I've read more than fifty pages of Anthony Doerr's
All the Light We Cannot See (as mentioned somewhere else, I usually give a novel fifty pages no matter how bad it is...)
I just don't get it; the book was on the New York Times Book Review's top ten list for 2014, and many critics use words like "luminous" and "gripping" and "heartbreaking" to describe it. Oh, and it won the Pulitzer Prize.
There are so many metaphors, or groups of metaphors, that strive to be poetic but are just--empty. "Rumors circulate through the Paris museum, moving fast, as quick and brightly colored as scarves." (page 50) Rumors can be quick and brightly colored (exaggerated, colorful) but why "scarves"? It just falls flat. "Out of the loudspeakers all around Zollverein, the staccato voice of the Reich grows like some imperturbable tree; its subjects lean toward its branches as if toward the lips of God." (page 63) The Reich is a tree and then its branches are the lips of God...the tree metaphor was a good one, so why throw lips into it? I love absudist/surrealist imagery as much as the next person--probably more than the next person. But I don't want to get stuck on the Dali-esque image of lips on a tree
here, in this novel. And the author obviously didn't intend for that to happen...it's just clumsy writing.
Doerr uses the word "purl" on page 60 ("All summer the smells of nettles and daisies and rainwater purl through the gardens") and again on page 69 ("Rainwater purls from cloud to roof to eave"). I had to look it up. "Purl" can mean, to knit with a particular kind of stitch, the purl stitch, but it can also mean, to move in eddies and swirls. Okay, nice word; I like it in the first sentence; but when it comes back just nine pages later, it doesn't make a lot of sense--does rain really "swirl" from cloud to roof to eave?--and because "purl" already calls so much attention to itself, why did he have to use it again?
But beyond these clumsy moments, and there are many, many similar ones, I keep waiting for real characters to emerge from Doerr's swirling phrases (his purling phrases), his endless descriptions of minute phenomena...the two central characters have little or no life to them. I don't feel that I've even begun to know them; one is blind, the other fixes radios. War is descending on both of them so I am supposed to feel bad for them, but as of page 70 they are still puppets, in service of Doerr's poetic flights of fancy; they are not people experiencing a war. They are not even people experiencing a life.
I don't like to write this; I don't like negative reviews. Life it too short to focus on the negative. I feel compelled to do it this one time, because it's such an amazingly popular book and people seem to be deeply moved by it. Why are these kinds of books held up, more and more, as the gold standard of contemporary fiction? I just don't understand.
Undoubtedly, many Americans wish to understand World War II and the other horrific events of the twentieth century better than they do now (myself included). The popularity of this book perhaps reflects this desire...but in my view, the convoluted language of the book takes us further away from World War II, not closer to it. We get lost in Doerr's overheated phrases and overworked images.
My sad conclusion about this book's popularity is that people want very badly to believe it's a profound book, and indeed it has all the earmarks of profundity: weighty subject, tragic characters in a tragic situation, philosophical observations and vaguely poetic images...
Enough already. It's cold, it's late, I need to sleep...since the weekend it's gotten steadily colder, and tonight is perhaps the coldest it's been since early last spring. Tomorrow I finally have another four hours or so to myself...let's see if I'm capable of producing something that isn't overheated and overworked.