You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Apparently Professor Higgins was very diligent. He transcribed patterns of speech into his notebooks. He recorded as varied examples of dialect and pronunciation as possible. We all know the risks involved with those wax cylinders. Poor, poor, Professor Higgins.
Ms. Smith undertook a similar project with a similar intensity. She proved likewise pitch perfect. Speech pattern and intonation reign in NW. The remaining obstacle was plot. Everyone wants to be Trollope, no? Zadie is sage. She stuck to her money move. Ms. Smith penned another White Teeth, this one with Ipads, Brick Lane and The Wire. Her updated novel isn’t all that compelling. The silences are the most daunting. No mention of the tube bombings, the Tottenham riots, the Olympics. I’m not being critical of her not writing a social history. I just find these maneuverings odd. Despite such opacity, her research does shine through. There is a delicate beauty in her dialogue. It is only enhanced by the frenetic circumstances under which it is expressed.
Ms. Smith undertook a similar project with a similar intensity. She proved likewise pitch perfect. Speech pattern and intonation reign in NW. The remaining obstacle was plot. Everyone wants to be Trollope, no? Zadie is sage. She stuck to her money move. Ms. Smith penned another White Teeth, this one with Ipads, Brick Lane and The Wire. Her updated novel isn’t all that compelling. The silences are the most daunting. No mention of the tube bombings, the Tottenham riots, the Olympics. I’m not being critical of her not writing a social history. I just find these maneuverings odd. Despite such opacity, her research does shine through. There is a delicate beauty in her dialogue. It is only enhanced by the frenetic circumstances under which it is expressed.
This is really at least three books in one. The writing in the first part felt gimmicky to me (hence the four stars). Might be that the idea was to reflect the characters through the writing, but for me the book really took off in part two. The rest I devoured in one sitting. The third part was unconventional (and again different from the first two), but not in an obtrusive way. All in all, I like London novels and NW is a great addition to literary 'analyses' of class and ethnicity in contemporary Britain (e.g. Lanchester, Rowling)--always interesting and important topics.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Inventive but the non-linear form made it harder to become absorbed by the narrative. Not my favourite of hers.
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I've been having a problem a lot recently, where the blurb on literary fictions novels are crap and completely mistell the tale. For a plot-led book, a blurb should do three things: 1 - reinforce the genre you've already guessed from the cover, 2 - confirm the characters, how much detail it goes into on characters is a clue if it's a character-centred book or not, 3 - give away maybe the first 1/4 of the book, the central (or beginning) conflict, and the hook. Pretty formulaic stuff, though it's amazing how many books get it wrong. With literary fiction though (which I'd say this is), it's harder. There's no plot here; that's not the point of it. There's no action. So point 3. - is really just enforcing the themes of the novel, maybe giving us an idea of its messaging and purpose. It's useful when reading a literary novel that has a good blurb, to go back to the blurb after finishing and see how the author's summary of the tale (see: her vision) ties up with your own perception of the book. All this to say, the blurb on NW's sort of does this but gets it wrong as well. See the blurb on the hard copy i have:
Zadie Smith's brilliant tragicomic NW follows four Londoners - Leah, Natalie, Felix and Nathan - after they've left their childhood council estate, grown up and moved on to different lives. From private houses to public parks, at work and at play, their city is brutal, beautiful and complicated. Yet after a chance encounter they each find that the choices they've made, the people they once were and are now, can suddenly, rapidly unravel. Funny, poignant and vividly contemporary, NW is as brimming with vitality as the city itself.
I read this as the book being a story of four Londoners who grew up together on the same estate, moving on in their lives and through a chance encounter meeting each other again and rekindling their friendship (?) possibly. That's just not the story at all though: this is about two juxtaposing and connected lives, Leah and Natalie. Two central women with similar but different backgrounds, motivations and problems. Through this we learn about London, ageing, motherhood, womanhood and a whole cahoot of other social and identity points which are well-done and written with insight. I'm aware the Goodreads description is slightly different to the hard copy blurb, still when I was reading the book I kept referring to the blurb and it mis-lead me. I was expecting the book to be split 1/4 for each character (Leah, Nat, Nathan, Felix) but it's not. Leah and Natalie are the main characters, the other two are side characters at best. Felix's POV chapter is thrown in the middle of the two and it's a decent chapter, in terms of writing, characterisation, etc., and I can see on one hand why it's included in terms of the wider themes of the novel and how the ending wraps up the story, but at the same time having read the full thing it felt discordant. Why mention 'four Londoners', do chapters for each but not Nathan, and why are Leah/Nat's stories so connected but the other two are not connected at all?
There's not much point critiquing the blurb further, but I suppose I'm making a wider point about the intent of the novel. It's hard with literary fiction to create an accurate, compelling blurb, which is why many will try and appear plot-based and therefore disingenuous, or else just sound plain old boring. But I think you can get a good idea of the intent of the author from it: unlike plot-based fiction, lit fic doesn't develop from a one-liner idea most times, it develops organically from a thought perhaps, or an intention. I get the impression with NW that the thought was these four Londoners, a slice-of-life tale, but in being an easy-going, almost stream-of-consciousness narrative, we stray from this. And while themes remain throughout (e.g. Leah & Nat's internal conflicts), I never felt I was reading a cohesive work. Some of it is intentional, see the differing writing techniques for Leah, Felix and Natalie to reflect their individual characters. I'm not critiquing that, but that I was not convinced of the actual PURPOSE of the novel here. I finished and thought... so what?
I won't give the book a low score at all, because there was nothing, in fact, wrong with it. It was well-written. The prose was functional and engaging, but through Smith's erudite observations, lines that are supposed to have an impact do, and there are plenty of thought-provoking quotes. This is what you want from a lit fic. There was humour at parts. The central characters of Leah and Nat were interesting and well-observed, I also liked the character of Felix's mistress (forgot her name now). The humour, when it comes out, is dry and amusing. All of this gives me a high opinion of the book, as in a sense most things you'd expect of it, it does. But I come away feeling unsatisfied in view of my earlier comments... I felt it could've been something MORE, and the lack of focus is to blame. Some of that lack of focus is my fault, as the blurb mislead me from focusing on the real story here, Nat and Leah and their relationship. So for all this was a technically decent novel, I cannot imagine ever recommending it - which is rare for a 3*. Usually a 3*, for me, is something fine but not knock-your-socks off, a recommendation for the right kind of person at the right time. NW though, was just a strange read. It's like wanting to sneeze and losing it.
Zadie Smith's brilliant tragicomic NW follows four Londoners - Leah, Natalie, Felix and Nathan - after they've left their childhood council estate, grown up and moved on to different lives. From private houses to public parks, at work and at play, their city is brutal, beautiful and complicated. Yet after a chance encounter they each find that the choices they've made, the people they once were and are now, can suddenly, rapidly unravel. Funny, poignant and vividly contemporary, NW is as brimming with vitality as the city itself.
I read this as the book being a story of four Londoners who grew up together on the same estate, moving on in their lives and through a chance encounter meeting each other again and rekindling their friendship (?) possibly. That's just not the story at all though: this is about two juxtaposing and connected lives, Leah and Natalie. Two central women with similar but different backgrounds, motivations and problems. Through this we learn about London, ageing, motherhood, womanhood and a whole cahoot of other social and identity points which are well-done and written with insight. I'm aware the Goodreads description is slightly different to the hard copy blurb, still when I was reading the book I kept referring to the blurb and it mis-lead me. I was expecting the book to be split 1/4 for each character (Leah, Nat, Nathan, Felix) but it's not. Leah and Natalie are the main characters, the other two are side characters at best. Felix's POV chapter is thrown in the middle of the two and it's a decent chapter, in terms of writing, characterisation, etc., and I can see on one hand why it's included in terms of the wider themes of the novel and how the ending wraps up the story, but at the same time having read the full thing it felt discordant. Why mention 'four Londoners', do chapters for each but not Nathan, and why are Leah/Nat's stories so connected but the other two are not connected at all?
There's not much point critiquing the blurb further, but I suppose I'm making a wider point about the intent of the novel. It's hard with literary fiction to create an accurate, compelling blurb, which is why many will try and appear plot-based and therefore disingenuous, or else just sound plain old boring. But I think you can get a good idea of the intent of the author from it: unlike plot-based fiction, lit fic doesn't develop from a one-liner idea most times, it develops organically from a thought perhaps, or an intention. I get the impression with NW that the thought was these four Londoners, a slice-of-life tale, but in being an easy-going, almost stream-of-consciousness narrative, we stray from this. And while themes remain throughout (e.g. Leah & Nat's internal conflicts), I never felt I was reading a cohesive work. Some of it is intentional, see the differing writing techniques for Leah, Felix and Natalie to reflect their individual characters. I'm not critiquing that, but that I was not convinced of the actual PURPOSE of the novel here. I finished and thought... so what?
I won't give the book a low score at all, because there was nothing, in fact, wrong with it. It was well-written. The prose was functional and engaging, but through Smith's erudite observations, lines that are supposed to have an impact do, and there are plenty of thought-provoking quotes. This is what you want from a lit fic. There was humour at parts. The central characters of Leah and Nat were interesting and well-observed, I also liked the character of Felix's mistress (forgot her name now). The humour, when it comes out, is dry and amusing. All of this gives me a high opinion of the book, as in a sense most things you'd expect of it, it does. But I come away feeling unsatisfied in view of my earlier comments... I felt it could've been something MORE, and the lack of focus is to blame. Some of that lack of focus is my fault, as the blurb mislead me from focusing on the real story here, Nat and Leah and their relationship. So for all this was a technically decent novel, I cannot imagine ever recommending it - which is rare for a 3*. Usually a 3*, for me, is something fine but not knock-your-socks off, a recommendation for the right kind of person at the right time. NW though, was just a strange read. It's like wanting to sneeze and losing it.
In terms of rating this book, it is so astounding, so beautiful, so "wow" that it just has to be 5 stars. Zadie Smith writes like no one else. She weaves this intricate web of totally believable dialogue, with narration that pulls you in, makes you see this world exactly as the characters too, and the result is just stunning. This book is funny and sad, brutal and honest. It makes you think, it makes you feel, and all of the characters come alive, from their physical descriptions to every bit of dialogue they speak...I read it in a few days and sat back blinking when I had finished...Four children grow up on a council estate in London, and throughout the book we learn how their lives have taken different routes, yet still remain linked to their roots and their unique locality. Read it.
Reading the first section I felt like I was stuck in a traffic jam - stop, start, stop start and very slow progress. Found the staccato style very difficult to engage with. The section on Felix suddenly felt like the traffic was flowing and I was off and reading. After this again the style I found difficult. Did not engage with any of the characters and did not enjoy the book
My first Zadie Smith turned out to be pretty good eventually, though I really struggled to get through the first forty or fifty odd pages. The book deals with four primary characters, is set in NW London (every detail very well described), and lays out their thoughts in exquisite detail. From moral dilemmas to professional ones, Zadie Smith talks about them all. The best written section, in my opinion was the one with Felix in it, though the section about Natalie perhaps had the most panache. Some passages were absolutely delightful in that particular section, and are worth reading for. The whole novel is written such that the story is to be pieced together by the reader, and often left me wondering why. Leah and Natalie's sections (despite them being best friends) are deliberately separated by Felix's, which reinforces the above point. There is no grand meeting of the four characters, but they are linked by time, as the novel is set in the time of the Carnival. I'd definitely recommend this if you are looking for something different to read, but bear in mind that the read could take a while.
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes