![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I recently finished two books -- one extremely good, one rather bad.
I absolutely fell in love with recent Pulitzer winner The Known World. Faulkner is probably my favorite author of all time, and Jones more than imitates his mastery of literary craftsmanship and deep understanding of the human heart -- he matches it. The book has been criticized for its extremely non-linear nature; the style is closer to that of an old family historian, weaving back and forth between different generations and telling you how someone died before you learn how they lived. Despite and because of this style, though, it's superb at evoking the nuances of human nature and the richness of a world full of diverse people, each of them dynamic, multifaceted, and all too often trapped by their environment nonetheless.
If I have one criticism of the book, it's that my out-of-book reading about Jones shows that his stories weren't always based on meticulous scholarship. This isn't a problem for fiction, of course, but he portrays the antebellum South -- specifically the world of slave-owning African-Americans -- with such persuasive detail that I'm going to find it hard not to consider what he said as more canonical than most histories I've read.
The other book was The Garden of Ruth. I wanted to like this book -- really, I did. Fiction about Biblical characters, good or bad, is surprisingly rare; The Red Tent is about the only thing I know (that's been published) that I can recommend to others. I hoped to add this book to that list, especially as the author comes with plenty of credentials; she's a well-established professor in Israel. Indeed, the anachronisms in the book, though present, were much less jarring than in most works; the author really does work hard to evoke the people and faith of ancient Israel -- albeit an ancient Israel based on a more traditionalist interpretation than The Red Tent, which draws on more modern scholarship to go in a more interesting, feminist direction.
There were two deep problems, though. The first is that the author simply isn't very good at writing fiction. The prose didn't flow, cliches (Biblical or not) abounded, and the PoV switched in awkward and inconsistent ways between characters and an omniscient narrator. It's not terrible prose -- it beats the majority of fanfic out there, I suppose -- but it annoyed me.
The second, I think, was based on the fact that I'm the wrong audience for this book. Specifically, I'm not a big fan of the common tropes of modern romance novels. When the Strong, Stern, Taciturn Man raped the main character in the first fifty pages, I hoped that I'd be wrong. I hoped that it meant he really was an awful person, and that the story wasn't going to follow the pull-my-hair-out pattern of the classic romance Alpha hero. I was disappointed. He rapes her and she's miserable, and her uncle tells her "well, it wasn't really rape, because you didn't scream for help." He sleeps around, courts another woman, and finally marries the other woman -- all the while trying to control the heroine's life and stop her from pursuing her interests while telling her how much he loves her. Finally, the heroine grovels before him for forgiveness and offers to be his lowly concubine if only he'll love her. In the end, of course, we see how faithfully he did love her, and how he was only trying to control her because it was the honorable thing to do in the situation.
I wanted to throw the book against the wall. Repeatedly. I mean, I do get that a lot of women like to read this kind of plot. If you're one of those women, then I respect your choice, and you might enjoy this book. But it is Really Not My Thing At All Dear God Almighty. It is not a turn-on to see a man be a rapey asshole for 3/4 of the book as some kind of testimony to how stoic and reliable and strong he'll be later. Moreover, authors seem to think that this kind of character has Depth, but he's just as predictable as the inevitably flighty and faithless more-charismatic-and-pretty boy with whom he competes for the heroine's affections. The fact that in this story, King David was the latter character (shock! gasp!) was not particularly an interesting twist. It's just the same old Pride and Prejudice plot, rehashed without any of Austen's literary wit.
So yeah. Was not a fan. Will not recommend.
I absolutely fell in love with recent Pulitzer winner The Known World. Faulkner is probably my favorite author of all time, and Jones more than imitates his mastery of literary craftsmanship and deep understanding of the human heart -- he matches it. The book has been criticized for its extremely non-linear nature; the style is closer to that of an old family historian, weaving back and forth between different generations and telling you how someone died before you learn how they lived. Despite and because of this style, though, it's superb at evoking the nuances of human nature and the richness of a world full of diverse people, each of them dynamic, multifaceted, and all too often trapped by their environment nonetheless.
If I have one criticism of the book, it's that my out-of-book reading about Jones shows that his stories weren't always based on meticulous scholarship. This isn't a problem for fiction, of course, but he portrays the antebellum South -- specifically the world of slave-owning African-Americans -- with such persuasive detail that I'm going to find it hard not to consider what he said as more canonical than most histories I've read.
The other book was The Garden of Ruth. I wanted to like this book -- really, I did. Fiction about Biblical characters, good or bad, is surprisingly rare; The Red Tent is about the only thing I know (that's been published) that I can recommend to others. I hoped to add this book to that list, especially as the author comes with plenty of credentials; she's a well-established professor in Israel. Indeed, the anachronisms in the book, though present, were much less jarring than in most works; the author really does work hard to evoke the people and faith of ancient Israel -- albeit an ancient Israel based on a more traditionalist interpretation than The Red Tent, which draws on more modern scholarship to go in a more interesting, feminist direction.
There were two deep problems, though. The first is that the author simply isn't very good at writing fiction. The prose didn't flow, cliches (Biblical or not) abounded, and the PoV switched in awkward and inconsistent ways between characters and an omniscient narrator. It's not terrible prose -- it beats the majority of fanfic out there, I suppose -- but it annoyed me.
The second, I think, was based on the fact that I'm the wrong audience for this book. Specifically, I'm not a big fan of the common tropes of modern romance novels. When the Strong, Stern, Taciturn Man raped the main character in the first fifty pages, I hoped that I'd be wrong. I hoped that it meant he really was an awful person, and that the story wasn't going to follow the pull-my-hair-out pattern of the classic romance Alpha hero. I was disappointed. He rapes her and she's miserable, and her uncle tells her "well, it wasn't really rape, because you didn't scream for help." He sleeps around, courts another woman, and finally marries the other woman -- all the while trying to control the heroine's life and stop her from pursuing her interests while telling her how much he loves her. Finally, the heroine grovels before him for forgiveness and offers to be his lowly concubine if only he'll love her. In the end, of course, we see how faithfully he did love her, and how he was only trying to control her because it was the honorable thing to do in the situation.
I wanted to throw the book against the wall. Repeatedly. I mean, I do get that a lot of women like to read this kind of plot. If you're one of those women, then I respect your choice, and you might enjoy this book. But it is Really Not My Thing At All Dear God Almighty. It is not a turn-on to see a man be a rapey asshole for 3/4 of the book as some kind of testimony to how stoic and reliable and strong he'll be later. Moreover, authors seem to think that this kind of character has Depth, but he's just as predictable as the inevitably flighty and faithless more-charismatic-and-pretty boy with whom he competes for the heroine's affections. The fact that in this story, King David was the latter character (shock! gasp!) was not particularly an interesting twist. It's just the same old Pride and Prejudice plot, rehashed without any of Austen's literary wit.
So yeah. Was not a fan. Will not recommend.
calm