Katherine
I hadn’t heard of this book before, but read it as part of a challenge. I didn’t know much going in other than it evidently won a Pulitzer Prize and the setting was an asylum right after the American Civil War.
Overall, I’m left pretty confused, disappointed by the exploration of the themes that were promised, and feeling very little about the book other than “what the fuck was that”. By the way, TW for on-page SA and graphic war violence and injury. There are some positives- some nice quotable passages, an initially intriguing setup and story, and the ideas that were presented about the horrors of war and its effect on the human psyche. Unfortunately, the book took a nosedive into a confusing mess of an ending. Honest to god I have a headache after finishing the book because I was brow furrowed the ENTIRE LAST 20%!
A New York Times Review by Dwight Garner calls the book “sludgy, claustrophobic, and pretentious”, and I think I agree with that opinion. The prose can be flowery, and at times it’s very hard to follow because of it. I didn’t understand what Phillips was trying to say a lot of the time, because the metaphors and similes and imagery became so convoluted. There were many moments where I read something, was completely befuddled, and reread it several times to no avail. Some of the passages, when they’re actually decipherable, are pretty good, but few and far between after the first half.
The book is fairly slow-paced. There isn’t a lot happening for most of it, but the overall plot is… confusing. Initially, I was intrigued and very concerned about ConaLee with her Mama and her “Papa” and what the heck was even going on with the whole situation. Part 2 expands on that with me gaining even MORE concern and outright horror. It sets up a lot that, while horrific, I thought could go in some fascinating directions. But in Part 3, things begin to fall apart for me, with decisions that don’t seem to make a lot of sense for any of the characters and a frankly *baffling* ending. There is a lot that happens all at once but I don’t know why and very little is given in explanation. Part IV makes it even more baffling by acting as a tiny flashback that, as far as I can tell, didn’t do anything to give the reader new information or insight. Also, why doesn’t the child character know her mother’s first name? That’s so weird and truly bizarre. It was to set up a parentification theme, but that was very present even without that last “reveal”.
I liked some of the themes and the exploration of war, identity, and trauma. It was interesting to learn about the Kirkbride method of running asylums (which was “moral” and honestly way more humane than I would’ve expected in the 1870s….). I thought the horrific scenes were written in a truly horrific and realistic way. I *can* see why some of the book was set up the way it was to establish an idea- such as a soldier coming back from war completely changed, with one husband disappearing and “Papa” coming in. I don’t necessarily think the ideas were bad to make these themes come to life, but the execution was frankly causing much more confusion than I think was necessary, especially with how the plot plays out.
In summary, good ideas, some literary devices that could really work, but overall left me flabbergasted.
I hadn’t heard of this book before, but read it as part of a challenge. I didn’t know much going in other than it evidently won a Pulitzer Prize and the setting was an asylum right after the American Civil War.
Overall, I’m left pretty confused, disappointed by the exploration of the themes that were promised, and feeling very little about the book other than “what the fuck was that”. By the way, TW for on-page SA and graphic war violence and injury. There are some positives- some nice quotable passages, an initially intriguing setup and story, and the ideas that were presented about the horrors of war and its effect on the human psyche. Unfortunately, the book took a nosedive into a confusing mess of an ending. Honest to god I have a headache after finishing the book because I was brow furrowed the ENTIRE LAST 20%!
A New York Times Review by Dwight Garner calls the book “sludgy, claustrophobic, and pretentious”, and I think I agree with that opinion. The prose can be flowery, and at times it’s very hard to follow because of it. I didn’t understand what Phillips was trying to say a lot of the time, because the metaphors and similes and imagery became so convoluted. There were many moments where I read something, was completely befuddled, and reread it several times to no avail. Some of the passages, when they’re actually decipherable, are pretty good, but few and far between after the first half.
The book is fairly slow-paced. There isn’t a lot happening for most of it, but the overall plot is… confusing. Initially, I was intrigued and very concerned about ConaLee with her Mama and her “Papa” and what the heck was even going on with the whole situation. Part 2 expands on that with me gaining even MORE concern and outright horror. It sets up a lot that, while horrific, I thought could go in some fascinating directions. But in Part 3, things begin to fall apart for me, with decisions that don’t seem to make a lot of sense for any of the characters and a frankly *baffling* ending. There is a lot that happens all at once but I don’t know why and very little is given in explanation. Part IV makes it even more baffling by acting as a tiny flashback that, as far as I can tell, didn’t do anything to give the reader new information or insight. Also, why doesn’t the child character know her mother’s first name? That’s so weird and truly bizarre. It was to set up a parentification theme, but that was very present even without that last “reveal”.
I liked some of the themes and the exploration of war, identity, and trauma. It was interesting to learn about the Kirkbride method of running asylums (which was “moral” and honestly way more humane than I would’ve expected in the 1870s….). I thought the horrific scenes were written in a truly horrific and realistic way. I *can* see why some of the book was set up the way it was to establish an idea- such as a soldier coming back from war completely changed, with one husband disappearing and “Papa” coming in. I don’t necessarily think the ideas were bad to make these themes come to life, but the execution was frankly causing much more confusion than I think was necessary, especially with how the plot plays out.
In summary, good ideas, some literary devices that could really work, but overall left me flabbergasted.