scioscribe: (Default)
This proved a surprisingly apt book to read during a pandemic. Here, the dangers of leaving the house are made vivid in present in the form of grizzly bears that will maul and eat you. And, less facetiously, this is a book about the way an impending crisis is spectacularly mismanaged to the point of brutal disaster affecting total innocents.

Night of the Grizzlies is a nonfiction account of August 13, 1967, when two nineteen-year-old women were attacked and killed by two separate grizzly bears in Glacier National Park--after decades of absolutely no fatalities and very, very few attacks period. While that night seems from the outside like a total aberration, Olsen notes that it kicked off an overall escalation in grizzly attacks, and that it didn't come out of nowhere at all. The tragedy was essentially manmade, a clusterfuck of a Park Service that refused to pay any real attention to dozens of reports about an unusually aggressive bear, somehow thought it was a good idea to set up a campground in the middle of a grizzly bear feeding ground, tacitly allowed/encouraged employees to regularly feed the grizzlies, and permitted park overcrowding that steadily reduced the bears' habitat and frayed at their nerves. The end result was the horrible, fatal mauling of two girls, a shitstorm of media attention that partly blamed them for their own demise, and a lot of dead bears--all of which could have been avoided if people had not decided, as people usually do, that they should have unfettered access to everything all the time. When you insist on owning nature, nature will eat you. Or, more accurately, eat the people who naively believed that the situation was under control.

Olsen is a journalist--the book began as a series of articles for Sports Illustrated--and a true crime writer, and Night of the Grizzlies feels, in essence, a bit like a true crime book: a careful assemblage of the facts and statements surrounding a tragedy, with particular attention paid to who is to blame for all this. It's very earnest--empathetic towards both animals and people, though justly angry at and impatient with some parts of the Park Service--and I found that appealing. The writing is extremely readable but also often clumsy, with way too many epithets and comparisons like "silence pressed down on the place like a giant bowl of mushroom soup." (The epithets are basically at their worst when we're constantly referring to someone as "the Indian." Usually they're just awkward or inadvertently funny.)

Olsen's nature writing is clearly done with a lot of love, and he really evokes the beauty of the park and shows a great affection for (and knowledge of) bears--there's a lot of great, endearing info about their habits and characteristics. He juggles his large cast aptly, and in addition to parceling out blame and indicting complacency, he also make sure to record instances of heroism and people rising to the occasion. Parts of this are enraging--it probably won't surprise anyone to learn that women, in particular, tended to get ignored or dismissed when they pointed out the increased bear aggression, nor that some people blamed the dead girls for having possibly incited the bears by wearing cosmetics (my wife, on hearing this: "So even when a woman gets eaten by a bear, it's because of what she was wearing?")--but it's not reported in an enraging way. He basically just relays the events and opinions of the people involved, with his own judgments mostly reserved for the summing up the book does at the end.

Here's a sample of irritating park rangers:

A few days later, a ranger executive arrived in Kelly's Camp on a routine visit, and Joan Berry, who had been away from the camp on the bear's most recent intrusion, took him to one side and said, "We've got a sick bear, a crazy-acting bear around, and I wish you'd do something about it."

The official asked for a description of the animal, and Mrs. Berry told him that it was a dark grizzly with a big, emaciated frame and a thin, elongated head. "I'm sure that he's dangerous and somebody's going to get hurt," the schoolteacher said.

The ranger executive chuckled at the remark. "Oh, Joan," he said casually, "is it really that bad?"

Mrs. Berry was annoyed and repeated emphatically that the bear was acting abnormally and must be considered a menace.

The ranger official said, "Well, when his illness makes him go berserk, we'll do something about him, and made it plain that the matter was closed. His attitude made Mrs. Berry seethe inside. In all the decades since her family had homesteaded on the north shore of Lake McDonald, they had almost never reported a troublesome bear; they preferred taking their chances on coexistence. Kellys and grizzlies had been living together amicably since the 1800s, and Mrs. Berry felt that the ranger official ought to know that and ought to have taken her complaint more seriously.


and

[He] wound up telling his story to a ranger who seemed almost bored by the news. "That bear's been chasing people all summer," the ranger said, "and a little last summer."

"What are you gonna do when it catches somebody?" Price asked.

"Well, I don't know," the ranger said bemusedly. "He hasn't caught anybody yet."


It's a sad and infuriating story, but it's told well. Even when his writing is weak, Olsen is mostly a strong storyteller, and it doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia noted this as surprisingly influential for a lot of action-fueled horror fiction. If you don't mind your nature writing mixed with some real life horror, or if you're interested in how mismanagement creates tragedies, or if you just like seeing how people respond to problems and crises, and the stylistic flaws are forgivable to you, I'd definitely recommend this.

Warnings: gore, medical procedures, various instances of sexism and mild racism, dead people, dead bears, a badly injured bear cub. A puppy is endangered but lives.
scioscribe: (Default)
The Innocent is a short suspense novel, first published in 1949. It's one of the ancestors in the domestic suspense family tree, and in some ways, it's conventional: a woman marries a man and then begins to uncover dark secrets. But the rhythms and concerns are all appealingly different from most of its descendants, and its social attitudes are surprisingly progressive for its time.

The novel focuses on Marjorie, who has recently married the stunningly good-looking Charles Carter. Margie and Charles were lovers when they were younger, but then Charles left her for Claire, her icier and more fashionable friend; he didn't let his marriage to Claire get in the way of him going on sleeping with Margie, though. Margie got pregnant, Claire died (apparently of heart failure brought on by fear or shock), and Charles and Margie got married just in time to give them plausible deniability about when their baby was conceived... as long as no one really looks into the math. Margie's friends are a little dubious about the marriage. Charles is, as one character says, a little boy rattling around in a man's body. Margie is less his wife and more his doting mother, and he resents it when her attention is pulled away from him to tend to their sickly, fragile baby.

Then Margie gets a surprise phone call from the sister of the Carters' former maid. The sister wants to ask permission for Edna, the former maid, to come by and pick up her uniforms, which she'd left in a closet in the Carters' apartment. She's looking for "Mrs. Carter," but she means Claire. When Margie eventually manages to clarify the situation, the sister passes the word on--and Edna screams and runs out into the night. Um. And then it gets weirder! Margie goes to dig out the uniforms herself to prepare them for the sister stopping by, and with them, she finds a set of notes left behind by Claire. Claire died when she was mostly bedridden, recovering from an accident, and she'd apparently made a habit of reading murder mysteries and writing about how she loves them but tends to find the motives implausible. What would it take, Claire wonders, to really get someone to murder someone else?

She decides that a fun way to pass the time would be to emotionally manipulate Edna until Edna is on the brink of murder. Edna is black, and very devoted to activism; her husband, however, has every problem under the sun (this isn't the surprisingly progressive part). Claire decides to see if she can gradually push Edna to the point where Edna is ready to murder him.

Not where you thought this was going, right? Domestic suspense is often an unfortunately white genre, and while The Innocent is focused on Marjorie, it's surprisingly attentive to--and sensitively analytical of--the way Edna is treated by the white women who claim to be emotionally invested in her. There's a scene where Marjorie, determined to intervene on Edna's behalf, winds up backpedaling horrifically when the effort seems to threaten to cost her some part of her privileged position:

But Marjorie was looking into the face of the policeman, Kirby. It seemed to her that she had never seen a policeman before, that they had always been blank symbols of law and order, blank symbols of protection for her, for her kind. Now she saw the large reddened ears, the alert nostrils with the thin, wisping smoke, the thick red lips and faded blue eyes. She saw Kirby's beefy hands pendant, and imagined them on her shoulder, clamped there, directing her, pushing, pressing, ordering. She knew that she wanted to get away, to run from the no longer blank face, no longer protective symbol, and she knew at the same time that she must not run. She forced herself to shake her head at the policeman, a small, deprecating shake accompanied by an almost indiscernible grimace. What she was doing, shrugging, shaking her shoulder, grimacing, was to make them allies, to put herself back where she had always been, where everybody she knew had always been, on the side of law and order. On Kirby's side.

The need for the gesture frightened her badly.


This moment, in which Marjorie sells out Edna and Edna gradually recognizes that her only ally in this situation has disappeared, is both brutal and well-done. It would be well- and subtly-done now; it's pretty remarkable that it was written at all in 1949.

Piper is also good at a particular kind of domestic awfulness--Charles's grasping weakness, the way in which he endlessly demands every ounce of Marjorie's attention, the sheer immaturity of him, is well-portrayed and very creepy. It's also one of the only novels I can think of where a doctor who (albeit with extreme ambivalence) provided the drugs for an abortion has a heroic, responsible role in the novel's proceedings. The overall arc of the novel may be fairly predictable, but the details of it aren't, and often in really interesting, agonizing ways.

Content notes: Infanticide, racism, commitment for mental health reasons, emotional manipulation.
scioscribe: (Default)
The head was a stark bloodstained bowl of death lying accusingly on blood-red leaves. It was the ghastly centerpiece of the unholy feast... the gaping skull seemed to be beseeching heaven for help, for justice, for reprieve from this vandalization of everything human.

I always try to read some horror in October--my sister and I always exchange horror novels/short story collections, too--and this year I kicked things off with this gloriously overwrought novel about carnivorous mutant cockroaches on a New England island. They grow up to six inches long and have highly developed jaws, chewing their victims until even their bones are dust! They've formed a colony with its own kind of malign intelligence! And they're here to eat everything in sight, including an adorable dog and an entire Sunday school class's worth of children. (I was personally more upset by the dog. His name was Sharky, because he'd bravely faced down a shark once before, and I loved him.) You kind of have to admire the full-throttle commitment the author shows to cockroaches eating people, but it doesn't stop there! You also get a shipwreck! And rats, maddened by the cockroaches eating them, also eat some people! Now that's value for your money.

I'm being glib, but honestly, this book is kind of a delight. I usually prefer lower-key horror, but if you're going to go with trashy setups and purple prose, let's go full trash and full purple:

The insects were insatiable over the bodies. The bugs were red with human blood. Their shells gleamed in the lightning flashes with the slime of their destruction. To the funereal pounding of the waves rising higher on the shore, lightning kept disclosing more and more horror--lacerated flesh, severed limbs, a child's head rolling to the water's edge, being lifted by a wave and carried ghoulishly away.
Pieces and flakes of skeletons were floating on the sea now. The shore was a viscid spread of inert refuse, a roach-turbulent repository of misery beyond agony.
There was no way for a mind to encompass the atrocity. It was the excrescence of Nature gone evil. Evil beyond barbarism, beyond cruelty. It was deed beyond excoriation, curse or damnation. It was Damnation itself.
It was an apocalypse of Nature's mindless enormity, and Reed Brockshaw's own Gethsemane.
Fish would feed on strange fruit this day.
Reed Brockshaw gnashed his teeth and wailed.


Reed Brockshaw also supplied the book with the immortal line: "DAMN THE ROACHES! MY KIDS ARE ON THAT BOAT!"

Anyway, mutant cockroaches have developed in the dump on Yarkie, a New England enclave that is morally superior to every other part of the country, something you know because neither the characters nor the author will shut up about it, including a ham-handed interjection later about how part of the greatness of Yarkie stems from their unwillingness to take government handouts. Okay. (I mean, the giant cockroaches can only be battled back by the Harvard scientists who were willing to drop everything and come help you because one of your own married a GASP LIBERAL ACADEMIC, but okay.) Yarkie is populated by: drunk vacationers, sweet vacationers, itinerant young men of ill-repute who SMOKE MARIJUANA (which in the world of The Nest makes you hallucinate that you're a fish), and salt-of-the-earth locals with sailor-boy hearts of oak.

The novel mostly focuses on Elizabeth, a kind of half-resident--her grandfather is a Yarkie stalwart and she's a "traditionalist" like him--who is a college junior visiting for the summer with her friend Bonnie, who is a sweetheart of a girl--so nice, in fact, that Yarkie doesn't even care that she's black. They were nervous when she first showed up, but it turned out okay! (Obviously the novel's treatment of Bonnie is a serious mixed bag, but I should note that she is, in fact, a reasonably well-done, heroic character, and she does survive the book.) There are also two Harvard scientists--one of whom is male and heroic and brilliant and the other of whom is female and heroic and brilliant (and excessively beautiful and Tragic because She Has Trouble Connecting to Men, so--the adventures of the mixed bag characterization continues). The men fight mutant cockroaches. The women mostly pitch in by cooking and cleaning for the men, though at least Wanda, the scientist, gets to have a heroic death saving Peter, her male counterpart, and also gets to have Elizabeth reflect on how everyone should listen to Wanda because Wanda's obviously brilliant. Peter/Elizabeth happens, but I ship Elizabeth/Bonnie and Elizabeth/Wanda and everyone/getting the fuck off Yarkie, seriously, why are you waiting so long to evacuate, there are fucking mutant roaches everywhere, this is not the time to dreamily reflect on the landscape.

The roaches are suitably terrifying, though you do hit a point of diminishing returns after a while: you can only read so many times about them eating their way through eyes and squirming up people's asses and tunneling into their brains. Their routine is pretty much the same every time. When the rats bother to eat someone, they also follow the same step-by-step process, down to their "raping noses." (Ewwww.)

Anyway, this is not a good novel, but it is a hell of a lot of fun, especially if you like doing dramatic readings in a deep voice. And for all the flaws in terms of how the novel treats gender and race and social progress generally, it's an oddly nice book where the characters all spend a lot of time being impressed by each other and admiring each other. Maybe Douglas thought we'd need some cuddliness to balance out scenes where a young girl and her brother are devoured by cockroaches or where a man gets eaten dick first because he fell, landed partly in a snake burrow, and began to fuck it.

Actually, no, no one needs any distraction from that last part. That last part's amazing.
scioscribe: (Default)
I've been plundering [personal profile] rachelmanija's books and couldn't pass up the opportunity to finally read The Grounding of Group 6, which I'd heard of for ages but had never come across before. What a strange book.

All I knew beforehand was that this was a novel about a group of kids who, on some sort of hike, find out that their parents had sent them to a boarding school and paid to have them murdered. It's not remotely the book I expected from that premise: instead, it's something much weirder and more human.

The kids in Group 6 are Marigold, Coke, Sully, Sarah, and Ludi; their "advisor" is Nat Rittenhouse. Coke and Sully are only of mild interest to me, but the girls and Nat are fantastic.

Marigold was raised by "more enlightened than thou" parents who were enthusiastic about attachment-free sex; their brief promise to practice exclusively "home cooking" is broken when her mother falls in love and sexy poolside abandonment. Marigold sees and decides to get a pointed revenge for the broken promise and goes off and seduces her mother's lover and offhandedly informing her mother of it. (Power move, Marigold. Respect.) In a way, she has the stablest and best family life, so take from that what you will. She's a constant actress, skilled at pretending to feel less than she feels, to be more cynical than she is. (Though she does seem honest in being totally unsurprised that her parents, or anyone's parents, would murder their kids if they could get away with it, and she makes some good points about historical precedent. The book loves these kids, but it's oddly nonjudgmental about contracted child murder. It basically works as a stand-in for the severing of parental love generally.)

Sarah is the oldest daughter of a father who demanded complete, clean-cut perfection from his children, all the better to fit with his self-image of total competence and flawless social position. Saran--smart, sporty, and dogged--basically was perfect, until her anxiety over compositions got the best of her and she plagiarized a series of essays. One mistake is all it takes. She's dead to her father, and he's determined to make her dead in every other sense, too.

Okay, up to this point, we are in a relatively normal world. Marigold's life has been atypical, but it's atypical in a recognizable, known way. Coke and Sully's stories are fairly normal.

And now, this:

Ludi's father wants her dead because Ludi is slightly psychic. Just offhandedly. It's never really a huge plot point beyond this--she gets a couple of feelings that guide her in the correct direction, but her psychic skills don't let her crucially save the day. Her real superpower is being the actual best. She's deeply moral and clearsighted without being judgmental, she's kind, she's passionate. The relationship she forms with Nat is borderline inappropriate, which the novel and Nat both acknowledge, but I find it impossibly to either begrudge Ludi anything she wants or to doubt that she knows what she's doing. She has a really great core certainty and is probably my favorite character of the book.

And in an even more bananas bit of back-story, we have Nat, a just-out-of-college drifter and woods enthusiast who dabbled in compulsive gambling and bet a year's tuition on a coin flip and lost. To an assistant bursar with a minor crime boss uncle. Who persuades him he is now deeply in debt to the state of Vermont, which he considers trying to repay by referring tourists who will vouch that they came there because Nat recommended it. And then he almost repays his debt to the assistant bursar's uncle by taking a boat, leaving it in a harbor until someone puts (presumably) cocaine onto it, and then sailing it back. Instead, someone puts the severed body parts of the would-be drug courier on the boat, so now Nat also has to pay the trip expenses. He's offered the job of killing the kids of Group 6--he'll take them on a hike, poison their fruit drink, and dump their bodies in a bottomless quarry on the school's property. Unbeknownst to Nat, he's also lined up for elimination--after he bumps off the kids, one of the school's teachers will sniper-shoot him.

Add into this the sadistic "Doctor" who runs the school and speaks almost exclusively in sentences that trail off into song lyrics, a teacher who can't stop having sex fantasies and critical opinions about everyone who comes within a hundred yards of her, the assistant bursar low-level enforcer who just wants to eat Milky Ways and take his girlfriend to a nice hotel, tons of bizarre local color, and so on.

Group 6 arrives at the school and are shuttled off to a couple of days of hiking with their "teacher," Nat, who is disconcerted by how much he immediately likes these kids, all of whom are trying their best to make friends and have a fresh start. He also starts to have an uneasy feeling about being set up, so he misleads the school as to where he'll be taking the kids. He takes them to "Spring Lake Lodge," a little cabin he built (which they soon expand), and confirms that the school is after him, too. The whole group finds out the truth and they then enter into the world's most laidback game of cat-and-mouse. (The enforcer doesn't really want to find them, having no real desire to kill anybody; the school does want to kill them, but also doesn't want to go to a lot of work. Fair enough.)

Ostensibly, Group 6 is hiding out in the woods until the school's search for them dies down, but they soon fall into a kind of malaise, unsure of what kind of future they'll have. They go back and forth between Spring Lake Lodge and a Swiss chalet that's left unattended during the week; sometimes they run into town for condoms and fashionable vests. They gradually settle into relationships--first Coke and Marigold, then Sarah and Sully, and eventually Ludi and Nat, who seem meant-to-be in their general floaty good intentions, but who quibble a little over the age difference and whether or not they should be having sex yet. (Ludi votes yes.) There's a startling frankness to the sex in the book that I don't think I even see in YA now--I told [personal profile] rachelmanija that it reminded me of seventies movies, where everything is sort of grubby and human and unpolished, and it all moves at its own pace. I really like this quality. The book is partly about learning how to live, and the answers it gives are much more low-key and matter-of-fact than they would be now.

The book sort of ambles along. The group decides that they ideally would like to integrate into the school--okay then--and blackmail their parents into providing for their education, etc. All they have to do is find the letters their parents sent to Doctor, requesting their deaths. Circumstances gradually push them and their pursuers closer together until a confrontation finally occurs (in a very good, tense scene), but the real denouement is just knowing that these characters will all settle into their futures.

It's just a much stranger, more character-based novel than anyone would guess from the premise. (You also wouldn't guess that it would include a bursar sending his assistant to murder someone for the sake of the state of Vermont, either.) It's a warmhearted hangout novel studded with surreal, blackly comedic looks at crotchety teachers plotting murder. If I'd read this as a kid, I think what would stick with me more than anything else are the characters and the principles they develop. I think even now, those things will linger. And while I'd still happily read the straightforward thriller version of this book or one with genuinely bad kids, I'm so pleased this exists in its current form. It makes me feel better about the world that something this distinct and personal could become a minor cultural landmark.
scioscribe: (Default)
I am probably not the ideal audience for Falling Stars. It sets up a number of tropes I love--two people stuck in a remote resort, identity porn, star-crossed lovers, Hollywood, redemption--and almost immediately pulls the teeth out of all of them to make them more pleasant. Except the "stuck in a remote resort" bit: credit where credit is due, Lake actually appealingly doubles down on that one and snows them in at one point right when they might otherwise be splitting up. It's glorious. I love some direct weather intervention on behalf of Love.

But aside from that, I wound up feeling a little cheated. It isn't that Lake is especially interested in subverting any tropes, it's more that her characters are just too nice for any real conflict to persist between them or even inside them. I can sometimes do nice, but not usually when I came for the above premises.

Christine Lawton is a successful actress currently holed up at the Constellation Lodge in the off-season--she's on-track to be the latest trashy Hollywood scandal because she punched a producer in the face and then drunk-drove her Porsche into a lamp post. Oh, yeah, and then the cops found a baggie full of cocaine in her car. You might think that somewhere between the assault, the DWI, and the coke possession, Christine would have bigger things to worry about then whether or not she has to wait out the PR disaster in a resort, but apparently not. And she has no real rehabilitation to worry about, either, because just as none of these things seemingly present legal problems, they don't represent personal flaws, either. Christine punched the producer in the face Because Justice, because he was insulting and dismissive of a lesbian coming-of-age film Christine had been trying to push through, and was planning on bowdlerizing it to be the coming-of-age story of a straight liberal white boy in the Midwest. (This is hauntingly plausible.) She drove drunk, but she totally wouldn't have if she hadn't been so upset! And the cocaine wasn't even hers! She was just holding it for a friend!

At this point I feel like interspersing some clapping-hands emojis: Let the actress snort the coke.

Anyway, Christine runs into Jennifer, who is there to do a last push on her novel. She had one book out already, but it was an expansion of someone else's story, and she wants something that's all hers, despite her well-connected and pushy father constantly suggesting that hey, it's no big deal if she doesn't have any originality, adaptation is a talent too, he can get her so many stories, seriously. Which could be helpful under other circumstances, but not so much when it's in direct contrast to what his daughter actually wants. This is all pretty nuanced and well-done, and Jennifer's self-consciousness about her writing and her impostor-syndrome feeling of not being a real author is convincing.

Jennifer hates Hollywood as an industry and has no idea who Christine is, so when they have a meet-cute with Christine accidentally dropping her phone on Jennifer's head, Christine gets the pleasure of interacting with someone who doesn't know her fame or her recent scandal. They hit it off. Lake is really good at their banter and flirtation, and there's a bit I particularly like where Jennifer initially lies and says the phone barely grazed her shoulder only to later drunkenly admit that it clocked her on the head--it's a nice, realistic bit of awkward early crush. Their relationship moves a little fast, but it's reasonably believable given the confined situation.

The problem is the way all the obstacles disappear when the characters face them with emotional maturity. In real life, this is good. In fiction, I find it gets a little boring. I like characters in high-conflict situations to be confronted by hard choices and the need for action and messiness, but I recognize that pleasant, healthy communication romance is in fact a market, even if it's not something I personally want. So I'm sure there are people who would like that:

1) When Christine finally tells Jennifer that she's a famous actress, it isn't a big deal that she's been lying to her.

2) When Jennifer realizes that her father is the homophobic producer Christine punched in the face, she's not mad at Christine and in fact not even super surprised by her dad's behavior, since he's known to be abrasive and she's always suspected he might be homophobic, hence why she never came out to him as bi.

3) When Christine finds out that Jennifer gave her her maiden name and not her legal last name, all the better to separate her from her father, it isn't a big deal.

4) Despite the obstacles of making the lesbian coming-of-age movie, there's no actual apparent hit to Christine's fame or image when it (and she) comes out. Institutionalized homophobia is there to be the bad guy who is defeated by everyone believing in themselves. This actually could have been handled in a way that would have worked for me--one that explored the way audience response is sometimes less bigoted than Hollywood anticipates, or one that looks at the compensations Christine might find from being out and a queer icon even as she loses some of her mainstream cachet--but Falling Stars just doesn't have the length for it.

5) Jennifer's struggle over how to write original work that's meaningful to her is solved by... adapting a novel that's meaningful to her? Which seems like not the same thing? I'm okay with this, too, but I feel like the fact that it doesn't actually address her concern about her originality should have been worked out a little more.

6) Everybody is just so nice.

This is a likable, if slight, book. Lake writes smoothly and has a good sense of her characters' chemistry. I just wish everything hadn't worked out so easily and so immediately.
scioscribe: (Default)
I have a complicated relationship with Laura Lippman's work where I tend to find it layered and thoughtful but just a little too bloodless and just a little too cynical; also, she has a book that repeatedly describes a character of exactly my weight as "hulking," and I am petty enough to be bothered by this.

Wilde Lake has not resolved my feelings in one direction or the other. It's a deep, compellingly fractal look at memory and information that is damaged by the fact that none of the characters seem deeply involved, at any time, with anything, and that it is utterly insistent on letting you know that it's a To Kill a Mockingbird homage.

Some of the latter is nicely done, like the beginning which looks at the circumstances in which Luisa's brother Jem--I mean, AJ--got his arm broken--but much of it is clumsily inserted (the obligatory scene where Luisa insults a lower-class boy's table manners and is reprimanded for it) and some of it is even cringe-inducing (the book is careful not to specify the Brants' housekeeper, "Teensy," as black, but it suggests it very strongly and her characterization is stuck in the fifties). Literary homages of this kind, I think, should remind us that there is an essential grandeur to the business of being human. We ought to be reminded, every now and then, that the petty jostling for power in Congress, or within a rural family, can be Shakespearean; that the social norms of who should text whom, and when, can be just as mannered as any exchange between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. But To Kill a Mockingbird is too close in history to work on those terms, and the only neat effect you get from Lippman using it so much is the resonance with the controversy of Go Set a Watchman--Wilde Lake tries to be both novels, dealing with the child's eye view of complications that only reveal more faults in adulthood, and that is slightly cool. But it still seems like borrowed significance that asks the reader to care about Luisa and her family not because of the importance Lippman has invested in them but because we all know Scout and Atticus; it's fanfic with a couple of degrees of separation, neither fish nor fowl, and it would be better if it weren't.

And maybe if it weren't, the novel would have to work a little harder to develop its characters and make their motivations and moralities distinct. As it is, everyone here is sort of low-grade unpleasant while being firmly convinced of their own superiority, which makes for a monotonous emotional palette. Luisa Brant praises her brother for having a midlife crisis that was actually original, for example, but since that crisis involved quitting his job, growing a ponytail, and divorcing his wife for a younger yoga instructor, I'm at a loss as to which part of this, exactly, is supposed to surprise me. (Then again, her brother also wrote an editorial in high school that had all the depth of an average college admissions essay yet somehow provoked a New York publisher to contact him about writing a memoir before he even turned eighteen, so maybe her brother was a veela.) That conviction of superiority, which cannot be fully supported, is the heart of the novel, and the point of it, to be fair, but it's insufficiently sold. I never bought that the Brants were exceptional, or even very charismatic or likable, so there was no fall from grace or catharsis in the revelation that they weren't.

And that revelation needs to hit, because Luisa's eventual epiphany--that we are all people of our time--is too obvious to carry much weight if there isn't a personal element.

Despite that, there are cool things here, even if all of them are best appreciated intellectually rather than emotionally. Lippman is very smart about the way both personal histories and histories of record are often made out of lies and omissions, and very attentive to the way one generation's virtues can be the next's horrified discoveries. That does eventually make the novel into something compelling, and--probably owing somewhat to Lippman's journalistic background, and points to her for that--something far more reminiscent of true crime than of literary suspense. It feels like unearthing history.

The ultimate result is a novel that is frustrating in its unevenness--complex, but far too lukewarm for greatness.

Profile

scioscribe: (Default)
scioscribe

August 2024

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526 2728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags