I'm convinced that there is a discrete outpost within the southern climes of my stomach— approximately the size of an average avocado pit—where my loathing resides. In this theory, my loathing, in its neutral state, is a congealed knob of greenish wax-like substance which radiates a faint, mostly evenly-distributed rancor throughout my body. It isn't an assertive affect—just a general disposition which can be given in to or overcome (with effort) as one wishes.
But certain stimuli have the power, it would seem, to activate this usually semi-dormant nugget of bilious hatred. When activated, the globule softens and then melts into a highly acidic solution that sloshes within and throughout the gastrointestinal system, corroding its protective walls and debilitating its normal functions. The deleterious effect of this substance cannot be overstated. Historically, it has incited wars, occasioned crimes of passion, and precipitated unmanageable bouts of diarrhea. Its direst symptom, of course, is the impairment of rational judgment—that fragile mechanism which maintains (however precariously) an ordered society. If the substance remains activated and in its liquefied form indefinitely, profound and irreversible mental dysfunction can occur—which is why aromatherapy and meditation have become so popular, I guess.
To get to the point: Ride a Cockhorse by Raymond Kennedy liquefied (and boiled) my globule. It is such an astoundingly inept novel that I'm not sure exactly how to approach it. It's as if somebody asked me what the main problem with the movie 2012 was. How does one answer that? I want to tell you what's wrong with this novel, but I think I would have to set aside two weeks at a writer's retreat to get it all out.
Do you like novels that are populated only by two-dimensional characters who never change or evolve in any way over the course of three hundred pages—but who instead act in the same (ridiculous, undermotivated) way over and over and over and over again? Do you like when completely implausible events comprise almost the entirety of a novel's plot? Do you like it when a novelist satirizes things (e.g., the banking industry, power trips, the cult of personality) that are, for all practical purposes, self-satirizing and require no exaggeration whatsoever to illustrate their failings and absurdities? Do you like funny novels that aren't funny—I mean, novels that try so fucking hard to be biting and hilarious but fail almost uniformly to be anything but tepid and obvious? Do you like novels about unlikable characters whose unlikability (its genesis, its motivation) is never explored in any real way and never used to make any point whatsoever?
WELL, HAVE I GOT A NOVEL FOR YOU, SUCKER!
Ride a Cockhorse is about a fortysomething woman named Frances 'Frankie' Fitzsimmons, who at the very outset of the novel has changed. She was once a sweet, helpful, milquetoast kind of gal (we are told, anyway), but suddenly she is now a megalomaniacal asshole who seduces a high school boy, ruthlessly forces her way up the corporate ladder, and loses all grasp of reality. We aren't told why she changed. Raymond Kennedy has simply told us that she has changed, and we shouldn't question it. If Frankie Fitzsimmons were an actual character, maybe Kennedy would have offered up a little insight, a little shading, but she's not. She's a cartoon. A cardboard cut-out. A one-note idea dressed up in a skirt. Although Frankie generally acts like a freak and engages in the most ridiculous behavior, she is constantly rewarded by fate (or she reaps the benefits of having weak and ineffectual enemies).
Oh. And I hope you like reading monotonous ravings... (You made it this far into this monotonous raving, so I suppose you do.) Because Frankie goes on and on and on about how great she is. She's like Muhammed Ali in three-inch heels.
You know how I said she's an asshole at the beginning of the novel? Well... SPOILER ALERT! She's an asshole at the end of the novel too! Nothing has changed. She hasn't grown or learned anything or been developed by the author in any way. I guess Kennedy didn't really have a choice though—because when a character is defined only by one characteristic, you can only tinker around with that characteristic at the risk of losing the character altogether.
ARGH! My globule is so melted right now that I need to go listen to some sitar music or visit a Japanese garden to re-coagulate it. So if you'll excuse me...