Scan barcode
bleary's review
3.0
Hmmm.
It's an intricate, carefully-written novel, with a lot going on in the subtext and a quite experimental structure. It's disorienting and clearly designed to be disorienting. The ambition is to be admired.
But I just didn't enjoy it. It echoes too closely some other, better works, especially [b:The Man in the High Castle|216363|The Man in the High Castle|Philip K. Dick|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1448756803s/216363.jpg|2398287]. Not only does it have the alternative reality thing going on, but there's that same hallucinatory, uncanny feel to that reality. It also reminded me a lot of Cronenberg's movie eXistenZ, where the main characters were often baffled by their own actions and unsure whether they were in reality or a dream.
Cronenberg could do a really great adaptation of this book. I can see it becoming a terrific movie some day. It's not a terrific book. It's a book with quite lofty ambitions, but I'm not sure it realises how muddled and derivative it is in places.
It's an intricate, carefully-written novel, with a lot going on in the subtext and a quite experimental structure. It's disorienting and clearly designed to be disorienting. The ambition is to be admired.
But I just didn't enjoy it. It echoes too closely some other, better works, especially [b:The Man in the High Castle|216363|The Man in the High Castle|Philip K. Dick|https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1448756803s/216363.jpg|2398287]. Not only does it have the alternative reality thing going on, but there's that same hallucinatory, uncanny feel to that reality. It also reminded me a lot of Cronenberg's movie eXistenZ, where the main characters were often baffled by their own actions and unsure whether they were in reality or a dream.
Cronenberg could do a really great adaptation of this book. I can see it becoming a terrific movie some day. It's not a terrific book. It's a book with quite lofty ambitions, but I'm not sure it realises how muddled and derivative it is in places.
blue_house_nat's review
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
oafro's review
1.0
I really wanted to like this but I really didn't.
The story was all over the place.
The characters were empty.
After chapter Billy T I just wanted to call it a day and put the book down.
In theory this book is brilliant but the execution just left me feeling nothing.
The story was all over the place.
The characters were empty.
After chapter Billy T I just wanted to call it a day and put the book down.
In theory this book is brilliant but the execution just left me feeling nothing.
fabilousreads's review
4.0
This book was good! Very strange but awesome. The writing style was excellent. It took a little bit to get used to and to get into the world but it was pretty great. Reminded me a little bit of 1984 with the government issues and the world going to hell which I love to read about. I do think that the interviews before and after the actual novel section were unnecessary. I understand what the author was trying to do with it but I don't think it was needed to enjoy the story that was written. I will definitely be checking out more from this author. Such a ride!
bowman's review
challenging
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
It's hard to describe this book as anything other than Thomas Pynchon and Cormac McCarthy getting together and trying to fictionalize The Body Keeps the Score. This book is very in line with the spirit of all three, but it also maintains its own identity as an examination of not just the personal aspects of trauma, but trauma as a sort of collective, evolving ecology. We see this reflected in the forested setting of Michigan (on fire, mostly), and in the jarring changes and constant movement of the local apex predator Rake (who is also, in a way, on fire), in the many social experiments of the Corps and the collective reaction to the (final, successful) assassination of JFK. I liked the beatnik-ish, meandering organization of this book, and the dreamlike way it denied its reader any sense of certainty, especially when it came to its climax. It will not be a book for everyone, but books for everyone are only for everyone in that they're reduced to boring, common denominators. This was a weird little drug-fueled adventure that is loyal to the spirit of its mid-century cousins, and well worth the read.
relf's review
4.0
A novel within a novel, conjuring up a disorienting--almost hallucinatory--alternate version of Vietnam vets returning to Michigan in the 1970s. I'm not sure how David Means's prose managed to create such a tangible, sensory world that kept me fully immersed as I read and yet resulted in a feeling of having dreamed it. The novel is a meditation on storytelling, memory, gaps, conspiracy, trauma, violence, madness, love, and what constitutes reality. This one will be running through my head for a long time.
vanityclear's review
2.0
Man Booker Challenge #6. Pretty ambivalent about this one—there were one or two lines of startling beauty about nature or the universe, delivered during the chapters focused on Hank the Amiable Tree Hunter—but on the whole this entire book felt forced. Plot is really not one of David Means's strongpoints (and maybe the form of the novel is not....), and I was pulled along neither by the narrative nor by the characters' developments (which, come to think of it, might not have existed that much either). I was frequently bored, and slogged through mostly because I gave myself this inane challenge. Like Eileen, this one wasn't worth it for the rare snatches of beauty. Means should, by all accounts, stick to short fiction (and American readership should appreciate the form more).
barrypierce's review
1.0
Hystopia (2016) is one of those books where I recognise the cover but I had no idea what it was about. This is David Means’ debut novel after birthing a couple of short story collections into the world. (Note to self: never read any of those books)
Hystopia began so well. Page one and we are hit with an editor’s note. I thought to myself, ‘great, a meta-novel, I already love this’. The first fifty-ish pages consist of editor’s notes, author’s note, and testimonials, all of which are fictional. We are told that the novel presented to us was written by Eugene Allen, a Vietnam vet who has since killed himself. We learn of the hours he spent in his room working on the novel and we read the opinions of the people upon whom characters in the novel are based. In the back of my mind I’m feeling the flickers of Pale Fire but that flame is quickly quenched. The novel within the novel, also called Hystopia, is a mess.
I’ve read reviews for Hystopia that mention great names like Pynchon and Cormac McCarthy. If David Means writes like Pynchon then my reviews read like Dorothy Parker’s. Hystopia is set in an America where Vietnam never ended and JFK doesn’t die in Dallas. It follows a band of outsiders as they violently roam the country, wishing they were being written by Larry McMurtry. I read whole pages thinking, ‘Am I not smart enough for this novel or does it just not make any sense?’, judging by the critical reaction – it’s the latter. It reads like if Kerouac attempted to write an IKEA manuel. A mess begets a mess.
I spent most of Hystopia waiting for it to end. The whole thing reminded me of a movie you’d see on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. What is so disappointing is that Means was really onto something with the meta-fictional parts that bookend the novel. How can they be so good but the novel so bad? Another thing that annoys me is the name. Hystopia. It’s hard to type and when you google it the first suggestion is ‘hysterectomy’. My disappointment in this novel is palpable. I hate this book.
Hystopia began so well. Page one and we are hit with an editor’s note. I thought to myself, ‘great, a meta-novel, I already love this’. The first fifty-ish pages consist of editor’s notes, author’s note, and testimonials, all of which are fictional. We are told that the novel presented to us was written by Eugene Allen, a Vietnam vet who has since killed himself. We learn of the hours he spent in his room working on the novel and we read the opinions of the people upon whom characters in the novel are based. In the back of my mind I’m feeling the flickers of Pale Fire but that flame is quickly quenched. The novel within the novel, also called Hystopia, is a mess.
I’ve read reviews for Hystopia that mention great names like Pynchon and Cormac McCarthy. If David Means writes like Pynchon then my reviews read like Dorothy Parker’s. Hystopia is set in an America where Vietnam never ended and JFK doesn’t die in Dallas. It follows a band of outsiders as they violently roam the country, wishing they were being written by Larry McMurtry. I read whole pages thinking, ‘Am I not smart enough for this novel or does it just not make any sense?’, judging by the critical reaction – it’s the latter. It reads like if Kerouac attempted to write an IKEA manuel. A mess begets a mess.
I spent most of Hystopia waiting for it to end. The whole thing reminded me of a movie you’d see on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. What is so disappointing is that Means was really onto something with the meta-fictional parts that bookend the novel. How can they be so good but the novel so bad? Another thing that annoys me is the name. Hystopia. It’s hard to type and when you google it the first suggestion is ‘hysterectomy’. My disappointment in this novel is palpable. I hate this book.