You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kaylinwriter14 's review for:
Falling Man
by Don DeLillo
1 Star
Falling Man is an epic failure largely because Don Delillo tries to tell a story that is simply not his story to tell.
Often lauded as the “first 9-11 novel” this story starts with our MC, Keith, literally on the streets of Manhattan after the second tower falls— already a risky and weighted choice for a narrator. But then halfway through, Keith’s story is paralleled with Hammad’s, a man revealed to be one of the hijackers.
And I get it okay. I get the whole parallel between Keith’s apathetic existence and loveless marriage and Hammad’s intensely driven and dedicated existence. I get what Delillo is trying to do, but it falls dangerously flat and over-simplifies complicated people and a complicated tragedy. None of the characters have very much substance, but portraying a terrorist as a singularly focused almost cartoon villain type felt especially lazy.
Part of this oversimplification is the fault of the needlessly vague post-modern style. The whole avoiding-pronouns and descriptions has never been a tactic I’ve enjoyed. And the dialogue here was SO ridiculously on-the-nose and stilted. Example:
Does any part of that feel like a conversation between a mother and daughter?? Particularly a conversation that just starts out of the blue about the daughters failing marriage?? The narrative seems so focused on critiquing ‘hollow’ American family life, that the characters never feel like anything real— which makes the critique lose all credibility.
I usually try to avoid speculating authorial intent (because let’s be real it’s pretty much irrelevant) but all of this feels really rushed and bland. And I can’t help but wonder if Delillo was in such a rush to get buzz for being the “first 9/11 novel” that no one stopped to consider if this was a story worth telling and if it did justice to the people involved.
Falling Man is an epic failure largely because Don Delillo tries to tell a story that is simply not his story to tell.
Often lauded as the “first 9-11 novel” this story starts with our MC, Keith, literally on the streets of Manhattan after the second tower falls— already a risky and weighted choice for a narrator. But then halfway through, Keith’s story is paralleled with Hammad’s, a man revealed to be one of the hijackers.
And I get it okay. I get the whole parallel between Keith’s apathetic existence and loveless marriage and Hammad’s intensely driven and dedicated existence. I get what Delillo is trying to do, but it falls dangerously flat and over-simplifies complicated people and a complicated tragedy. None of the characters have very much substance, but portraying a terrorist as a singularly focused almost cartoon villain type felt especially lazy.
Part of this oversimplification is the fault of the needlessly vague post-modern style. The whole avoiding-pronouns and descriptions has never been a tactic I’ve enjoyed. And the dialogue here was SO ridiculously on-the-nose and stilted. Example:
”You thought Keith would get you there.”
“What did I want?”
“To feel dangerously alive. This was a quality you associated with your father. But that wasn’t the case.”
Does any part of that feel like a conversation between a mother and daughter?? Particularly a conversation that just starts out of the blue about the daughters failing marriage?? The narrative seems so focused on critiquing ‘hollow’ American family life, that the characters never feel like anything real— which makes the critique lose all credibility.
I usually try to avoid speculating authorial intent (because let’s be real it’s pretty much irrelevant) but all of this feels really rushed and bland. And I can’t help but wonder if Delillo was in such a rush to get buzz for being the “first 9/11 novel” that no one stopped to consider if this was a story worth telling and if it did justice to the people involved.