Scan barcode
A review by seance
The Book of Daniel by E.L. Doctorow
4.0
i am... conflicted about this book.
the writing is stunning. i cannot bring myself to rate this lower than 4 stars. and the exploration of history, the weaving together of fragments of cold war america to create a sprawling, convoluted image – it's done spectacularly. but this book grapples on so many different fronts that it is remarkably easy to get lost in them. even now, i am struggling to create a single picture of it in my mind. it would have been easier to tell a single story, the story of the isaacsons (or the rosenbergs), but that is not what this book does: it uses the trial and execution as the central point in an exploration that envelops themes of identity, legacy, history, personal and political struggle and how they are interweaved. there is not one single ideology in this book; there is not one single verdict. were they guilty or innocent? that's not what matters.
this is not an easy book to read. i would also say this is not a particularly enjoyable book either. but i suppose enjoying it is not the point; the reader, more than receiving the text passively, has become another criminal of perception. why are you here? why are you reading this? and what effect does the fact that you are reading this have on what is being told? there is a multiplicity of perspectives in the narrative voice as well as in the story: it goes back and forth, past and present, first and third person, history and daniel's reconstruction of it. but here is the thing: i do not particularly enjoy reading books that feel like they are doing their best to confuse me. is this confusion a part of the story? who knows. perhaps i am not smart enough for this book. i certainly feel like i have missed a fair amount of what it is trying to say.
(also – i understand that we are to view daniel's character and actions as "damaged" by his family history. but i feel like i have to say that daniel's general asshole-ness and violently degrading attitude to his wife were kind of… uncomfortable to read. even though the way this book is written makes an unlikeable narrator much more bearable.)
so. what else? i would consider this a good book, albeit a confusing and not very enjoyable one. is this review all over the place? it seems kind of fitting.
the writing is stunning. i cannot bring myself to rate this lower than 4 stars. and the exploration of history, the weaving together of fragments of cold war america to create a sprawling, convoluted image – it's done spectacularly. but this book grapples on so many different fronts that it is remarkably easy to get lost in them. even now, i am struggling to create a single picture of it in my mind. it would have been easier to tell a single story, the story of the isaacsons (or the rosenbergs), but that is not what this book does: it uses the trial and execution as the central point in an exploration that envelops themes of identity, legacy, history, personal and political struggle and how they are interweaved. there is not one single ideology in this book; there is not one single verdict. were they guilty or innocent? that's not what matters.
this is not an easy book to read. i would also say this is not a particularly enjoyable book either. but i suppose enjoying it is not the point; the reader, more than receiving the text passively, has become another criminal of perception. why are you here? why are you reading this? and what effect does the fact that you are reading this have on what is being told? there is a multiplicity of perspectives in the narrative voice as well as in the story: it goes back and forth, past and present, first and third person, history and daniel's reconstruction of it. but here is the thing: i do not particularly enjoy reading books that feel like they are doing their best to confuse me. is this confusion a part of the story? who knows. perhaps i am not smart enough for this book. i certainly feel like i have missed a fair amount of what it is trying to say.
(also – i understand that we are to view daniel's character and actions as "damaged" by his family history. but i feel like i have to say that daniel's general asshole-ness and violently degrading attitude to his wife were kind of… uncomfortable to read. even though the way this book is written makes an unlikeable narrator much more bearable.)
so. what else? i would consider this a good book, albeit a confusing and not very enjoyable one. is this review all over the place? it seems kind of fitting.