I was introduced to Robert Stone in college with a short story he wrote that left a lasting impact on me (“Helping”). Years later, hunting for a good book to read after re-reading it, I figured why not pick up one his feature length novels?
Perhaps it was my high expectations, but I was left disappointed. This was doubly surprising considering it deals with themes that I often find intriguing. Existential angst, the anxiety of unrealized dreams, depression. Stone grapples with the ultimate midlife crisis, and yet it all feels so hollow, and not even in an interesting way.
The characters I found unrealistic and frustrating, and while a certain amount of caricature is allotted to creative license, it got downright ridiculous at some point. Stone never quite manages to balance the shallow banality of the two main characters (Owen and Anne) with anything that would make them interesting enough to care about. They are pathetically helpless. I get that “that’s the point” but I’ve read better books that accomplish the same without making the characters so utterly devoid of character or agency. Falling back on self-referential meta-analysis to try to recursively justify poorly written characters is lazy.
Don’t even get me started on the character of Strickland. I was so mad at this character from start to finish. I suspect this character is an idealized self-insert for Stone himself, which, brother, if that’s true, you did yourself dirty. He is by far the most despicable and annoying character in the whole story. While Owen and Anne spend their time in the narrative being cosmically brutalized for the sins of their banality, Strickland is so supremely hip, so utterly cool and above reproach (despite being really the worst kind of human being), he appears utterly immune to the karmic/poetic justice that is the byline of this novel, short of the lightest of consequences he faces near the end. If the point is that it’s all just arbitrary and there is no justice, why does the theme of karmic justice apply to every other character in this novel but him?
I suspect having read more about Stone the answer comes in that he was a product of his time. The old guard of the old counter culture, when the worst sin one could imagine was being relatively milquetoast, suburban parents, with rather ordinary professions who skewed center-right on some political issues - the horror. This of course is contrasted with the infinitely hip, young, international documentarian living in a NYC penthouse with a colorful collage of escorts, publicists, toadies, and an endless cavalcade of drugs, bohemian records and parties (which he drives to in his Porsche, of course). This is played straight by the way, as much as it sounds like satire.
I don’t know, maybe this just hit different in 1992 than it does in 2025. It feels like if ever there were a character in need of some poetic justice, it would have been Strickland, but it never comes. Even when it finally comes, it feels random and apropos of nothing to do with him as a person.
All in all, I feel that this probably should have been a short story. At 410 pages, the book feels long. There is an invitation to a mystery in the beginning (a missing CEO) which goes nowhere. The first half of the book is preparation for the main event when Mr. Browne goes to sea, and is an agonizingly long setup to essentially say “these characters are in the midst of a midlife crisis” and not much else. The second half begins interestingly because as I reader I suspected Browne would have to finally confront his demons without distraction, and we’d get some meat on this story. However the authors clearly ran out of material to work with because he decided to have the character simply go insane. The next 200 pages or so are filled with increasingly inane ramblings that resemble the author’s best impression at a psychotic break. Never have I found a depiction of psychosis to be more boring.
Anne spends her time naively destroying her life. I understand a woman like this might be a little sheltered and naive, but she goes naive to “born yesterday”, again very frustrating.
The imagery that abounds is peppered with language that spells out the subtext forthrightly “You see, the setting sun is a metaphor for the fading of youth and unrealized dreams” and so on. Yes, yes, obligatorily profound, yet but also profoundly uninteresting. This is punctuated by a dizzying array of references to nautical terminology that will be completely foreign to you unless you sail. The protagonist of Owen Browne was a middling seaman, so the author could have used him to explain what’s going on with the boat in layman’s terms, but you see Robert Stone the author is an avid seaman IRL so he just kind of assumes you know what he’s constantly referring to.
So yeah, frustrating, disappointing, overly long, and seemingly confused themes. What was the message after all? If you’re a bland, middle-aged suburbanite, don’t bother chasing your dreams and simply embrace mediocrity? Or perhaps become a Bohemian hipster who beats women bloody when they spurn your advances and you’ll get a Porsche? Is it all just hopeless? Or most likely of all, perhaps the message is if you’re an author you should consider a bit more where your story is going and what the point is before you start writing it.