But now I have read James Wood's review of A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book. One reason I'm glad I didn't read it when Dave sent me the link is that I prefer to find out what happens in a novel on my own and not have a reviewer give away large chunks of the story.
I suppose what Wood says in the first few long paragraphs of this long review is true. But I noticed none of it while I was reading the book.
I will comment on just one detail - about Philip's not thinking in language. Philip sketches things all the time. That really is his primary manner of engaging reality. When I read this passage about his thinking in language I took it to mean that he was absorbed in pure imagery, without the mediation of words, imagery he would transform, as he had earlier transformed the imagery of seaweed into a pattern for tiles.
It is pretty obvious, as soon as you start reading the book, that the narrator is omniscient, which means the narrator knows everything, more than the reader, more than the characters. I think the most telling phrase in the entire review is this: "It is hard enough, though not for the Booker judges, to like the historical novel nowadays ..." Wood doesn't much like historical novels. I don't know why liking them nowadays is harder than it apparently used to be, and nobody is obligated to like anything. One of the reasons I became so absorbed in Byatt's novel is I couldn't help noticing the parallels between the period she was writing of and the one we are living in. But clearly, I am a much less subtle reader than James Wood.
Frank, my reading of Byatt's book came to a faltering halt at about the 100 page mark. I've resisted reading any reviews--including yours--and I hope to give the book a "second chance" someday soon, but there is something about Byatt's meandering narrative that is not working for me. Moreover, I'm not much interested in Byatt's heavy-handed slice-of-life portrayal of a group of rather annoying personalities. However, perhaps I am being too harsh. Generally speaking, without focusing on plot details, what is it that makes the book such a success in your view?
ReplyDeleteOh, I dunno. I think your reading is just as good as Woods, Frank. Woods makes a lot of comments about novels that arise from his own critical agenda about novels are supposed to be, and ought to be; hence his apparently-offhand but actually rather calculated remarks about historical novels. He often disguises his sneers, which amount to idiosyncratic critical taste, in such a manner. It's one reason I find it problematic that so many writers and other reviewers bow to his stately prose. He is a good reader, he is a good writer: AND he has a definite agenda. The wants The Novel to be one kind of thing, and is closed to all other kinds. He's as much as admitted this in interviews.
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, I like historical fiction, though I am a stickler for detail. If anything happens to interfere with the verisimilitude, I'm out. I am also interested in the period in which The Children's Book is set, and I felt immediately drawn into that world as Byatt created (or re-created) it. The book has its longueurs (which I would have mentioned had I had space; it is a long book to review in 800-odd words), but I found that they were relatively short-lived. The twists of the plot (many given away by Wood) unfold nicely and what happens to the children at the end - by which time, of course, they are no longer children - is often heartbreaking. My one main criticism - which again I could not go into because of space - is that I would like to have known more explicitly what was going on in Tom Wellwood's mind. His inability to face life obviously has something to do with grievous unpleasantness at school, but his complete surrender remains something of a mystery. In the end, I liked the book because Tom and Julian and Philip, and Olive and Imogen and Florence, and their stories interested me. It is a book that needs to be read in a leisurely manner and without distraction. One must enter its world and sojourn there at its own pace. I certainly understand that the book may not be to everyone's liking, but I doubt if many will object for what seem to me the rather precious reasons Wood adduces.
ReplyDeleteFrank, I also like historical fiction; however, I appreciate the oxymoron in the label--history and fiction seem so wonderfully incompatible. Perhaps I will be won over--as you were--when I give the book a leisurely reading (when and if my academic schedule permits such luxuries). Byatt's POSSESSION has been one of my favorite novels, and I had hoped for something like it in this new novel. Perhaps my expectations were skewed and unreasonable.
ReplyDelete