From the author of The Hesperides Tree, a story about the Middle East that unfolds through the interweaving actions and aspirations of many different characters -- in Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, England. The story ends in September 2001.
Nicholas Mosley was educated at Eton and Oxford. He served in Italy during World War II, and published his first novel, Spaces of the Dark, in 1951. His book Hopeful Monsters won the 1990 Whitbread Award.
Mosley was the author of several works of nonfiction, most notably the autobiography Efforts at Truth and a biography of his father, Sir Oswald Mosley, entitled Rules of the Game/Beyond the Pale.
I chose this book as fancied trying something a little bit more intellectual but was hoping for a good read as well. I'm not sure if I got either! Undoubtedly there was plenty of philosophical food-for-thought, much consideration on the purpose of life, the need for religion,the condition of humanity etc. Most of this was displayed in a riddle-like, semi-conscious state as in most (if not all) of the characters were in a constant state of deep-thinking intellectualism leaving no room for an actual story, character formation or plot. It seemed each character was bent on over-thinking every moment of their existence, even their "private" thoughts were overtly philosophical. Now, if one character in a book had this kind of deep, spiritual, existential way of thinking then I could have accepted that, perhaps skimmed over their bits, but appreciated that there are some people like that . . . but EVERY character was like this so it became unbelievable and dare I say, extremely boring! Example:
She said "So what are those places that you and Hafiz and Joshua talk about? That place in the mountains?" "That doesn't exist." "How do you know?" "I don't. It may do." "But in the mind -" "Oh we have to look. To try to find it." "To go there?" "Each in his own way." "Then it does exist." "Of course it exists!" "But you said it didn't." "Whatever you like."
I mean, pardon? Does anyone really talk like that? Nearly all the communication in the book was in a similar vein, riddle-like and non-sensical. Perhaps it was so high-brow that it simply went over my head? But it felt very much like trying too hard. Just happy I finished it.
This book starts off really well, considering the question of whether there is a god, or whether it's necessary for human beings to invent Him. Both to stop us destroying ourselves and yet to set us at each other's throats claiming Him as our own. But then the book just doubles and trebles back on itself, never developing its themes beyond glib philosophical syllogism; if god doesn't exist, we had to invent him, but because he knew this, therefore it's proof he does exist. A series of characters based in the religious-ethnic war-torn Middle East wander in and out of improbable meetings with each other and a series of dialogues mainly consisting of non-sequiturs between them, musing on things like war, peace, love and relationship to not much effect. It's interesting that the author seemed at pains to ensure each chapter had a beautiful or imaginative simile or metaphor within its early paragraphs, before veering off into his ridiculous and frankly specious dialogue.
The author appealed to me as a writer of ideas. There definitely in there, but I'm not sure I'll be trying another one of his books to do battle with him again.