Talk Back

[Eisworth]

When Doug and I have differed in our reactions to "Top 100" novels, it's usually been the case where I liked something that he didn't. I think this novel falls into the same category --- it is difficult reading (intellectually and emotionally) but I thought it was worthwhile.

The book gives us a very detailed look at the last twelve hours of life of its main character, Geoffrey Firmin. Firmin is an alcoholic, and we view the disintegration of his life through the eyes of different characters, including his ex-wife Yvonne (who has returned after being away a year) and his half-brother Hugh. What makes this poignant is how this reflects Lowry's own state --- in a sense, the different characters are representations of fragments of his own personality, and a little thoughtful reading uncovers parallels in the characters lives that also match what is reported about Lowry himself.

It is not easy reading, as I mentioned --- the narrative structure is typically modernist in that we have to piece together what is happening from what the characters are thinking, and some of Lowry's sentences rival Henry James in their clunkiness. However, I did find myself *FEELING* the despair and hopelessness of Firmin --- the inability to say no to that next drink, and the self-loathing that comes along with it. I liked it, but it isn't a novel to read when you're down...
_________________
Todd Eisworth
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Ohio University

[shaw]

I did say (I think I did, if I didn't I should have) that this was the best depiction of how it feels to be an alcoholic that I ever read. One of the reasons I probably disliked it was that it caused annoying resonances in me for various addictive behaviors that I have.

I thought that one part in particular was particularly contrived.

As long as we are on the topic of books that we disagreed upon, you once told me I should give Ulysses another try, reading it in a group. I told you "no way." I'm now reading Ulysses in a group, and enjoying it.

[shaw]

I just reread my review from four years ago - very interesting. I find it odd that I didn't mention how much I hated the contrived part, given how that is one of the parts I distinctively remember hating.

In retrospect, I think my reaction to the book (because I don't remember it as all that bad) is because of the truths about myself that it was pretty much waving in front of myself. I think that I, not completely consciously, was identifying with the protagonist, and that made it a painful read for me.

Or, I could just be doing some self-indulgent retrospective psychoanalyzing. Who knows. I KNOW that I didn't hate reading it as much as I hated reading Ulysses the first time.

I thought the fun of the big project would be to create reviews of the top 100 written by the same guy - but of course it turns out that it isn't the same guy - the guy in 2004 who reviewed Under the Volcano doesn't feel like the guy whose currently rereading Ulysses.

[Eisworth]

The last paragraph of your review is a doozy --- I'm guessing this was written in a "pre-Ambassadors" universe.
_________________
Todd Eisworth
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Ohio University

[shaw]

Yes. After the Ambassadors, most books I've read in the past look a lot better.