Scan barcode
A review by bookishjesse
We, Jane by Aimee Wall
1.0
So ... I am very confused about why this book is included in the Giller Long List? We, Jane is boring, poorly written, and highly overrated. It reads like a second-wave feminist novel someone forgot to reject forty or fifty years ago. Not to mention that both the story and characters are really disingenuous. Wall shifts between referencing archaic feminist theory to beginner reader language like: "Jane and Marthe got on the road very early on a light grey day." My niece, who cannot yet read, can describe a scene in more enlightening terms. If you think I am being overly critical, let us move to a later passage: "Marthe wanted to belong to something but she wanted it to be the right thing. Marthe wanted to really do something." I mean, when a discussion of belonging is reduced to the kind of language we would use to describe putting on a pair of socks?! I ask you. I'm just going to drive right on by the split infinitive.
The worst part is that in the middle of the book, Wall writes about the very problem she perpetuates: "Nobody read novels anymore, not really ... Jane didn't have much patience for the fragment, the autofictional, the contemporary confessional essay. She didn't have much patience for the novel interrupted by theory or some meta reflection." How original. A novel in which a character suggests nobody reads novels (see how I fixed the grammar there!) ... then complains about "meta reflection." #facepalm Probably best not to alienate readers halfway through the story. Although, halfway is a generous term because this book has no plot. There is a vague plan that is unrealized set against the backdrop of lackluster and stilted dialogue. A "whither thou goest" plot only works with emotion. This novel contains none; instead, we have dry toast descriptions of mediocre feelings. The characters are flat and lack any depth or nuance. The "Newfoundland affect" seems poorly performed at best and like a caricature at worst. Before you come for me, yes, I spent many years living on the island so I can tell when a book is written by an islander versus someone who is now squarely CFA.
This is an irrelevant book. The topic is timely and always relevant. This book, though, is not. There are WAY better books about abortion. Let us turn our minds to Alka Joshi's Henna Artist which was an instant bestseller. Oh yes, a book full of heart!
Sadly, let us return to We, Jane. The only reason I finished this novel was so I could be sure of my critique. This is a "big fish, little pond" problem by which I mean that this book might sell a few hundred copies and be read by a few Newfoundland book clubs, but otherwise, it is not relevant. I work in a public library so I have a very good idea of which books will be read, and which books will sit on the shelf. And no, I am not suggesting Newfoundland lit is not relevant. Just this book.
I'm really frustrated by books being elevated to prize list status when they are poorly written. Yes, I am now repeating myself. The book is poorly written. I have no problem with accessible language. I have a huge problem with basic language and lazy composition. Do not tell me that We, Jane is in any way comparable to The Strangers or What Strange Paradise which also feature on the Giller List this year.
Honestly, please do not waste your time with this book. I wish there was a way I could get my time back. I would read something of value.
The worst part is that in the middle of the book, Wall writes about the very problem she perpetuates: "Nobody read novels anymore, not really ... Jane didn't have much patience for the fragment, the autofictional, the contemporary confessional essay. She didn't have much patience for the novel interrupted by theory or some meta reflection." How original. A novel in which a character suggests nobody reads novels (see how I fixed the grammar there!) ... then complains about "meta reflection." #facepalm Probably best not to alienate readers halfway through the story. Although, halfway is a generous term because this book has no plot. There is a vague plan that is unrealized set against the backdrop of lackluster and stilted dialogue. A "whither thou goest" plot only works with emotion. This novel contains none; instead, we have dry toast descriptions of mediocre feelings. The characters are flat and lack any depth or nuance. The "Newfoundland affect" seems poorly performed at best and like a caricature at worst. Before you come for me, yes, I spent many years living on the island so I can tell when a book is written by an islander versus someone who is now squarely CFA.
This is an irrelevant book. The topic is timely and always relevant. This book, though, is not. There are WAY better books about abortion. Let us turn our minds to Alka Joshi's Henna Artist which was an instant bestseller. Oh yes, a book full of heart!
Sadly, let us return to We, Jane. The only reason I finished this novel was so I could be sure of my critique. This is a "big fish, little pond" problem by which I mean that this book might sell a few hundred copies and be read by a few Newfoundland book clubs, but otherwise, it is not relevant. I work in a public library so I have a very good idea of which books will be read, and which books will sit on the shelf. And no, I am not suggesting Newfoundland lit is not relevant. Just this book.
I'm really frustrated by books being elevated to prize list status when they are poorly written. Yes, I am now repeating myself. The book is poorly written. I have no problem with accessible language. I have a huge problem with basic language and lazy composition. Do not tell me that We, Jane is in any way comparable to The Strangers or What Strange Paradise which also feature on the Giller List this year.
Honestly, please do not waste your time with this book. I wish there was a way I could get my time back. I would read something of value.