Scan barcode
luunaboona's review
reflective
fast-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? Yes
3.75
lancakes's review
I feel a little conflicted about this book? And I'm trying to give it a fair shake/keep an open mind. This book is a fictional essay, or something worded like that, basically, the character supports and explains his own behaviour using references to other works, drawing thematic comparisons between ballets and his life. It's a VERY compelling, interesting and inventive writing style. I'm not sure if it's flawlessly executed, there are some logical leaps that are a little flimsily supported, but as a work of fiction I don't think it necessarily needs to be held to the highest standards of logical reasoning. The narrator/main character is not a good guy, which is also not really an issue because I'm cool with unlikable characters. I don't find his development entirely satisfying, the fifth act is a ride that I wouldn't necessarily have steered in the direction it went, but I can also appreciate the somewhat dissatiafying denouement, particularly because the final ballet is chosen so perfectly to support the authorial decisions for the final act. I guess my actual issue is with the voice of the essays: it's not entirely clear how separate the protagonist's voice is from the author's voice, which made it uncomfortable for me when the essays continuously dismissed the sexual harassment of young ballerinas by creepy old choreographers. Pedophilic interests, physically and emotionally brutal instructive practices, massive age differences between a famous choreographer and the slew of wives he runs through, all his star ballerinas at the beginning of their relationship, all the same young age despite the ageing of the choreographer, all of this is explained away easily, or excused or stated without criticism, in a way that made me queasy.
Example:
"And I won't say they [18 year old ballerinas, who've usually left their homes young to devote their lives and bodies to the painful study of ballet] were under his spell, but he [a crusty old famous choreographer] must have been charming, and his offer to teach them the secrets of dance must have seemed like a dream. And because he was a great choreographer, they were happy to submit to his teaching and his attention, and the relationship worked because all of them got what they wanted. Balanchine got a muse, and they got a chance to dance..." (I mean without going too deep into this another simple fax way to write this is "in a time and environment where young ballerinas had little power and agency this crusty old dude who took experimental supplemental sheep testosterone shots to keep "vital", found at least half a dozen talented young women over the decades of his career, used their talent as inspiration to choreograph ballets for them, married them, then moved on to the next young thing". To make this seem like everyone got what they wanted and that it must've been a dream come true for the young women is a little absurd to me.)
He also said that it was okay that the lead ballerinas in ballets were underage because their roles were written at a time when girls were married younger, which is actually a very popular half truth, and I don't have the energy to go find sources to make that rant right now.
Anyway, if all of this yucky exposition is coming directly from the protagonist, it fits perfectly and establishes his personal philosophies well. However, I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that maybe the author thinks shit like this and that's why the protagonist is a shitty dude and the strippers are written as accessories without any internal life.
This is my ultimate criticism of this piece (book?): there's a lack of empathy for, an inability to recognize the humanity of, both the ballerinas, the strippers and his ex wife, that seems so unbelievable it must be deliberate (No one's that obtuse to the inner lives of others, right?). But whether it's purposeful or not, I obviously have a bone to pick with it. ESPECIALLY because the protagonist can so easily identify himself as a puppet and struggles with agency, it's crazy he wouldn't look at Rachel and realise she's probably battling the same feeling of impotence.
Finally, and relatedly, the protagonist's ex wife and dead daughter seem like an attempt to give him some context: a backstory and an explanation, or an excuse, for the way he thinks and acts. But this area goes so unexamined that the story would honestly be better without them.
Example:
"And I won't say they [18 year old ballerinas, who've usually left their homes young to devote their lives and bodies to the painful study of ballet] were under his spell, but he [a crusty old famous choreographer] must have been charming, and his offer to teach them the secrets of dance must have seemed like a dream. And because he was a great choreographer, they were happy to submit to his teaching and his attention, and the relationship worked because all of them got what they wanted. Balanchine got a muse, and they got a chance to dance..." (I mean without going too deep into this another simple fax way to write this is "in a time and environment where young ballerinas had little power and agency this crusty old dude who took experimental supplemental sheep testosterone shots to keep "vital", found at least half a dozen talented young women over the decades of his career, used their talent as inspiration to choreograph ballets for them, married them, then moved on to the next young thing". To make this seem like everyone got what they wanted and that it must've been a dream come true for the young women is a little absurd to me.)
He also said that it was okay that the lead ballerinas in ballets were underage because their roles were written at a time when girls were married younger, which is actually a very popular half truth, and I don't have the energy to go find sources to make that rant right now.
Anyway, if all of this yucky exposition is coming directly from the protagonist, it fits perfectly and establishes his personal philosophies well. However, I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that maybe the author thinks shit like this and that's why the protagonist is a shitty dude and the strippers are written as accessories without any internal life.
This is my ultimate criticism of this piece (book?): there's a lack of empathy for, an inability to recognize the humanity of, both the ballerinas, the strippers and his ex wife, that seems so unbelievable it must be deliberate (No one's that obtuse to the inner lives of others, right?). But whether it's purposeful or not, I obviously have a bone to pick with it. ESPECIALLY because the protagonist can so easily identify himself as a puppet and struggles with agency, it's crazy he wouldn't look at Rachel and realise she's probably battling the same feeling of impotence.
Finally, and relatedly, the protagonist's ex wife and dead daughter seem like an attempt to give him some context: a backstory and an explanation, or an excuse, for the way he thinks and acts. But this area goes so unexamined that the story would honestly be better without them.
werdfert's review against another edition
I've been waiting for the next John Haskell book for years. Out of My Skin really got me and I'm not Jackson Pollock blew me away.
But this book? it just wasn't what I was hoping for. Don't get me wrong. The writing is still on point. But, for me it's too much about ballet. When I read the title, I thought ballet would be a metaphor. Haskell is great at metaphors. And it is a metaphor. But it is also itself, and I'm just not as interested in ballet qua ballet.
But this book? it just wasn't what I was hoping for. Don't get me wrong. The writing is still on point. But, for me it's too much about ballet. When I read the title, I thought ballet would be a metaphor. Haskell is great at metaphors. And it is a metaphor. But it is also itself, and I'm just not as interested in ballet qua ballet.
More...