(December, 2012)
I have no idea how to start talking about this. While I
was reading it, my wife and I had a conversation. What happened was this:
-
“Really? What’s it about?”
-
“I don’t know.”
-
“How much have you read?”
-
“About half.”
Frankly we could have had that conversation
at any point up to the last few dozen pages. There are three plot strands
which, as is customary, slowly come together. The final conclusion (that’s FINAL CONCLUSION, spoilerphobes) is actually pretty satisfying as I realized
for all that I was being smugly self-congratulatory about spotting emerging
connections I’d completely missed one of the biggest and, in retrospect, most
obviously foreshadowed. I’ve always been shit at anagrams.
After explaining so little in the build up
the dénouement could only really have gone one of two ways, either wrap it all
up nicely with a bow or leave everything hanging and admit that it had all been
a complete wild goose chase. I’m almost (almost)
disappointed that he chose the former.
The plot, however, is kind of incidental.
This is a novel of quite stunning style, as it would have to be to keep me
reading nigh on 300 pages with only the vaguest idea of what was actually
happening. Style over substance then? Well, there is substance here, definitely,
but perhaps not quite as much as it likes to think it has. And I cared about
that not one jot.
There’s a very strong Vonnegutian streak
running through all this. A similar narrative detachment. A similar economy and
precision in gutting the characters and laying them out flensed for you examination
and amusement. A similar blankly sharp appreciation of the absurdity of the
mundane and the mundanity of the absurd.
On the down side one of the main
supporting characters is called Billy Anker, which is really pushing it, and
that cover is quite violently appalling. Still, I can think of few better ways
of spending time than going deep in the K-tract. Fnarr.
Flensed! Touche!!
ReplyDeleteWhat.
DeleteMust be an inside...deep inside...really deep inside joke??
DeleteOr a spambot. Same difference, eh?
Deleteverb (used with object), flensed, flens·ing.
Delete1.to strip the blubber or the skin from (a whale, seal, etc.).
2.to strip off (blubber or skin).
great word, was i the only one had to look that up?
I saw the thumbnail in my blogroll and thought it was a Grateful Dead album cover.
ReplyDeleteThey shoulda added the *W* to his name and been done with it ;)
You say Billy, I say William, let's call the whole thing off.
DeleteThe cover's a bit Deadhead, isn't it? I think they've just reissued it in a more tasteful version, which just looks bland in comparison. Possibly less likely to induce epilepsy, though.
Wait - is there an anagram somewhere? Did I totally miss something important? Crap. Don't make me read that thing again, it was hard enough the first time.
ReplyDeleteI want to review this too, but haven't figured out what on earth to say about it.
Yeah, a three-way anagram at that, which should give you a hint where to look if you're so inclined.
DeleteI always find it easier to write about stuff I don't like than stuff I do. I guess it's because I'm too busy enjoying the good stuff, but with the bad you have to make your own fun, which results in the faults getting picked over. I've just finished nearly 2000 words on a book I really didn't care for at all, but could barely break 200 for this:
"It's good! And reminded me of Vonnegut a bit. Did I say it's good?"
Not one of my better ones, to be honest.