nrmdova's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
Beautifully written if not a little boring with all the nature descriptions at times (sorry). I hate stories about vets even if they’re good stories. Vietnam scenes extremely tough to get through. Feel like John Wade is a proto Patrick Bateman tbh.
shmashes's review against another edition
3.0
This isn’t the worst book I’ve read this year, but it definitely wasn’t great for me. Don’t get me wrong, the writing was excellent. I just hated all of the characters. Every scene in Vietnam made me furious. The violence and the disgusting racist language towards the Vietnamese civilians and Native American fellow soldier. It’s gross. The main character dealt with his mental health and by learning to be a magician, and then a politician after his ptsd. I wouldn’t recommend that route. His wife, after witnessing his complete spiral into madness, did nothing. She just stuck around and let him dictate her entire life, including her womb. But as I said, I loved the writing style with the chapters that gave the snips of interviews and quotes from other characters and past political figures. I also liked that it read as an unsolved mystery. Overall, even though I know this book is well loved by many, It just made me overwhelmingly uncomfy.
cryo_guy's review against another edition
2.0
WELL to make this brief. I had heard great things about Things They Carried and Going After Cacciato, but this book defied my desire to enjoy it. Mainly this was because I hated all the characters and thus found their various movements and thoughts rather dull. However, and this is a big however, I can't really call this book bad.
So what's the good stuff? Well it's got an interesting format. There are some chapters of "hypotheses" that delve into how the mystery might be solved (the disappearance of the protagonist's wife). There are some chapters of "evidence" that are quaintly or thematically subjective quotations that shed light on our protagonist and his predicament. Then there are chapters of "The Nature of x" which progresses the plot. It uses this format to build up a "thriller" of a novel. Many reviews applaud the thrilling aspects of the book, but I couldn't get into that (partly because I hated the characters so much), partly because the mystery seemed so patently obvious. Nevertheless, the O'Brien present a very coherent whole of a novel where each new piece (occasionally repeated to my chagrin) of evidence filled in the puzzle of the protagonist (again, I hated him so it wasn't that interesting to me). And what's more, we are taking on the trauma of Vietnam. Not only that, but the infamous My Lai massacre headed by the Lt. Calley-what I realized halfway into the book is that it used the real names. My point here is that I think I have to admit that to some extent the book does a decent job of portraying how that experience could destroy a person and how that trauma would play out in their life. There is also a sort of American cynicism to the book which shows a certain...intent to reflect on these awful events. A little like Vonnegut but without an iota of humor. And the last thing is that the prose is just fine.
What's bad? Well the protagonist is traumatized sure. Even before Vietnam, his father was an alcoholic who committed suicide so he's got some baggage. But the book never really gives him a voice. His voice is the symbolic voice of...magic. But don't let that get you excited. This book is not magical realism. His hobby as a child was stage magic and his life (and the symbolic kernel of his character) seems to be the principle of magic: "its fake but the audience believes the lie." Which is how Wade lives his life. If he ignores the bad stuff, it doesnt really matter what happens as long as he ends up happy. As an outline, that actually doesn't sound too bad. But in practice, in this book, that complete ignorance of the protagonist is never brought to bear. The book is too preoccupied with telling this annoyingly vague story about what actually happened to flesh out how it happened. And here's where you should disagree with me and say no, it really did fuck him up; some people have truly incoherent inner lives because they are scarred by trauma. Well, damnit, I guess you're right! But I sure didn't like this book about one such character and I grew increasingly frustrated with a plot that seemed to lead me around corners to consecutive dead ends, only to say "hehe the world is a vast and varied place, perhaps two things are true :]." But what I take issue with is not so much the end of the book but how it got there. I could have used a little less vague hinting this and that, and a little more character work. At least, it feels like I could have had some sympathy for the guy. The side characters are not really worth me commenting on lol.
Anyway, I think I have to respect this book for a telling a committed tale of double trauma and skillfully organizing it into themes along a framework of chapters. But as easy as it was to read, I didn't particularly enjoy it.
P.S. I really didn't like the protagonist. He's so incredulous when the trick doesn't work, which seems to be his only way of interacting with or internalizing the world and experience. What do you think tricks are? If they worked, they wouldn't be tricks.
So what's the good stuff? Well it's got an interesting format. There are some chapters of "hypotheses" that delve into how the mystery might be solved (the disappearance of the protagonist's wife). There are some chapters of "evidence" that are quaintly or thematically subjective quotations that shed light on our protagonist and his predicament. Then there are chapters of "The Nature of x" which progresses the plot. It uses this format to build up a "thriller" of a novel. Many reviews applaud the thrilling aspects of the book, but I couldn't get into that (partly because I hated the characters so much), partly because the mystery seemed so patently obvious. Nevertheless, the O'Brien present a very coherent whole of a novel where each new piece (occasionally repeated to my chagrin) of evidence filled in the puzzle of the protagonist (again, I hated him so it wasn't that interesting to me). And what's more, we are taking on the trauma of Vietnam. Not only that, but the infamous My Lai massacre headed by the Lt. Calley-what I realized halfway into the book is that it used the real names. My point here is that I think I have to admit that to some extent the book does a decent job of portraying how that experience could destroy a person and how that trauma would play out in their life. There is also a sort of American cynicism to the book which shows a certain...intent to reflect on these awful events. A little like Vonnegut but without an iota of humor. And the last thing is that the prose is just fine.
What's bad? Well the protagonist is traumatized sure. Even before Vietnam, his father was an alcoholic who committed suicide so he's got some baggage. But the book never really gives him a voice. His voice is the symbolic voice of...magic. But don't let that get you excited. This book is not magical realism. His hobby as a child was stage magic and his life (and the symbolic kernel of his character) seems to be the principle of magic: "its fake but the audience believes the lie." Which is how Wade lives his life. If he ignores the bad stuff, it doesnt really matter what happens as long as he ends up happy. As an outline, that actually doesn't sound too bad. But in practice, in this book, that complete ignorance of the protagonist is never brought to bear. The book is too preoccupied with telling this annoyingly vague story about what actually happened to flesh out how it happened. And here's where you should disagree with me and say no, it really did fuck him up; some people have truly incoherent inner lives because they are scarred by trauma. Well, damnit, I guess you're right! But I sure didn't like this book about one such character and I grew increasingly frustrated with a plot that seemed to lead me around corners to consecutive dead ends, only to say "hehe the world is a vast and varied place, perhaps two things are true :]." But what I take issue with is not so much the end of the book but how it got there. I could have used a little less vague hinting this and that, and a little more character work. At least, it feels like I could have had some sympathy for the guy. The side characters are not really worth me commenting on lol.
Anyway, I think I have to respect this book for a telling a committed tale of double trauma and skillfully organizing it into themes along a framework of chapters. But as easy as it was to read, I didn't particularly enjoy it.
P.S. I really didn't like the protagonist. He's so incredulous when the trick doesn't work, which seems to be his only way of interacting with or internalizing the world and experience. What do you think tricks are? If they worked, they wouldn't be tricks.
jraia's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
molly_janeeley's review against another edition
1.0
God this book dragged! I had no desire to read on, but had to finish for continuity’s sake.
There was nothing gripping about this novel, the war, the disappearance, the election, may as well be a shopping list for its appeal to the reader.
The book gave no catharsis, and I don’t even care. John and kathy were two of the most boring characters I’ve come across.
There was nothing gripping about this novel, the war, the disappearance, the election, may as well be a shopping list for its appeal to the reader.
The book gave no catharsis, and I don’t even care. John and kathy were two of the most boring characters I’ve come across.
jeaninesmith1962's review against another edition
4.0
Disturbing in so many ways, but brilliantly presented.
marinhoeppner's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
pennym_'s review against another edition
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
a compelling and unsatisfying mystery. i really enjoyed the unique style of the "evidence" chapters. lots of interesting questions but few answers, although i feel logically theres kind of only one conclusion you can come to, despite how open-ended the book is. overall worth the read, though idk if i would call it enjoyable