This is the sort of book that makes me wonder if majoring in literature was really the best thing I could have done with my college years. Because, toThis is the sort of book that makes me wonder if majoring in literature was really the best thing I could have done with my college years. Because, to be perfectly honest, I did not see anything special at all about this book. As I have so many other times, I will now present my issues with the story to you in a list, albeit in no particular order.
1. Very little happens in the present tense in this story, which has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's set in 1982/1983 (although there are issues, too, with that), but with the fact that most of the action takes place in retrospect. A chapter will begin with a character in a particular situation, but will then flashback to everything that transpired to lead them to that situation. Then, when the action catches up to the present, it switches to another character, who is only momentarily present before slipping into retrospect. Whether this was a deliberate stylistic choice on Eugenide's part or if maybe he just watched too many episodes of Lost while he was writing it, the result is that it makes the novel seem lacking in substance; many things have happened, but nothing is actually happening.
2. Also damaging the presence of the book is that there are several points - too many, really - where the action gives way and we end up reading sections of books the characters are reading, or, more likely, have read. Which, again, maybe was an attempt at creating layers to the story, but overall the effect was that of a student who, lacking anything interesting to say in a paper, quotes too lengthily from the source material.
3. The characters graduate from college in the Spring of 1982 (or possibly 1983), and the story follows them through to 1983. So the '80s play a big role in the setting, yet many of the "period" details are incorrect. Or maybe it's just my faulty memory that makes it seem like iced coffee did not gain widespread acceptability as a beverage until much later in the decade, or perhaps even early in the '90s; or maybe it's just because I wasn't drinking iced coffee in 1983. And the same for Fanny packs - maybe they were easy to come by in 1982, they just hadn't made it to Merion, Pennsylvania, by then. But, then there is the Cosby Sweater reference, and you know what? That show didn't premiere until 1984; that can be verified. So, whether the kids graduated in 82 or 83, they definitely would NOT be referring to anyone's garment as a Cosby sweater. So maybe I was right about the iced coffee and the fanny pack after all? And that's annoying - throwing in little details to lend verisimilitude to your story only works if your details are accurate. Get a fact checker.
4. But then, what if it's on purpose? What if the weird timeline and the inaccurate period details are part of the point of a deeper point about the intricacies of time and the fragility of memory? I wouldn't question myself if this book were written by somebody else, but this is Jeffrey Eugenides! He's a big deal! Would he really allow an error that could be corrected by all of 12 seconds of research on the internet to appear in his book? Am I maybe just not getting it?
5. None of the characters are especially likable. Madeleine seems to have no discernible personality whatsoever, and even though there are extensive and thorough flashbacks to every detail of her relationship with Leonard, I never bought really bought it. Mitchell had slightly more personality in that he traveled a lot more than Madeleine, but mostly he was remarkable for having, in a book full of characters with obtrusive names (something I've rarely encountered outside of SciFi, ahem, Graceling) the very stupidest one. Never did I care what happened with any of these characters; only by the grace of having been written by Jeffrey Eugenides did this book not end up on the "abandoned-without-finishing" list.
6. There are just way too many freaking words in this book. Not that it's too long - it's just so, so overwritten, to no effect. The language is not beautiful; there are no stunning descriptions, no passage that provides deeper insight into what it means to be human, or what it meant to be a young adult in the 1980s. Just lots of words stuffed into a space that had no room for them, and no need either; I am loath to recommend bulimia as a solution to anything, but this book really could have used a good purge....more
This book just wasn't any good. Which is weird, because all of the (professional) reviews say that it's SO funny; it really isn't. It's kind of like hThis book just wasn't any good. Which is weird, because all of the (professional) reviews say that it's SO funny; it really isn't. It's kind of like hanging out with someone who's high for, like, the third time in their life and can't stop going on about all of these really deeply profound thoughts they're having, like what if the blue they see isn't the same as the blue anyone else sees? And you, on the other hand, are well past the point of getting high and just sort of want to shout at them that the blue everyone sees is the same and that they should get their head out of their ass and stop being such a self-absorbed twit all the time. That's what the experience of reading this book is like. So, if you like that, or if you're a person whose read The Catcher in the Rye as an adult and still consider Holden Caulfield to be your hero, you might enjoy this book....more
I don't remember the original impetus for reading this book - I do recall discussing it with a particular friend, but whether I read it on her recommeI don't remember the original impetus for reading this book - I do recall discussing it with a particular friend, but whether I read it on her recommendation or because I wanted to all on my own I don't recall.
As is evident from my star-rating, I can't say that I liked this book. I did really like the first chapter, when Elphaba was this awful baby, with her terrible teeth and who would only say 'Horrors', as though she were an infant Kurtz. But each successive chapter I liked less and less, until I finally reached a point where I was reading the book only to finish it, not because I enjoyed it.
One of the main things that didn't work for me was that I felt the author did an inadequate job of introducing people to the world of Oz. While of course there the original Oz books for that, Gregory Maguire had to know that the majority of people who read this book were only familiar with the movie (or nowadays, I guess, the play). No doubt, this is why he kept the slippers ruby instead of silver (which they were in the original book). So an explanation of why it mattered that Turtle Heart (or whatever his name was - it was a while ago that I read this) was a Quadling, or what a Quadling actually is, would have been very much appreciated, and would be something that a more skilled author would have found a way to work into the narrative. Ditto an explanation of the tick-tock clock from the first chapter. If these things are not references to the L. Frank Baum books (which I never read; I'm a movie girl), then it is a double failure on Maguires part that there is no explanation in Wicked as to what these things mean.
Also, while I thought that the premise of the book was interesting - the life and times of the Wicked Witch of the West - I don't think that Maguire really brought anything substantial to Elphaba's story. Her portrayal in Wicked does not jibe at all with the character from the movie. The idea that she would have been an outcast because her skin was green isn't terribly original - "It's not easy being green" having been done somewhat famously elsewhere. Besides being derivative, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense on its own, that in a land of Munchkins, talking Animals, Quadlings (whatever they may be) and magic, she would be outcast simply because she is green. Even if one were to accept that, the story presented in Wicked does not in any way explain the behavior portrayed by the same character in The Wizard of Oz - the one does not lead naturally to the other. While it must have been difficult for Maguire to write the book, that no matter where he wanted to go with the character, her ending was would always be the same, as an explanation of How She Got There, Wicked is a total failure....more
Loading...
