![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 8th, 2003 02:23 pmI finished Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister a little while ago, and my opinion of it did not improve any. In fact, I think even less of the book than I did when I wrote my last post. Maguire threw in a really lame surprise at the end that just put the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.
Despite not liking the book, the experience of reading it was still rather interesting. As I was getting closer and closer to the end of the book, I began to realize that we were going to have to discuss it at our bookclub meeting. I didn't want to be completely negative, so I started searching for things about the book that could be seen as interesting and I realized that it basically fit the criteria for the "Postmodern Rewritings" class that I took in England. I loved that class, and I loved almost every book that I read for the class. Much like the books on the syllabus for that class, Confessions takes a familiar story, or a slice of history, or the life of famous figure and retells it in a way that is intended to make the reader question what he or she knows about that familiar story or bit of history or whatever, and question the source of his or her knowledge about it. So I was left wondering why I had loved the books I read for my class, and why I most certainly didn't love Confessions. I think the reason for this is directly connected to the complaints about Maguire's characterization and treatment of historical setting that I recorded last time. Instead of allowing his characters to develop naturally, from within the story, Maguire seems to need to impose his will from the outside of the story. He uses the same method raise the epistemological questions that he wants to raise. When I took my "Postmodern Rewritings" class and read John Banville, Graham Swift, Salman Rushdie, and the rest, the questions arose as a natural extension of the story. You couldn't help wonder about the nature of stories, the reliability of history, or the ways in which information can shift and change. Reading Maguire, however, I felt like he was forcing these questions into his narrative. It certainly didn't seem to spring organically from the story itself, and therefore really didn't work for me.
Since finishing Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, I've been reading The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingslover. I've never read anything by her and it seems like I keep encountering people who are appalled by this fact, so I've decided to remedy it. I figured I'd start at the beginning and read her first novel. I'm definitely enjoying it so far. The narrator has a nice, distinctive voice, and the story is engrossing. I think I'll probably fly right through it, since it seems fairly light, fun, and short. We'll see, though. I've been proven wrong before.
Despite not liking the book, the experience of reading it was still rather interesting. As I was getting closer and closer to the end of the book, I began to realize that we were going to have to discuss it at our bookclub meeting. I didn't want to be completely negative, so I started searching for things about the book that could be seen as interesting and I realized that it basically fit the criteria for the "Postmodern Rewritings" class that I took in England. I loved that class, and I loved almost every book that I read for the class. Much like the books on the syllabus for that class, Confessions takes a familiar story, or a slice of history, or the life of famous figure and retells it in a way that is intended to make the reader question what he or she knows about that familiar story or bit of history or whatever, and question the source of his or her knowledge about it. So I was left wondering why I had loved the books I read for my class, and why I most certainly didn't love Confessions. I think the reason for this is directly connected to the complaints about Maguire's characterization and treatment of historical setting that I recorded last time. Instead of allowing his characters to develop naturally, from within the story, Maguire seems to need to impose his will from the outside of the story. He uses the same method raise the epistemological questions that he wants to raise. When I took my "Postmodern Rewritings" class and read John Banville, Graham Swift, Salman Rushdie, and the rest, the questions arose as a natural extension of the story. You couldn't help wonder about the nature of stories, the reliability of history, or the ways in which information can shift and change. Reading Maguire, however, I felt like he was forcing these questions into his narrative. It certainly didn't seem to spring organically from the story itself, and therefore really didn't work for me.
Since finishing Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, I've been reading The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingslover. I've never read anything by her and it seems like I keep encountering people who are appalled by this fact, so I've decided to remedy it. I figured I'd start at the beginning and read her first novel. I'm definitely enjoying it so far. The narrator has a nice, distinctive voice, and the story is engrossing. I think I'll probably fly right through it, since it seems fairly light, fun, and short. We'll see, though. I've been proven wrong before.
