I'm really enjoying this (almost finished) - I like the narrator and the complexity of it. In a way it is a book about stories and how we tell them, and how we use them to make sense of ourselves / the world. It's also about a writer who keeps not writing the important novel she has been meaning (and paid) to write while real life happens around her, and about relationships of various kinds - friendships, family, lovers / partners, etc. I'll be looking for more books by Scarlett Thomas for sure.
I'm really enjoying this (almost finished) - I like the narrator and the complexity of it. In a way it is a book about stories and how we tell them, and how we use them to make sense of ourselves / the world. It's also about a writer who keeps not writing the important novel she has been meaning (and paid) to write while real life happens around her, and about relationships of various kinds - friendships, family, lovers / partners, etc. I'll be looking for more books by Scarlett Thomas for sure.
I would probably have the same flowers as Meg in my Bach flower remedy. Also, like Meg, I would not necessarily want to remedy anything. Still, one has to be curious about things, unless perhaps you're not, but in that case, you probably shouldn't read this book.
Not to say your curiosity would be satisfied if you did. That's not the point. The curiosity itself is the point. Or maybe there is no point. If there were a point, it would be up to science to describe it, or maybe just labeling it with the last letter of the Greek alphabet and adding in some mathematics should suffice, but then we would be talking about Kelsey Newman's book, which we can't ever read because like Zeb Ross, he doesn't really exist. But he does exist as a character in this book, one who we never get to actually see. Zeb …
I would probably have the same flowers as Meg in my Bach flower remedy. Also, like Meg, I would not necessarily want to remedy anything. Still, one has to be curious about things, unless perhaps you're not, but in that case, you probably shouldn't read this book.
Not to say your curiosity would be satisfied if you did. That's not the point. The curiosity itself is the point. Or maybe there is no point. If there were a point, it would be up to science to describe it, or maybe just labeling it with the last letter of the Greek alphabet and adding in some mathematics should suffice, but then we would be talking about Kelsey Newman's book, which we can't ever read because like Zeb Ross, he doesn't really exist. But he does exist as a character in this book, one who we never get to actually see. Zeb doesn't even exist as that. Meg, the main character, I can't say protagonist because then we'd be presuming there's a plot, writes books which will be attributed to Zeb Ross.
Well, actually, there is a plot. Meg writes books--Zeb Ross books, but also some other one which she takes seriously which is possibly the one I'm reviewing here. I am reviewing, aren't I? Maybe I'm just talking about the book. There are more rules for reviewing than just talking about a book, though I'd be hard pressed to say what they are.
So back to the plot. Meg is unhappy and confused. That's the problem and a novel needs a problem. Then she gets more unhappy and more confused trying to figure out what her problem is and whether it's possible to write a book with no formula but just real life. In Zeb Ross's books, in the end, everything is explained, while in real life it isn't. If Kelsey Newman represents science, in the end, he's devoured by a mythical beast. So much for science and rationality. Meg leaves her boyfriend and has to accept on faith that if she's patient, things will work out for her despite the early prophecy that in the end she will come to nothing.
We read books (by "we" I really mean "me') for the process, not the ending, which we could always find by turning to the last page. The ending here is merely that there will be a sought after relationship some time after the last page. Or not.
Was that a spoiler? Is this a review? Did it all come to nothing? I gave it 4 stars and that's not nothing, right?
This was a really bizarre book. The main character is a writer who is 10 years late on finishing her REAL novel, and in the meantime is a ghostwriter for a YA SciFi series (sort of like Carolyn Keene for Nancy Drew-there have been multiple writers under the one name) and living with a man who is quite possibly one of the world's most irritating male characters. Their relationship is toxic and annoying to read about. The woman also has lots of conversations with her friends about the nature of the universe and what it means to live forever. Disconcertingly, much of these conversations or explanations are told through dialog, which sort of made it less interesting to me. I don't know, it was a really weird book. But one of the more original that I've read of late.
This was a really bizarre book. The main character is a writer who is 10 years late on finishing her REAL novel, and in the meantime is a ghostwriter for a YA SciFi series (sort of like Carolyn Keene for Nancy Drew-there have been multiple writers under the one name) and living with a man who is quite possibly one of the world's most irritating male characters. Their relationship is toxic and annoying to read about. The woman also has lots of conversations with her friends about the nature of the universe and what it means to live forever. Disconcertingly, much of these conversations or explanations are told through dialog, which sort of made it less interesting to me. I don't know, it was a really weird book. But one of the more original that I've read of late.
