Scan barcode
A review by rosekk
Elizabeth Costello by J.M. Coetzee
2.0
I'm not really sure what to think of this. At first I was disappointed because I expected it to be a story, and it's more like a series of lectures strung together under the guise of a story. I suspect I would like other works of his more than this, because they sound better. I found a lot of this quite annoying to read because Elizabeth Costello's character is not one I find relatable, and a lot of the views she espouses at the reader I find either vague or unsubstantiated or both. It bothers me that I didn't like this more, since Coetzee's work seems to have impressed a lot of others. I feel like I'm missing the point somewhere.
*EDIT* Am re-reading this book for revision purposes. Am not enjoying it any more the second time round, but I'm doing a better job of working out what it is that aggravates me about this book (because it does aggravate me. There aren't many books that annoy me like this one does). It goes back to what I said before about it being lectures in 'the guise of a story' - that's what set me against this book from the beginning: I have a problem with any novel that sacrifices its role as entertainment in order to be Literature. I love books that are meaningful and reflective e.t.c. but to me all of that is a bonus produced by the best writers and the heart of a novel should always be as a thing to be enjoyed. That's not to say that I dislike dark novels and stories that aren't nice, but I want a novel that was written to be read, not to have further essays written about it. I can forgive a novel that is shallow if it provides entertainment, but the inverse - a book that is intentionally deep, but short on actual story telling - seems to me to be an abuse of the format. Again, it feels arrogant to be saying this about a book that some seem to have gotten a lot out of, by an author who has won a great many accolades (who am I to tell him what a novel should be?), but there you have it... I just can't find what others have found in this book.
2ND EDIT: Ok I think I've worked out where I've been going wrong with this book. I get caught up in Costello's arguments and forget that what she says isn't necessarily what the book means. I expect conclusive arguments, because the formal style of her addresses suggests there should be a logic to the proceedings, but of course as a novel it doesn't have to endorse one well-argued opinion; it can play with ideas and run in multiple directions as it pleases. I won't pretend that acknowledging this makes me enjoy the book more, but I don't dislike it as before.
*EDIT* Am re-reading this book for revision purposes. Am not enjoying it any more the second time round, but I'm doing a better job of working out what it is that aggravates me about this book (because it does aggravate me. There aren't many books that annoy me like this one does). It goes back to what I said before about it being lectures in 'the guise of a story' - that's what set me against this book from the beginning: I have a problem with any novel that sacrifices its role as entertainment in order to be Literature. I love books that are meaningful and reflective e.t.c. but to me all of that is a bonus produced by the best writers and the heart of a novel should always be as a thing to be enjoyed. That's not to say that I dislike dark novels and stories that aren't nice, but I want a novel that was written to be read, not to have further essays written about it. I can forgive a novel that is shallow if it provides entertainment, but the inverse - a book that is intentionally deep, but short on actual story telling - seems to me to be an abuse of the format. Again, it feels arrogant to be saying this about a book that some seem to have gotten a lot out of, by an author who has won a great many accolades (who am I to tell him what a novel should be?), but there you have it... I just can't find what others have found in this book.
2ND EDIT: Ok I think I've worked out where I've been going wrong with this book. I get caught up in Costello's arguments and forget that what she says isn't necessarily what the book means. I expect conclusive arguments, because the formal style of her addresses suggests there should be a logic to the proceedings, but of course as a novel it doesn't have to endorse one well-argued opinion; it can play with ideas and run in multiple directions as it pleases. I won't pretend that acknowledging this makes me enjoy the book more, but I don't dislike it as before.