I <3 Books

1980

In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond talks about how he is uniquely able to write such a book because of his expertise in a variety of fields (biology, anthropology, sociology, etc...). Much of the same thing is going on with this book. Richard Gwynn is so knowledgeable about Canadian history, culture, politics, and economics that he is able to brilliantly draw upon so many different areas to really paint a complete picture of Pierre Trudeau. This is a political biography, an unauthorized one I suppose, as Trudeau is never interviewed for it. It is also unique in that Trudeau is still in office while it is being written. Gwynn calls him a "moving target" and he seems a bit annoyed that Trudeau came returned as Prime Minister, making this biography less than complete.

He calls Trudeau a magician, able to act as required in any situation. He paints Trudeau both as extremely arrogant and fiercely passionate. Trudeau is sometimes so driven to accomplish his goals, goals that are so noble and high-minded. Other times he is listless and bored, seemingly unable to build any momentum. He is both devoted to Margaret and incredibly unfair to her. She, similarly, adores him and is relentlessly cruel to him. The contrasts, the conflicting actions, both in personal and political life support very well the magician thesis. Gwynn is fascinated by Trudeau, but not intimidated by him. He is in awe of his accomplishments, but is objectively critical. This is an excellent political biography, full of grand philosophy and revealing anecdotes.

2009

This book won the Giller. It isn't a very good book. It's tedious and slow. It shuffles, like the priest, the book's namesake. The Giller two years ago was excellent, the brilliant Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures. Even the title catches attention. I never read last year's Giller, Late Nights On Air because I assumed it was going to be a fictional memoir written by a reporter without any real imagination. I don't know it that's what Late Nights On Air is (I still don't plan on reading it), but I know for certain that that's what The Bishop's Man is. NOTHING HAPPENS IN THE STORY. The author is not a gifted fiction writer, and shows very little imagination. A lot is hinted about, but the author's abilities of foreshadowing and subtlety are too limited to make any of these hints interesting. They're just annoying because they are too vague and repeated too often.

A priest in Nova Scotia is coping with shame in his own past, and helps protect the church from the shame of other priests. None of this shame is ever revealed, you spend a lot of the time reading about a priest who has vague regrets and vague uncertainties about the future. Reading this right after reading John Irving, a master of foreshadowing who is never, ever, vague about shameful indiscretions, was a mistake. Irving's book so overwhelmed this one, that The Bishop's Man never had a chance.

Irving even says in Last Night In Twisted River that way too many reporters try to write fiction, and all of them follow that "tiresome Hemingway dictum of writing about what you know". That's exactly what this author does, there is little imagination, and it is tiresome.

This is one of two books now on this list that I quit before finishing.

2009

John Irving is my favourite author, followed closely by Kurt Vonnegut. Irving studied at the University of Iowa writing program under Vonnegut. It seems they became friends. The character in Last Night In Twisted River also studies at the Iowa workshop, also under Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut is a character in the novel, playing himself, I suppose you could say. It was a lot of fun seeing an author I admire so much pay such tribute to another author I admire. I remember when I found out that Vonnegut and Irving were close, I thought it was neat. I still do.

The book is vintage Irving (which aren't). All the usual self-referencing is there. This time though, he is much more overt. In a self-referencing way he addresses critics who obsess over his self-references, very playful, very clever.

It wasn't as touching or real as some of his other books, and I liked it the least of all the ones I've read (aside from The Water Method Man, which I never finished). It almost tried a bit too hard to be just like a John Irving novel. There were some good parts, and the characters were rich, but it wasn't as technically perfect as some of his other books. His foreshadowing was a bit too obvious and the story jumped too much.

A particular bit of excellence was the theme of looking in old age on a life lived. There is a lot of looking back in this book, and it is very tender and makes you take a look at your own life. There is so much tragedy that the characters in this book have more too look back on than most, but they still do it with a melancholy that can be familiar to anyone.

I'm happy I read the book, and I'll read his next one right away, but I think the best John Irving books have already been written.