Scan barcode
A review by sjstuart
Hopscotch by Julio Cortázar
challenging
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Final review, after a second, full-length, fully "hopscotching" read:
I understand why this is often lauded as a great book. The novelty and experimental style are intriguing. The multi-layered structure is impressive. The references and philosophy could keep me occupied for ages.
But I don't think it's a particularly good book. It takes so much work to read that I only rarely succeeded in immersing myself in its schizophrenic flow. The characters are all insufferable, and I can't say I enjoyed the experience.
Earlier, provisional review:
I have finished one version of this book, but can't yet say what I think of it.
All I can tell for now is that it was only partially comprehensible (that is mostly a bad thing) but that parts of it are nagging at my brain, and won't quite let go (that's probably a good sign).
There's not much point in describing what the book is "about". The few stepping stones that could be called a plot are almost completely submerged under the meandering stream-of-consciousness writing that blends description, interior monologue, and fragmentary conversations. It's the kind of book that rewards a re-reading because you'll get twice as much out of it the second time around -- as long as you don't mind that you've only gone from 20% to 40% comprehension.
Conveniently, the book gives explicit instructions for that re-read. One pass is to be linear, through the first half of the book or so. (That's what I have just completed.) Another pass is to hop around in a prescribed order, interleaving various "expendable" chapters between the chapters in the first half.
I'm hoping that the extra chapters will add some structure and fill in some gaps in the action. But this doesn't seem like that kind of book. It seems more likely that it will just add another layer of confusion, stepping the digressions up another notch.
I'm quite ambivalent about my second dive into this one: both eager and apprehensive.
I understand why this is often lauded as a great book. The novelty and experimental style are intriguing. The multi-layered structure is impressive. The references and philosophy could keep me occupied for ages.
But I don't think it's a particularly good book. It takes so much work to read that I only rarely succeeded in immersing myself in its schizophrenic flow. The characters are all insufferable, and I can't say I enjoyed the experience.
Earlier, provisional review:
I have finished one version of this book, but can't yet say what I think of it.
All I can tell for now is that it was only partially comprehensible (that is mostly a bad thing) but that parts of it are nagging at my brain, and won't quite let go (that's probably a good sign).
There's not much point in describing what the book is "about". The few stepping stones that could be called a plot are almost completely submerged under the meandering stream-of-consciousness writing that blends description, interior monologue, and fragmentary conversations. It's the kind of book that rewards a re-reading because you'll get twice as much out of it the second time around -- as long as you don't mind that you've only gone from 20% to 40% comprehension.
Conveniently, the book gives explicit instructions for that re-read. One pass is to be linear, through the first half of the book or so. (That's what I have just completed.) Another pass is to hop around in a prescribed order, interleaving various "expendable" chapters between the chapters in the first half.
I'm hoping that the extra chapters will add some structure and fill in some gaps in the action. But this doesn't seem like that kind of book. It seems more likely that it will just add another layer of confusion, stepping the digressions up another notch.
I'm quite ambivalent about my second dive into this one: both eager and apprehensive.