The New Republic: A Novel by Lionel Shriver
My rating: 1 of 5 stars
Dear Lionel Shriver;
Ugh.
That sort of hurt my head a bit, Lionel. It started out interesting and zippy – full of potential. But then there was some really, really, really horrible writing:
“Such a piercing whistle sang through window cracks that Edgar’s headache was immediate. As the hump-fendered sedan galumphed down the road, it swayed in and out of lane, though the driver wrestled manfully with the wheel. Now and again a thud sounded against the doors as if a linebacker had assaulted the cab with a running tackle.”
Here are the book’s pros:
1. You are great at writing the opposite sex. It was believable and seamless.
2. You come up with very interesting ideas.
3. Your sense of the absurd is spot-on.
4. You’re funny.
5. You are Lionel f*cking Shriver!
Here are the cons:
1. You completed this manuscript in 1998 and the version published this month is nearly exactly the same as the original manuscript. It felt very dated and clunky and could have been improved monumentally.
2. It became predictable.
3. Moments of the novel were painful to read. Like, really amateur stuff. To the point that, less than 80 pages from the end, I debated chucking the whole thing.
4. Given the strength of We Need to Talk About Kevin and The Post-Birthday World, this really seemed like a dirtshow dressed up with pearls and, finger’s crossed, nobody notices otherwise.
5. YOU ARE LIONEL F*CKING SHRIVER!
Sigh.
It hurts my heart to give this only one-star.
I do love you, Lionel. But, sometimes, tough-love is needed. You can do way, way, way better!! I know it. (And I suspect you do too.)
Sincerely yours,
Jennifer
Jennifer, the paragraph you quoted is SO BAD. How could a man of his talent write such dreadful rubbish? You are brave to even read it. Give yourself a medal for taking the time to read and review. the book.
Hi Nita!
In one of those ‘isn’t that peculiar’ things, Lionel is actually a woman. Formerly Margaret Ann. She thought that her name didn’t fit her – she was a tomboy – and that a male name suited her and people would take her more seriously as ‘Lionel’.
In any case, male or female, an author at this level of success and renown should not be capable of producing such…stuff. At first I was intrigued and thought there was an interesting premise with lots of potential. BUT the writing – that was only one example – really was awful. I appreciate your pat on the back. It was much needed!!
Wow: you really did not connect with this book! I hadn’t seen your thoughts on it before you said that you were attending her reading. Did anything that you saw/heard that night make you consider re-investigating? I think I’ll go to her backlist before reading this one, unless a copy of it lands in my mailbox unexpectedly, but I’m definitely curious…
well, i did manage to find some things about the book i liked – the humour, irony, in particular. but, yeah. the writing was rather unfortunate and my likes were not strong enough to offset the writing.
i loved seeing shriver in-person, but it didn’t make me want to re-read the novel. it did make me want to get some of her other novels that i haven’t read, though.