First off, I must admit that I am a biased reviewer. I've been looking forward to reading this book, and critiquing this book, for a while. But I didn't know exactly what to expect from Jason Quinn Malott just from his 'online literary column'. I knew the book would be 'literary', but I was skeptical as to its entertainment value. Even if he has stated that entertainment should be a high priority for a writer.
I am happy to say I wasn't bored. So he's better than Willa Cather.
The Evolution of Shadows is not going to be exactly what you expect when you first pick it up. It's about the Bosnian War; but in the end, it's not really about the Bosnian War. Even if you read the little inside cover 'about the book' thing, you'll be surprised at what you get. There are those who complain that the plot in the book is weak. But it's not really about the plot; it is a very character driven story, pretty melancholy, and pretty good.
Jason Malott is obsessed with tense, though, which may get in the way for some people. The control he puts on tense does facilitates his obsession with flashbacks. Which are a little overdone in the beginning, but mellow out in the second half. The book takes place in about 5 different times and if you pay attention to the tense, you know where you are by that alone. Which is actually kinda nice once you get used to it. It is uncommon (really uncommon), but once you get over that, it can be quite nice.
That being said, I find I hope his next book doesn't have the same style. Similar to how I felt about "Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" but to a lesser degree. Susanna Clarke's writing style fit her book in a rarely perfect way so that if she wrote another like that, it would probably be awful. At the least, I would no longer be as impressed with how Victorian-esque she could be because that'd be all she could be. The Evolution of Shadows isn't quite such a stylistic match, but it is so unique in its stylistic choice that... if it is just how Jason writes, I'll be disappointed. I am hoping he has the depth to tell a strikingly different story.
The biggest problem I have with the book is that, most of the time (at least in the beginning for me...) I could tell it was written by a person who has never been through a war, but just as a keen sense of empathy. I don't know how or why this is, because I have never been through a war either. But somehow it just seems like it was written by, well, a writer. Perhaps this is my bias because I happen to know that the writer has never been to war. But if it was, this bias was slowly eroded by my progress through the book and it was considerably lessened by the time I was done reading. Some of the more graphic and horrible scenes make me swear that Jason was a war photographer. So in the end, the biggest complaint I have with the book isn't that big.
Even if it is "written by a writer", the book is still really "hard to read": it is grittily attached to its subject which is simply unpalatable. War sucks. It is not 'fun'. If you pick up this book, you probably already know that. It takes a lot of attention, it's not quick, and it deserves your thought. The writing reminds me of Anil's Ghost (though I only listened to half of it on tape) but with less humor thrown in the mix. The Evolution of Shadows is perhaps not crafted with quite the excellency of Michael Ondaatje's book (on tape), but it isn't that far behind. For a first book, it's pretty impressive. Much better than most of the schlock that you can pick up at the supermarket. It reminded me that there are better books being written today. They aren't just a relic of the past.
Speaking of humor brings me to my biggest piece of constructive criticism: Humor rocks. Humor is a way to vault someone's barriers without them even knowing you've gotten behind their defenses. Then, it allows you to talk to them about something they would otherwise ignore. Some of the greatest philosophers of our day are comedians. Look at Bill Watterson. Humor doesn't have to cheapen a dramatic work, but can make it more accessible to a wider range of people. Some of the "best" authors used it ubiquitously. Shakespeare doesn't have one play that doesn't have some sort of humor in it.
That's a pretty good review, despite the problems you mention having with the book. We could have a good discussion about the - in my opinion - ridiculous requirement that writers have "experienced" the things they write about, as well as humor, which I do enjoy, but has almost never made successful appearances in my fiction. I have a long story as to why that is, but the short version is simply that my real life is comic enough and I refuse to write autobiographical fiction. ;o)
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the criticism is good, and reasonable. It's stuff I think about every time I sit down to revise.
So, in the end, Thank you for such a thoughtful, earnest review.