Scan barcode
zclrksn's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
dsuzno's review against another edition
2.0
In City on Fire, Garth Risk Hallberg captures the grittiness of New York City, primarily circa 1976-1977. The book is a massive tale featuring the heirs Regan and William Hamilton-Sweeney. At times, I found the storytelling gripping, especially with flashbacks that explained a character's development. However, many times the author provided too much detail about the punk scene, fireworks, and minor characters. In addition, I found it a bit absurd in a city as large as New York that random characters would have so few degrees of separation. I think that if the author had edited, the plot would have been more convincing.
jacquilough's review
I didn't care about the characters, found the story depressing, plot uneventful, took too long.
kat5zing's review against another edition
4.0
I wavered between 3 and 4 stars... this book tackled a lot but I really liked the format, the mystery of it all, the time loops. But didn’t feel as satisfied with the ending as I wanted.
danpaton's review against another edition
3.0
Hallberg probably does have a Great American Novel in him but this isn't quite it. It grasps at that status far too self-consciously and wears its unwieldiness and verbosity as badges of honour. That being said, the very digressive, meandering nature of the storytelling is part of what makes it at least partially satisfying. I'm not sure Hallberg really captures the punk/fanzine scene all that convincingly (characters named Solomon Grungy and Sewer Girl are a bit cringey) - but he does get the excitement, energy and danger of the city. The Hamilton-Sweeney saga is better handled. I made it through all 900+ pages, so its effervescence has something to recommend it!
saranies's review against another edition
4.0
This book would have been great if it were edited and/or there were one fewer character's point of view. Lots of threads leading up to the black out in 1977, and interesting in the way that these seemingly random lives were interconnected, but it went off on a lot of tangents that detracted from the whole.
zmull's review against another edition
3.0
The title of City on Fire comes from a song written by a character in the book, but its not the most obvious title Hallberg could have chosen. The other, "The Fireworkers" is the title of a piece of journalism that reveals, in two chunks placed between sections, some the plot of the novel. For my money, its a much better title. It refers to the firework makers themselves, obviously, but also to the setters of literal fires in the novel and the keepers and maintainers of metaphorical fires that push the emotional lives of the characters. That Hallberg chose the title referencing the setting instead of the title referencing the characters, I think, says a lot about the book itself. There's a lot of artiface here. A lot of Big Important Novel boxes checked off. There's dense blocks of text, a retro-historical event and backdrop, the cut and paste flash-back and forward structure, and a tourist path through subcultures the author doesn't belong to himself (punk, wealth, the Black South, the immigrant experience, homosexuality).
What works? Well, the prose is very good. It's overwritten, without doubt, but Hallberg knows how to use his words. He has a few promising characters. Mercer, the black, gay teacher from Georgia, comes to life whenever his family back home appear. There's nice work with the burned out journalist and his subject, the fireworker. Either of those threads could have been novels themselves. And, the ambition itself is laudable. There's nothing wrong with trying to write the Great American Novel. Hallberg might even do it at some point. He's clearly very talented. But, a lot doesn't work. The structure is baffling. Chapters build toward action, spending most of their time on internal monologues, only to cut before the action takes place. The first two-thirds of the book seem to actively avoid having the characters interact with each other. Characters reveal important points about their lives and their pasts off-handedly through the long internal pieces, which can be a bit frustrating and unclear, but it does work mostly. Hallberg then undoes this effect by flashing-back and devoting long chapters to events the reader has already worked out for themselves. These long (long, long) digressions absolutely kill the book's momentum. The plot, such that it is, exists mostly to hang text on. And that's fine. Really. There are lots of great plotless novels. The problem sets in in the last third when Hallberg decides he has to actually make the plot work. Then we're subjected to a few hundred pages of limp tension and scenes cribbed from crime novels. Hallberg has no knack for suspense. The less said about Hallberg's cartoonish villain, the Demon Brother, the better, although at one point I did promise myself that if he turned out to be the literal devil, I'd give the book five stars and go buy a copy just for ballsiness. (I got an ARC.) (He isn't literally the devil, sadly.)
My co-worker asked me how I was liking the book and I said, "It's okay. I keep waiting for it to surprise me." It never did.
What works? Well, the prose is very good. It's overwritten, without doubt, but Hallberg knows how to use his words. He has a few promising characters. Mercer, the black, gay teacher from Georgia, comes to life whenever his family back home appear. There's nice work with the burned out journalist and his subject, the fireworker. Either of those threads could have been novels themselves. And, the ambition itself is laudable. There's nothing wrong with trying to write the Great American Novel. Hallberg might even do it at some point. He's clearly very talented. But, a lot doesn't work. The structure is baffling. Chapters build toward action, spending most of their time on internal monologues, only to cut before the action takes place. The first two-thirds of the book seem to actively avoid having the characters interact with each other. Characters reveal important points about their lives and their pasts off-handedly through the long internal pieces, which can be a bit frustrating and unclear, but it does work mostly. Hallberg then undoes this effect by flashing-back and devoting long chapters to events the reader has already worked out for themselves. These long (long, long) digressions absolutely kill the book's momentum. The plot, such that it is, exists mostly to hang text on. And that's fine. Really. There are lots of great plotless novels. The problem sets in in the last third when Hallberg decides he has to actually make the plot work. Then we're subjected to a few hundred pages of limp tension and scenes cribbed from crime novels. Hallberg has no knack for suspense. The less said about Hallberg's cartoonish villain, the Demon Brother, the better, although at one point I did promise myself that if he turned out to be the literal devil, I'd give the book five stars and go buy a copy just for ballsiness. (I got an ARC.) (He isn't literally the devil, sadly.)
My co-worker asked me how I was liking the book and I said, "It's okay. I keep waiting for it to surprise me." It never did.