Scan barcode
silver_violet's review
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.5
connor_my_rick's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
bluenemesis's review against another edition
5.0
After finishing this novel, I was left with that empty feeling one feels after immersing oneself unintentionally into another world. Our Tragic Universe is at once complicated and uncomfortably familiar. The characters are well-rounded, with both likeable and eye-rolling qualities in spades, and their relationships with one another reflect all the intricacies and redundancies and paradoxes we experience in our own lives. The book explores many different concepts, our relationship with stories and fiction, the structure and lack of structure in meaningful stories, paradoxes and ‘storyless stories’ or metafiction. This novel is all of those and none of those at once. While I first found the meandering plot, or lack of plot, distracting, at some point I was drawn into the bleak and hopeful world without noticing. It was one of my favorite reads this year.
laefe's review against another edition
4.0
Voglio un universo tragico, non uno ordinato e ben fatto con una morale alla fine.
a_r_e_l_i_c's review against another edition
4.0
07 salt & seaweed
26 cold smell
39 roasting beetroot
107 paint
129 smoke & apples & fireworks
169 engine
171 good coffee & wholemeal pastry
194 cheese & salami & raw silk
237 unwashed hair
242 cigarette smoke & vodka
243 earthy & wintry
340 ceylon tea & cinnamon
26 cold smell
39 roasting beetroot
107 paint
129 smoke & apples & fireworks
169 engine
171 good coffee & wholemeal pastry
194 cheese & salami & raw silk
237 unwashed hair
242 cigarette smoke & vodka
243 earthy & wintry
340 ceylon tea & cinnamon
oldenglishrose's review against another edition
4.0
Thomas’ novels that I’ve read have never been about the plot so much as they have the ideas contained within it and this one, if you couldn’t already tell from that blurb, is no exception. In fact, Our Tragic Universe takes this even further by having probably the most plot elements of any of her books so far, none of which really come to anything. There is Meg’s friend Libby’s unhappy relationship in which she vacillates between her lover and her long term partner, which remains unresolved as the novel draws to a close. Meg’s own humdrum relationship with her boyfriend, Christopher, which might be a major point in any other book, is a non-issue even after she leaves him in order to concentrate on her work. Events just sort of take place on the sidelines rather than being important in any way.
Character is similarly unimportant, the most distinctive character in the entire book being Meg’s dog Bess (surely one of the most appealing and lifelike dogs in literature), although an honourable mention goes to Christopher’s brother Josh. It is interesting that these are both secondary characters however, and none of the people that one might expect to be significant and well developed are particularly distinguishable.
The important part of Our Tragic Universe is the bizarre theories and philosophies that it contains. With Thomas’ books it is impossible to say at what point unlikely fact becomes improbably theory and improbable theory becomes crazy fiction, but frankly I never care because it’s all so confusing and fascinating at the same time. In this particular instance, the theory is that at the end of the universe there will be so much energy compressed into such a small space that it will be used to create a new universe in which everyone who has ever lived will exist eternally. This leads on to questions about the point of existence and the nature of reality and, as in The End of Mr. Y, these theories somehow end up being linked to literature and fiction, what it is and what it does: "In Newman’s never-ending universe there’d be time to write an infinite amount of novels, and even finish reading all the books I’d ever begun, and all the books I’d never begun. But who’d care about fiction any more? We only need fiction because we die."
Later on, Meg and a friend debate the comparative merits of unpredictable storyless stories over familiar, formulaic fiction: "You should read Aristotle again, because he tells you not just how to write those bottle-of-oil stories, but proper, meaningful tragedies. And yes, they’re predictable too, sort of. But he says that one of the key things the writer has to do is to make the person who hears or reads the story feel astonished, even though the story itself has a formula and is written in accordance with cause and effect. It’s a great art to make someone surprised to see the picture, and even more surprised when they realise they had all the pieces all along."
This is a rather apt quotation as, abstract as this novel is, it does feel a bit as though Scarlett Thomas essentially writes the same book over and over again, possibly for the very reason that it is the ideas which drive her books rather than the more usual forces of plot and character. All of the narrators feel as though they are variations on Thomas herself (the author gave up smoking while writing this book and ate a lot of clementines instead, so naturally Meg does the same) and you could replace the name ‘Meg’ with the name ‘Ariel’ in this book and it would slot quite happily into The End of Mr. Y without there being any jarring character differences. However, strangely, I don’t mind this at all. Because, as these books don’t feel as though they’re written for plot and characters, I don’t read them for those things. I read them for the wonderful, imaginative, crazy ideas that Thomas has and that she continues to experiment with and expand with each of her books that I encounter. These never fail to surprise, for all the reader has the pieces all along.
Character is similarly unimportant, the most distinctive character in the entire book being Meg’s dog Bess (surely one of the most appealing and lifelike dogs in literature), although an honourable mention goes to Christopher’s brother Josh. It is interesting that these are both secondary characters however, and none of the people that one might expect to be significant and well developed are particularly distinguishable.
The important part of Our Tragic Universe is the bizarre theories and philosophies that it contains. With Thomas’ books it is impossible to say at what point unlikely fact becomes improbably theory and improbable theory becomes crazy fiction, but frankly I never care because it’s all so confusing and fascinating at the same time. In this particular instance, the theory is that at the end of the universe there will be so much energy compressed into such a small space that it will be used to create a new universe in which everyone who has ever lived will exist eternally. This leads on to questions about the point of existence and the nature of reality and, as in The End of Mr. Y, these theories somehow end up being linked to literature and fiction, what it is and what it does: "In Newman’s never-ending universe there’d be time to write an infinite amount of novels, and even finish reading all the books I’d ever begun, and all the books I’d never begun. But who’d care about fiction any more? We only need fiction because we die."
Later on, Meg and a friend debate the comparative merits of unpredictable storyless stories over familiar, formulaic fiction: "You should read Aristotle again, because he tells you not just how to write those bottle-of-oil stories, but proper, meaningful tragedies. And yes, they’re predictable too, sort of. But he says that one of the key things the writer has to do is to make the person who hears or reads the story feel astonished, even though the story itself has a formula and is written in accordance with cause and effect. It’s a great art to make someone surprised to see the picture, and even more surprised when they realise they had all the pieces all along."
This is a rather apt quotation as, abstract as this novel is, it does feel a bit as though Scarlett Thomas essentially writes the same book over and over again, possibly for the very reason that it is the ideas which drive her books rather than the more usual forces of plot and character. All of the narrators feel as though they are variations on Thomas herself (the author gave up smoking while writing this book and ate a lot of clementines instead, so naturally Meg does the same) and you could replace the name ‘Meg’ with the name ‘Ariel’ in this book and it would slot quite happily into The End of Mr. Y without there being any jarring character differences. However, strangely, I don’t mind this at all. Because, as these books don’t feel as though they’re written for plot and characters, I don’t read them for those things. I read them for the wonderful, imaginative, crazy ideas that Thomas has and that she continues to experiment with and expand with each of her books that I encounter. These never fail to surprise, for all the reader has the pieces all along.
temporaryhouseplant's review
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
molliewallace337's review against another edition
3.0
This was a really odd book. Interesting, but weird.
andintothetrees's review
5.0
Packed full of interesting conversations and thoughtful, eccentric characters - I loved this. Full review here, on my book blog.