You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
This surrealist and fragmented novel constitutes the final work by Clarice Lispector, recounting the experiences of the characters of Macabea through the eyes of an unnamed narrator who mirror the author herself. Although it took some time to get into the narrative due to the intentionaly absurdist style, I found that the final part of the novel returned to various promising themes that were foreshadowed in an earlier part. With regard to this particular edition of The House of the Star, the reflection by the translator also provided a notable perspective on the strange language that Lispector employs and which might translate well to other language (perhaps even more than the original, as the translator indicates).
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is the first book I’ve read by Clarice Lispector and I’m still processing what I read. I genuinely can’t tell if I enjoyed this book or not.
The meta storytelling aspect of the narrator telling us about Macabea is interesting, but also kind of annoying. I don’t know what the narrator’s motive is, but they’ll suddenly interrupt the story with some random thought they had. It’s irritating, but at times they say some really interesting things that make you see why this format could work. It could’ve been better though and in this book is was more annoying than interesting.
I also don’t know what the author is trying to say with the story. I just felt pity for Macabea and all the other Macabea’s out there that are living without knowing that they exist. If this book were any longer I’m not sure I’d finish it. Oh and Macabea is definitely on the spectrum.
The meta storytelling aspect of the narrator telling us about Macabea is interesting, but also kind of annoying. I don’t know what the narrator’s motive is, but they’ll suddenly interrupt the story with some random thought they had. It’s irritating, but at times they say some really interesting things that make you see why this format could work. It could’ve been better though and in this book is was more annoying than interesting.
I also don’t know what the author is trying to say with the story. I just felt pity for Macabea and all the other Macabea’s out there that are living without knowing that they exist. If this book were any longer I’m not sure I’d finish it. Oh and Macabea is definitely on the spectrum.
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Se ha convertido en una de mis obras favoritas del año. El tipo de narrador posmoderno que juega y chincha al lector, los trasuntos de la autora que parecen ser el propio narrador, Macabea y Olímpico, el ritmo inesperado, lo visual de la literatura de Clarice Lispector, capaz de crear una imagen nítida, concreta y profunda con dos pinceladas sutiles... Muy recomendado, pero soy consciente de que no es para todo el mundo.
slow-paced
I can’t stand this author. This is the third chance I’ve given her over the span of my lifetime. Self-indulgent, unnecessarily complicated, and artlessly obtuse, her sentences are puzzles if I’m being charitable (or, if I’m feeling less charitable, they are a lot of pseudo-profound nonsense).
Example:
“So long as I have questions to which there are no answers, I will go on writing.”
I think these kinds of remarks are supposed to seem deep, but they come across as vague and empty, which makes her prose grating. She's aiming for a particular effect—philosophical disorientation, spiritual disquiet—and she cannot get there for me. She prioritizes style (tone, mood, voice) over substance (plot, character development, cause-effect), but fails to achieve either. I believe great artists are able to make complicated thoughts and/or emotions of great depth easily understood by many; CL is precisely the opposite of that, making even the simplest idea opaque. To me… that’s just bad writing.
Example:
“So long as I have questions to which there are no answers, I will go on writing.”
I think these kinds of remarks are supposed to seem deep, but they come across as vague and empty, which makes her prose grating. She's aiming for a particular effect—philosophical disorientation, spiritual disquiet—and she cannot get there for me. She prioritizes style (tone, mood, voice) over substance (plot, character development, cause-effect), but fails to achieve either. I believe great artists are able to make complicated thoughts and/or emotions of great depth easily understood by many; CL is precisely the opposite of that, making even the simplest idea opaque. To me… that’s just bad writing.
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes