ed-Read Process" to L,B will report back any progress. I want to allow a maximum of 2 hours to the process. Time's a'wasting with so many books to read.

More later, I hope, on the other, meatier parts of your comment.
Pam

Anonymous said...

Ed wrote:
When you're living in the midst of such craziness, what is love, what is affection, what is friendship. Surely everything gets mixed up. Do people really accept such craziness as being "normal."

Clearly the answer to that is yes. Otherwise there would not have been thousands upon thousands of Germans who honestly believed that saying they were "just following orders" was actually a defense for the atrocities they committed. Clearly they lost their moral center and honestly did not know the difference between good and evil. Is there any doubt that the Nazis and their supporters were truly evil?

Pam's reply:
I mentioned Ed's comments to Doug who reminded me of the dialog from Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters."

Frederick: You missed a very dull TV show on Auschwitz. More gruesome film clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong question. Given what people are, the question is "Why doesn't it happen more often?"

Pam

Anonymous said...

I've been thinking and thinking, and writing a bit too, about the end of Ed's comment above (starting with "And that brings up my last point...."). Trying to explain Nazi Germany, for me, is simply impossible. I'm left with a pile of nouns and verbs and adjectives -- sort of Scrabble-tile-like in my head -- but no idea how to arrange them. Here are some of the words:
Fear
Greed
Paranoia
Dehumanization
Survival
Group
Power
Pathology
Viral
Economic
Conviction / convincing
Other (as in "not me")
Genocide*

Pam

*I did not know this. According to wikipedia:
"The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill)."