Scan barcode
ariver's review against another edition
3.0
I came for the reputation, stayed for the form and history, stayed til the end for the attention to detail and plot & character development, and was glad to leave when the experiment had run its course.
I am charmed by the peculiar metafiction in this book, but I think it works against itself. Chapter Zero conjures a fictional dinner party that the invisible narrator haunts, observing Polish intellectuals who are based on real historical figures. The titular character, Maryna Zalezowska, derives from the 19th century Shakespearean diva Helena Modrzejewska. The narrator sets out to learn whether "theirs would be a story that would speak to me," and thus to the reader. Fine: I love fiction about a historical problem. However, I made the mistake of reading Sontag's thoughts on the book beforehand. "I made her into a marvelous person. The real Modjeska [Modrzejewska's stage name] was a horrible racist" (found here). I couldn't escape that contradiction: if you're scrubbing these characters of their flaws, how can you expect their story to speak to you?
Also, her approach to citing sources is lacking. The foreword pays homage to a few works, but she does not mention her practice of lifting phrases, descriptions, and a couple whole passages from other works and articles. Sontag described this act as scholarly in-joking, and she distinguished between writers and sources (bullshit). Regardless of her reasons, if she benefited from others' works, why not include a bibliography so others can, too?
I am charmed by the peculiar metafiction in this book, but I think it works against itself. Chapter Zero conjures a fictional dinner party that the invisible narrator haunts, observing Polish intellectuals who are based on real historical figures. The titular character, Maryna Zalezowska, derives from the 19th century Shakespearean diva Helena Modrzejewska. The narrator sets out to learn whether "theirs would be a story that would speak to me," and thus to the reader. Fine: I love fiction about a historical problem. However, I made the mistake of reading Sontag's thoughts on the book beforehand. "I made her into a marvelous person. The real Modjeska [Modrzejewska's stage name] was a horrible racist" (found here). I couldn't escape that contradiction: if you're scrubbing these characters of their flaws, how can you expect their story to speak to you?
Also, her approach to citing sources is lacking. The foreword pays homage to a few works, but she does not mention her practice of lifting phrases, descriptions, and a couple whole passages from other works and articles. Sontag described this act as scholarly in-joking, and she distinguished between writers and sources (bullshit). Regardless of her reasons, if she benefited from others' works, why not include a bibliography so others can, too?
ericfheiman's review against another edition
2.0
Let me be perfectly clear—I am a huge fan of Susan Sontag's criticism. "Against Interpretation and Other Essays", "On Photography", and "Regarding the Pain of Others" are books I go back to repeatedly for their ahead-of-their-time provocative points of view. After finishing "In America," I feel it's the critical side of Sontag that makes her fiction suffer. The writing is accomplished and refined, and, formally, the constantly shifting points of view rendered through various writing forms such as correspondence letters and real-time theatrical performance proves to be a clever device to push the story along.
But how has this tireless champion of the avant-garde produced a novel that feels so old and musty, as if it was from the 19th century, but without the strong emotional and moral conflict that informed the best literature of the time by such authors as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, James, Balzac, etc.? Chapter Zero, with its unnamed mysterious observer/narrator that sneaks into a dinner party, showed promise and piqued my curiosity, but then the novel devolved by having the main characters—who are rather staid, clichéd and uninteresting—take over the storytelling reins. Maybe Sontag intended this to be more of a commentary on the social class issues and bohemian hypocrisies of the time, but I just had no emotional connection to any of these people. The book is well-constructed but has no soul—not surprising, I think, when its written by one of our most celebrated academic thinkers.
I also can't help but think that this novel, constructed around supposed historical fact, is some sort of sublimated biographical exploration for Sontag. Every character embodies some facet of her life and personality. Maryna, the star artiste who flees her first marriage for fame and fortune on the stage; Ryzard, the aspiring writer; Bogdan, the dutiful husband wresting with his homosexual tendencies and secret affairs; even the portrait photographer that comes to their Anaheim commune to shoot the group conjures a very Sontag-like discussion of the photographic medium (not to mention could be tagged as Annie Leibovitz-like). But what could have been an interesting exploration of the emotions that drive these characters (and hence Sontag) is too remote, as if the scholar/critic side of Sontag cautioned her fiction writing doppelganger not to reveal too much. So while I appreciate the craft of this novel immensely, I am disappointed that it leaves me so unaffected in the end.
But how has this tireless champion of the avant-garde produced a novel that feels so old and musty, as if it was from the 19th century, but without the strong emotional and moral conflict that informed the best literature of the time by such authors as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, James, Balzac, etc.? Chapter Zero, with its unnamed mysterious observer/narrator that sneaks into a dinner party, showed promise and piqued my curiosity, but then the novel devolved by having the main characters—who are rather staid, clichéd and uninteresting—take over the storytelling reins. Maybe Sontag intended this to be more of a commentary on the social class issues and bohemian hypocrisies of the time, but I just had no emotional connection to any of these people. The book is well-constructed but has no soul—not surprising, I think, when its written by one of our most celebrated academic thinkers.
I also can't help but think that this novel, constructed around supposed historical fact, is some sort of sublimated biographical exploration for Sontag. Every character embodies some facet of her life and personality. Maryna, the star artiste who flees her first marriage for fame and fortune on the stage; Ryzard, the aspiring writer; Bogdan, the dutiful husband wresting with his homosexual tendencies and secret affairs; even the portrait photographer that comes to their Anaheim commune to shoot the group conjures a very Sontag-like discussion of the photographic medium (not to mention could be tagged as Annie Leibovitz-like). But what could have been an interesting exploration of the emotions that drive these characters (and hence Sontag) is too remote, as if the scholar/critic side of Sontag cautioned her fiction writing doppelganger not to reveal too much. So while I appreciate the craft of this novel immensely, I am disappointed that it leaves me so unaffected in the end.
catwithahat's review against another edition
adventurous
inspiring
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
lauhi's review against another edition
1.0
I think she forgot to write a plot - it seemed like 400 pages of set-up.
mitchbaron's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
mizzzfortune's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
hakkun1's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
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? Yes
4.25
irenealgi's review against another edition
3.0
I was going to give this one 4 stars, but the last chapter - 15 pages about a character I've never seen before rambling insufferably about his life and his dead brother (whom I've never heard of before) - downgraded it to 3 stars. A shame.
sarahrussell's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0