Jarv’s Holiday Reading Part 3

Hola,

This is the last part of the whole “holiday reading” marathon, and for the finale I’m covering 3 books, one of them is a mini-review and the other two will be in more depth.

A Clockwork Orange

There isn’t a huge amount I can add to the reams and reams written about this book. It’s probably my favourite novel of all time, and a book that I come back to periodically and find something to enjoy in it every time I do.

What I can talk about, is that the edition I read was the first time the full version of A Clockwork Orange was available to Americans, and as such contains Burgess’ introduction “Clockwork Orange Resucked”. This introduction is absolutely fascinating. Burgess lays out the production history of his novel, and it’s funny how times have changed. The proper novel, which contains the redemption chapter, was apparently “not dark enough” for American readers- which is hilarious considering the amount of things nowadays that are toned down for the US. Kubrick only read the American version, which Burgess sniffily dismisses as a “fable” as opposed to a novel, and as such Burgess believes that the film was fundamentally flawed. He’s right.

I was aware that Burgess grew to dislike the novel and detest the film, but I was actually unaware as to how virulent his feelings towards it are. He says that he considers Clockwork Orange to be a bad book for being overly didactic, and that he resents the fact that he’s basically known for his juvenile work, whereas his other, more adult and more developed novels are ignored. Anyhow, for what it’s worth, if I was going to buy another copy of this book for whatever reason, then I’d certainly search out this edition.

Nevertheless, A Clockwork Orange is a fucking seminal novel, an absolute monster of English writing, and if you haven’t read it then, O My Brothers, seek it out, and you will not be disappointed.

Jarv’s Rating: Do I really have to do this? 4 Changs.

The Resurrectionist

This is a tough one to review, because the novel is just so surreal, nevertheless, I’m giving it a shot.

The Resurrectionist is Jack O’Connell’s third (or it may be fourth) Quinsigamond book (for the record, I haven’t read any of the others). Quinsigamond is a dilapidated town in America’s “rust belt” that barely even qualifies as a shithole. It’s a nightmarish place that reeks of decay and decrepitude. Dominating the landscape is the neo-gothic Peck Clinic where experimental Doctor Peck and his daughter Alice treat long-term coma patients in the hope that they may be able to prompt an “awakening”.

The Resurrectionist is about Sweeney, a pharmacist with serious mental problems, who has abandoned a great job to move his comatose son Danny to the Peck clinic in hope of a revival. The novel deals with his encounters with the outlaw biker gang, The Abominations, and revealing the mystery of Danny’s accident and his mother’s suicide.

That summary doesn’t really do the novel justice. O’Connell takes us on a twisted and bizarre journey through the subconscious, and it’s a nightmarish read. Half of the novel consists of extracts from the comic “Limbo” written by the reclusive Menlo, about the misadventures of a travelling group of circus freaks. Limbo is, incidentally, where the biker gang try to go through injecting “the soup”, a strange and volatile narcotic that has, amongst other unmentioned ingredients, the brain juice drained from the cerebral shunts of the coma victims at the Peck clinic.

If I’m absolutely honest, I have to say that the extracts from Limbo (especially the tragic denouement) are absolutely riveting and overshadow the actual narrative. This is because Sweeney, as a character, is a complete asshole, and following his assholish antics around town is much less compelling than the adventures of Chick, Bruno and the other freaks.

The Resurrectionist considers lots of things, the power of narrative, the need for forgiveness, alienation, and what is consciousness, but does it with such a light touch that it’s very easy to miss these themes.

The Resurrectionist is a sad, strange novel that flirts with genuine brilliance. It’s challenging and intelligent and I have to say more than worth a read.

Jarv’s Rating: 3.5 Changs out of 4.

Weathercock

A pity to finish on this, but nevertheless, I’m going to end on a downer. I knew this was a bad book when I read it the first time, but I was toying with doing a full length review and so reread it in the vague hope that I was being harsh. I wasn’t.

Weathercock is the novel Duncan was meant to be writing when he penned I, Lucifer. It’s a massive, weighty treatise on the nature of good and evil and the choices that men make. It’s also an epic failure. Duncan is a talented writer, and has a real way with description, but fuck me is this book terrible. It’s obvious that he was blocked, and reads exactly like he knew how to end it, just not how to get to his preferred ending.

Weathercock is the “autobiography” of Dominic Hood, a foul sadist, and tells the story of his life, but particularly two miracles and his on-off relationship with the damaged and cruel Deborah Black. Hood is religious, in that he believes in god and the devil, but ascribes his sadistic urges to the devil. He seeks validation from a barely remembered childhood priest called Ignatious Malone, and the novel builds layers of nihilism up to a limp and soggy climax.

There are good things about Weathercock, Duncan can turn a memorable phrase, and the childhood section is well written and believable, however, this is nowhere near enough to compensate for the absolutely ginormous flaw in the novel.

Basically, the problem with this book is that it has aspirations that Duncan can’t meet, and to explain why I’m going to have to spoil the end of the book, so if you’re interested in the novel, skip the next paragraph:

The climax of the novel, but not the end- it waffles on for about 100 pages afterwards, takes place in a cellar in Pennsylvania where Hood and Black are preparing for murder. Dominic is waiting for some sign, some climactic instance, that will show the existance of supernatural evil. He doesn’t get one, and is forced to conclude that the shitty and sadistic things he’s done were not inspired by the devil, but merely done for gratification.

No. Shit. The conclusion drawn by the novel that that the only evil is man made is so completely and utterly banal, and so dreadfully anticlimactic, that it throws the rest of the novel into utter disarray.

The problem here is that without the big and profound conclusion (which that certainly is not) what you are left with is 500 grubby pages of nasty sadism. Hood tortures an autistic girl (for sexual kicks) emotionally devastates his fiancée (for sexual kicks) and is preparing for torture and murder (for sexual kicks). He is aware of his own depravity, but is trying to find an excuse for it by passing it on to forces greater than him.

So why write it? it isn’t, despite what it thinks, a profound novel. It isn’t an important novel. It doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been done better elsewhere (notably A Clockwork Orange above), and as such is completely and utterly redundant.

So why read it? Well, I read it because of I, Lucifer and the excellent Love Remains, and I have to say that it’s scared me off reading any more of Duncan’s novels. I will come back to the author at some point, but this is a real dog of a novel. My best advice is: don’t read it.

Jarv’s Rating: Orangutan of Doom, and very well earned. What we have here is a massive case of an author overreaching himself, writing beyond his ability and insight and the sheer banality of Weathercock, and the sheer level of failure outweigh the many good points.

0 Changs: The Orangutan of Doom

 Well, a shame to finish on that piss poor garbage, but that’s now me done with the holiday books.

Adios, it’s been emotional.

Jarv

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

29 Responses to “Jarv’s Holiday Reading Part 3”

  1. xiphos0311 says :

    Jarv all your excellent big boys book reviews have made me find the backbone to do a series of reviews that I’m, quite frankly, entirely unqualified to attempt.

    I’ve been thinking about reviewing this author’s work for a long time now and I have been afraid of trying to review this writers work becasue of the complexity and insanely high standard of writings.

    So thanks to you I am going to review the bibliography(those that I have read) of Umberto Eco. I am a fucking idiot for trying to do this and I’m going to fuck the dog bad on this one.

    • Jarv says :

      Phew!

      Cheers for the compliment Xi, and good luck with the Eco series.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Thanks for the well wishes I’m going to need it. Of the many bad choices I’ve made in lifetime of making bad choices this one is going to rank up near the top, total train wreck.

      • Jarv says :

        I think I’ve only read The Name of the Rose. Which I seem to remember being a really good book.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Name of the Rose is Eco most accessible book and that thing was massively complex but well written.
        Foucault’s Pendulum, Baudolino and The Island Of The Day Before make Rose seem like a childs pop up book.

    • Tom_Bando says :

      I have read one (1) Eco book—Bualdolino. Starts out okay and then goes off the deep end last third (or so). Name of the Rose is a decent flick and am sure the book is a wade. Good luck on’em Xiphos! (Noted_Sage etc.)

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Tom the movie is one of the best book to film adaptations out there, damn near the top. They really got it right and didn’t monkey with much beyond leaving out a bunch of story lines that would have bogged down the movie.

      • Jarv says :

        What Xi said.

        I have also read Foucault’s Pendulum now you mention it.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Foucault’s Pendulum, now that’s a complicated book, it’s probably my favorite but it depends on the day.

  2. Tom_Bando says :

    I actually have the DVD of that-w/ Sean Connery, Christian Slater, William Hickey etc. It’s good. 1986, right? Have to re-visit it sometime. Oh and Ron Perlman plays a hunchback! good times, good times…

    • Jarv says :

      All round good film, really.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        What Jarv said.

        They manged to get all the big ideas in with sacrificing anything, dumbing down or being preachy at the audience. Plus Connery was perfect in the role even if he didn’t look like the way the character is described and was a good 10 or so years older.

  3. xiphos0311 says :

    I never knew Burgess walked away from A Clockwork Orange. Is his main beef that it’s his “young” work? Did I get that right? That seems sort of a strange tact to take.

    • Tom_Bando says :

      It’s like (okay bear w/ me) Elvis slagging his Sun Record stuff (Blue Moon of Kentucky, Good Rockin’ Tonite, etc) when being interviewed in the 70′s or onstage. Said they sounded funny etc. But they’re widely viewed as being about the best things he did, even though he was 19 or so.

      Must kinda suck to peak at a really young age and be reminded of that fact for the rest of the time you’re famous or whatever.

      Fred Lynn, anyone?

      • xiphos0311 says :

        I have/had a Fred Lynn autographed home run baseball from 76. He was cool enough to sign it after the game.

      • Tom_Bando says :

        Way cool there Xiphos. Lynn had one more really great year-’79, but it was just *meh* from there on out, he kept getting hurt etc for the most part. He was good but not what everyone predicted he’d be in ’75–the next Ted Williams.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        I agree Fred Lynn never even came close to living up to his potential.

    • Jarv says :

      He never walked away from it- to be fair, and even defended the film after Kubrick stopped doing so.

      His main beef is that he feels that it’s a bad book because it’s too preachy, and the Nadsat narrative was a cowardly device.

      Tom’s example is perfect- Burgess gave another 3 similar ones (Rachmaninov was one).

      I suspect that the reason he grew to dislike it so much was because he was forced to constantly defend it (in the absence of Kubrick) against the real prurience that was all over it in Britain. It would get me down.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Is Nadsat the language that Alex and the rest of the gang spoke, correct? It’s been a real long time since I’ve read the book.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        Never mind I just looked it up.

      • Jarv says :

        Indeed- defined in the novel as slav and odd bits of rhyming slang, but actually based on Russian.

      • xiphos0311 says :

        why did Burgess think Nasdat was a cowardly device? did he mean as a narrative tool?

      • Jarv says :

        I’m not sure, to be honest.

        He talked about how the voice allowed him authorial cowardice, and then in the next sentence about how he enjoyed Alex’s criminality by proxy.

        I half suspect that it was something he did that he thought was “cool” when he was young then looked back on with faint embarrassment.

        Burgess also had some nutty ideas about combining musical tempos into prose. A strange dude, but a genius.

  4. kloipy says :

    Jarv, I have that edition of Clockwork Orange up on my shelf, just re-read it not too long ago and I agree that it’s an important novel. I can understand Burgess’s anguish at it being his only ‘popular’ novel. I think each writer wants each proceeding work to be thought better than the last. Also I’m sure he was disheartened by the fact that a lot of people, mainly the immature in mind, look up to the Alex character as if he were cool. Thereby missing the nature vs nurture aspect of the book and taking what is a reprehensible character (albeit a facisnating one) and turning him into some sort of hero.

    • Jarv says :

      Absolutely, I’ve also seen interviews with Burgess in the 70′s talking about it (and one from the 80′s) and you can almost see him liking it less and less every time he had to wheel out his defence.

      I’ve read some of his later works, and they aren’t as good as ACO.

      Nature v Nurture, yup. He also mentions in that essay something about destruction being the preserve of youth and we grow out of it.

      A masterpiece of a novel.

  5. Continentalop says :

    I’m gonna defend Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. He made it his own and to me the film was no longer about Nature vs. Nurture but how rape, murder & evil are part of Human Nature. You artificially eradicate it and you no longer have a human being – he has to chose to refrain from his baser nature otherwise we don’t have free will. And if we want to have a liberal free society that is the risk we have to take. That’s what the film meant to me.

  6. Jarv says :

    I also like the film, but think it pales compared to the novel. I first saw it on a bent scandanavian copy as we couldn’t get it in the UK

  7. Jarv says :

    Also, the novel explicitly states that evil comes from human nature, people are just bad- but forced reprogramming is evil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 356 other followers

%d bloggers like this: