Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by nvblue
Creation Lake by Rachel Kushner
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.5
Two and a half or three stars? I really can't decide alas.
My primary recurring thought while/after reading this book was: "when did literary fiction become so boring?" If I didn't have this as my primary audiobook for 28 hours of drivetime, I don't know if I would have finished it.
Perhaps I am missing the point, perhaps it was supposed to be boring. A secret agent infiltrating an eco-commune (which borders on a cult) with the intent to uncover or entice them into committing acts of terrorism against the state doesn't sound boring, but large portions of this book were. I get that the main character "Sadie" is supposed to be mysterious, but she seemed less mysterious and more just like a husk of a nihilistic character.
A did enjoy the thematic juxtaposition between Sadie and Bruno (one of the philosophical elders of the eco-commune). Sadie strips meaning and joy out of nearly everything she encounters. Bruno, who tends towards mysticism, gives meaning to everything, even things that clearly do not deserve meaning. The flip side of this, is that the exceptionally long stretches of the book are devoted to the casual analysis of Bruno's pseudoarcheological beliefs and reverence for Neanderthals take up way too much airtime. These ruminations are also, fundamentally, rather boring and cliche.
One slight thing that annoyed me, and this could be misplaced criticism of Rachel Kushner, was the inconsistent handling of the pseudoarcheological and pseudohistorical beliefs presented by Bruno. Sometimes, Sadie, being our rationalist character, deflates his fabrications with a brief comment which reminds the reader that these are the ravings of an eccentric person. This led me to the impression that some of Bruno's rants could have been accurate (less Sadie's debunking). Whelp, no. I didn't have the time, capacity, or desire to review all the stuff brought up, but so much of it is utter tripe. No the Cagots were not red-haired, no they were not genetically disparate from the population, no they were not Neanderthals, etc. etc. I just think that because of the way this book handled the facts some reader is going to walk away with an impression that false information was true. Just a thought I had while reading.
But gosh, this was exceptionally boring and relatively bland. I kept listening because the sentences were generally well-written and the thoughts fully articulated (I'm grateful for this, as I didn't feel the need to chuck my phone out the car window into a potato field in rural Idaho).
My primary recurring thought while/after reading this book was: "when did literary fiction become so boring?" If I didn't have this as my primary audiobook for 28 hours of drivetime, I don't know if I would have finished it.
Perhaps I am missing the point, perhaps it was supposed to be boring. A secret agent infiltrating an eco-commune (which borders on a cult) with the intent to uncover or entice them into committing acts of terrorism against the state doesn't sound boring, but large portions of this book were. I get that the main character "Sadie" is supposed to be mysterious, but she seemed less mysterious and more just like a husk of a nihilistic character.
A did enjoy the thematic juxtaposition between Sadie and Bruno (one of the philosophical elders of the eco-commune). Sadie strips meaning and joy out of nearly everything she encounters. Bruno, who tends towards mysticism, gives meaning to everything, even things that clearly do not deserve meaning. The flip side of this, is that the exceptionally long stretches of the book are devoted to the casual analysis of Bruno's pseudoarcheological beliefs and reverence for Neanderthals take up way too much airtime. These ruminations are also, fundamentally, rather boring and cliche.
One slight thing that annoyed me, and this could be misplaced criticism of Rachel Kushner, was the inconsistent handling of the pseudoarcheological and pseudohistorical beliefs presented by Bruno. Sometimes, Sadie, being our rationalist character, deflates his fabrications with a brief comment which reminds the reader that these are the ravings of an eccentric person. This led me to the impression that some of Bruno's rants could have been accurate (less Sadie's debunking). Whelp, no. I didn't have the time, capacity, or desire to review all the stuff brought up, but so much of it is utter tripe. No the Cagots were not red-haired, no they were not genetically disparate from the population, no they were not Neanderthals, etc. etc. I just think that because of the way this book handled the facts some reader is going to walk away with an impression that false information was true. Just a thought I had while reading.
But gosh, this was exceptionally boring and relatively bland. I kept listening because the sentences were generally well-written and the thoughts fully articulated (I'm grateful for this, as I didn't feel the need to chuck my phone out the car window into a potato field in rural Idaho).