When We Were Orphans
Dear Chris, Tony, and Jim--
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI've been following your exchange with delight because I read the book a couple of months ago, when it came out in England, and now find that I have agreed at times with most everything all of you have said. How's that for equivocation? But that's one of the points of this book, I think: that it's not supposed to be easy, that it's supposed to confound expectation and make you think hard about what is going on and what the author is trying to say.
So, I would go with Jim's argument on behalf of the reader who reads for pleasure. I liked it because (beyond a plot that kept me guessing and surprised if it did prove ultimately unsatisfying) it was haunting in its way, and because it defies easy explanation, and because I found it so nicely written.
And, for what it's worth, the judges of the Booker Prize (Britain's most prestigious literary prize, as it's called in the New York Times and will be again this year) have taken this book that so many people have found infuriating and put it on the five-book short-list, which was unveiled this morning. Winner announced Nov. 7, along with winners of various other more world-important races.
All best,
Sarah
This week, our Book Clubbers tackle Kazuo Ishiguro's When We Were Orphans, a whodunit in which some of the most crucial developments take place in the detective's own head. Critical reaction so far has been sharply mixed: Does the novel say something profound about memory, or is it just an unsatisfying mystery? Click here to learn more about the critics and here to buy the book. 
The John Cassavetes Movie That Changed American Cinema Forever
Am I Wasting My Money if I Give to a Needy Family at Christmas?
Troy Patterson: What I Love About Glee
Hurray! We Won the War on Spam.
Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball Is a Crude, Fantastic Mess
Thanks, FDA, but We Don't Need Your Protection From Raw Oysters
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Note from the Fray Editor: Ronald Welch writes interestingly here about the book ("How Insane is Christopher Banks?"), and about a recent interview he conducted with Kazuo Ishiguro. More reaction:]
I completely disagree that Ishiguro should have described food as "pleasantly scrumptious" rather than "pleasantly sumptuous". The former's something of an oxymoron--scrumptious being way more than just pleasant--whereas the latter conjures up images of feeling coddled by the decadence of the food.
--Felix Salmon
(To reply, click here.)
Ahh Ishiguro.
Well after loving (well being a big fan of) Ishiguro's first three novels, I had the misfortune of suffering through The Unconsoled. Martin Amis's The Information had the running joke about the manuscript of a novel with the 'circle of eight unreliable narrators' that was being passed around from editor to editor each of whom would develop severe migraines after attempting to read more than a few chapters. My pet theory is that this was a commentary on The Unconsoled. My feelings after finishing it were that I wanted to punch the author for putting me through such an excruciating ordeal. What was the point, really? Why bother? And yet the writing was beautiful, stylized and the author's technical control unquestionable. Suffice to say that I am ambivalent about buying the new novel. I want to see if he'll make concessions to the reader and tell a story. He can write so well after all. But part of me also remembers the realization after reading 100 or so pages of his last novel that he was actually going to continue in the vein and actually get more infuriating for another 400 pages.
--Amaah
(To reply, click here.)
(10/5)