Oh Ms. Barker, what an infuriatingly tangled web you weave.
After Dr. Karl said something to the effect of: "Well, a lot of my students have hated this book, but I hope some of you will love it," I was absolutely determined that I would find a way to at least like it. Sadly, however--after much tenacious effort, mind you--I did not like it. Actually, and please forgive my candor for saying so, I can now be successfully added to the group of past students who have also hated it.
Perhaps what I found most troubling and annoying was the lack of a coherent plot or even, a plot at all. Sure, there is a central cast of characters whom we follow throughout the 838 pages, but the only person who seems to have any real motive or purpose is Beede. In Beede's quest to "right the wrongs" that have been done to him as a result of the theft of his precious antique tiles, the so-called "plot" becomes even further complicated. We meet even more people whose motives are unclear. I honestly began to feel like I was a detective assigned the impossible task of uncovering mysterious clues that did not even exist. There were moments in the midst of my sheer and utter bewilderment that I could almost hear the demonic cackle of The Darkmans himself making fun of me.
Aside from the exceptionally disjointed storyline, Barker's use of language threw me for yet another loop. In reference to Gaffar's Turkish/broken English, I'm embarrassed to even admit how long it took me to realize what the bold faced type was meant to symbolize. In addition, the ways in which Kane switches from eloquent and comprehensible English to suddenly relaying his thoughts through broken and incomplete sentences was also rather jarring. Although Peta says this condescendingly, I believe that there is a great deal of truth in relation to the language gaps I found in reading this novel: "...the absurd idea that language has these gaps in it and that lives can somehow just tumble through (825).
Alright, I know I may be coming off as a bit harsh, but don't get me wrong though, I totally appreciate the epic creativity that went into Barker's efforts. In order to produce characters and language with such depth and interest, there is a certain amount of je ne sais quoi that only a brilliantly skilled author can possess. Although I was utterly confused and frustrated to no end in my reading of this novel, there is a certain amount of credit Barker is deserved. And as much as I personally didn't like the novel, perhaps she can be labeled as a kind of literary genius (albeit possibly wacky) in her own right. After all, hasn't it been said that some of the most profound literary works were created by people a little off their rockers? Wasn't it Sylvia Plath who infamously stuck her head in an oven?
Ashford being the gateway to Europe was already discussed but your language point is well taken The only European character is the English born German speaker, This is an odd blending of nationality and language. The other non-English speaker, Gaffar is a Kurd, not part of Europe but the Middle East. Ashford is not just the gateway to Europe but to further-reaching parts of the globe. I wonder about Gaffer's becoming a bit of a stud muffin and his sexual antics with the English women. Would this be way of the colonialized Middle East, used for the resource of oil--raped in a way--Gaffer's getting back of Europe?
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Here's another comment on the disjointed effects of Barker's novel (Anthony noted the grammatical style, and here it's the lack of character motivation or realist plot). But we all seemed to love how Mitchell created similar effects... what's the difference?
ReplyDelete