Your Fathers, Where Are They? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever?

by Dave Eggers

The bestselling author of The Circle delivers a tour de force of one man struggling to make sense of his country, seeking solutions the only way he knows how. A "story about someone who takes revenge against the world because he can't fathom how he fits into it.... This is a one-sitting read" ( USA Today ).

What do you do when you’re full of what happened to missions to the moon? Why spend a trillion dollars on war? Where did America go wrong? 

If you’re Thomas, a young man nursing migraines and a lack of direction, this calls for drastic action. To find some answers, Thomas kidnaps a NASA astronaut and brings him to an abandoned military base on the edge of the California coast. Then the questioning begins. The answers must be honest. The back and forth might even hurt. It might get uncomfortable. But eventually the truth will emerge.

Genres: Fiction, Contemporary, Novels, Literary Fiction, Audiobook, Literature, Adult Fiction

240 pages, Paperback

First published June 17, 2014

About the author

Dave Eggers is an American writer, editor, and publisher. He is best known for his 2000 memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, which became a bestseller and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Eggers is also the founder of several notable literary and philanthropic ventures, including the literary journal Timothy McSweeney's Quarterly Concern, the literacy project 826 Valencia, and the human rights nonprofit Voice of Witness. Additionally, he founded ScholarMatch, a program that connects donors with students needing funds for college tuition. His writing has appeared in numerous prestigious publications, including The New Yorker, Esquire, and The New York Times Magazine.

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it? God, I suck at trying to explain why I like a particular book. There's this lady who comes into my work and she always asks me what I'm reading. She's really only asking me this so she can tell me what she has been reading, but I always feel obligated to tell her about the books I've been reading. She is incredible at explaining the good and bad points of books and most of the time I end up borrowing whatever she suggests. But me, I am shit and she knows it. It's all in the eyes people! I can see it in her eyes. And when ever I've finished, she always says 'ok', gives me the 'I'm talking to a crazy person' head nodding, and walks off. When she comes in next week she's going to ask me what I've been reading and I'm going to have to mention this book. What the devil do I say about it? It's a near-plotless book, entirely dialogue-driven, about a man who kidnaps an astronaut (+others). It sounds like the biggest load of wanky shite, and I'm sure there will be people who think it's exactly that, but I really enjoyed this book. It was short. That's a tick. Mr Eggers held my attention the entire time. Another tick. I was interested to see where exactly the story was going (the answer is: nowhere really), but I was more interested in the interactions between the protagonist and his 'victims'. As the book is entirely dialogue driven, the reader's opinion of each character is based solely on what comes out of their mouth. Normally, I find a book to be the opposite. This book was a refreshing change. That's what I liked most about the book. Oh and there's a dog in it. I like dogs.

Ok. *head nodding*.

[emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whenever I'm trying a new author, I strive to pick up a book of theirs that will make their fans yell "NO DON'T START THERE."

I love when being dumb works out for me.

A lot of the criticism of this book is about it being gimmicky, but I’m always a sucker for a gimmicky book. I read Jonathan Safran Foer at a formative age - it's not my fault.

Plus, this is a good read for anyone who has ever gotten so frustrated with the system that they see red, who has wanted to trap authority figures and ask them why things are the way they are until they not just answer but understand, AND a good read for anyone who wonders how the white men who commit extraordinary crimes still see themselves as the victims.

I fit into both groups.

I think it's a gift, to do both in one book, let alone have it result in a captivating read.

In conclusion: I attempted to quote this weeks after reading it, a failed effort of pretentiousness that reflects positively on this book and very negatively on me.

Bottom line: A try-hard book that succeeds in my book!!!

[Campbell Andrews · Rating 1 out of 5]

This isn't fiction, it's op-ed wankery. After The Circle and this, I now have no interest in Eggers' next book. It makes me wonder: when's the last time anybody said to him, "Hey Dave? This isn't very good."

[Lee Klein · Rating 4 out of 5]

People seem to hear that this one has a long and unrememberable title, involves an astronaut, and that it's "all dialogue" -- and think it's gonna be "weird." I was one of those people: at first I heard that the new Eggers novel, the third in as many years, took place at a Japanese internment/concentration camp. And then I heard something about astronauts and all dialogue, that it's (mistakenly) more of a return to his early Velocity days. Eggers has described the book as sort of a weird stepson he worked on before The Circle, which I also gulped down and enjoyed. A horrific Michiko review in The New York Times: "a labored, predictable and tiresome piece of fiction lacking the emotional wisdom and dazzling prose that have distinguished so much of this author’s earlier work." Not much chatter about it. Dismissive reviews on here. So, as a fan of his recent fiction, or at least an interested reader along for the ride, I got this $25.95 hardcover from the library and read it in a day -- started it walking to work on Friday and finished it around 3AM unable to sleep that night. Rumors of all dialogue are true -- I feel like it's a successful constraint (pun intended) and makes sense for the novel's concerns. It literalizes unrealized desires so many sane folks have probably had to tie up a politician or a cop or an old teacher or a family member, or even a successful classmate from back in the day, and interrogate them, ask serious questions about life -- that is, about why it is how it is. Considering that on-screen characters other than Thomas the Kidnapper and those he conjures are tied up, again, I think the unattributed dialogue works well. It also aerates and accelerates the story, which is important in a novel that's idea-driven. What ideas? The main one is that young men, the sort who may have been mobilized to dig canals or perform heroically in battle, have an unfulfilled desire to be part of something inspiring, something epic and exciting and physical that gives life meaning, but since they aren't presented the opportunity to be a part of something these days, they pull things apart. They shoot up schools. They lose their shit and then, armed with a pathetic weapon, confront a SWAT team in their backyard -- essentially the climax of the story, semi-unbelievably discussed with a kidnapped cop, that very much resonated during the week of the Ferguson crisis. The book does a great job of withholding and disclosing information about Thomas's past, what led him to bring these people to an abandoned military base near Monterrey, CA. Definite narrative drive propelled me through the dialogue that only rarely slipped me up so I wasn't sure who the speaker was. In general, it's not just about "white guy troubles," as some on here claim. It's about a legitimate concern some troubled folks, mostly young men, may have that there's no clear and easy path to fulfilling their desire for the heroic. Of course a lot of less privileged young men and women might also have an even more legitimate concern that they have no opportunities for basic stability other than subsistence level service work in cities and strip malls. But this is more about a grand narrative into which to channel energies thanks to unharnessed testosterone surge, idealism, romanticism, magical thinking. I've been there, to a degree myself -- despite so many opportunities, I've felt like there should be something more, even something like what Melville described in the opening of Moby-Dick, Ishmael setting out for the seas whenever his "hypos" gets to him, his "substitute for pistol and ball." I've always thought the author sort of wants to be a congressman, run for office of some sort one day -- this may be his most indirect campaign piece, maybe more so than the other recent novels, all of which are highly accessible, politically minded fiction. Things can seem pedantic at times, sure, preaching to the choir (the phrase appears in the book), like that guy living off the grid in "The Circle," but Eggers definitely presents the situation's moral complexity. It's not simple black-and-white ranting at all. Features a wonderful congressman, too, a father figure who more or less jumps off the page despite his missing limbs -- LOL'd a few times during the second chapter. Anyway, glad I read it -- it extends Eggers's larger project and it's by far his easiest read. Per Michiko's review, emotional complexity might not be the concern as much as moral complexity. A recommended one-day read -- give it the benefit of the doubt until after the second chapter.

[Carmen Petaccio]

"What do you want to build? The world is already built."

"So I just walk around in an already built world? That's a joke."

"That's the joke you live in."

[Renata · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay. I love Dave Eggers. I can't help it. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius is probably still my all-time favorite book, and I love What is the What and Zeitoun, and I love the work he does with McSweeney's and 826 and Voices of Witness. Love it.

But the problem is I think over the last few years (as he enters middle-aged white dude status) Dave Eggers has been on some kind of quest to see if he can make the struggles of middle-class white dudes as interesting as like, refugees and tragic young orphans. Spoiler alert: HE CANNOT

He's still a good writer on like, a line by line basis. But overall this whole novel is just like ughhhh we get it we have all been let down by American society we get ittttt

Like just please write a book about somebody with ~real problems~ Dave you're so good at that

[Timothy · Rating 1 out of 5]

For a superior novel about man-eating crabs, please read:



https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1531168.Crabs_on_the_Rampage

[Sam Quixote · Rating 5 out of 5]

On an abandoned military base on the Pacific coast, a troubled man called Thomas has kidnapped an astronaut and tied him up. What does Thomas want and why is he doing this? To have a chat about the good ol’ days. Except for Thomas, the conversation is just beginning - and he wants to get more people involved...

This is easily the best novel I’ve read all year. Dave Eggers’ Your Fathers, Where Are They? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever? is an all-dialogue novel, meaning no omniscient narrator describing or setting things up, and everything the reader knows comes from the exchanges Thomas has with his prisoners. Maybe it’s partially the format, but I flew through this book in a day and I almost never do that with novels, even ones as short as this (just over 200 pages) - I inhaled this thing!

A large part of why this novel was so excellent has to do with how well Eggers writes the individual voices. There are numerous characters in this and each one has their own distinct way of speaking - at no point are you ever confused about who’s talking (even though the chapters are labelled after the location each one is being held so you know who Thomas is having a conversation with). You also know exactly what the characters are like from the way they speak and interact with Thomas. It’s pitch-perfect execution Elmore Leonard would be proud of.

Also, learning who Thomas is and why he’s doing what he’s doing unfolds beautifully. At first it seems like he’s just some nutjob who’s become obsessed with an astronaut but slowly you learn more about Thomas and his sad life. From there, new characters/hostages are introduced and you realise it’s a journey through the past via present dialogue, like a fucked up therapy session, to find out what’s really at the heart of Thomas’ problems. And, man, is it full of surprises.

I’m not going to go into those surprises but each chapter unveils a new direction the story heads in where a detail that felt like an off-the-cuff mention turns out to be a key part of a larger story that becomes clearer the closer you get to the finale. The book has a driving, tense story even if you know what’s going to happen at the end - there’s only one way things are going to end for poor, crazy Thomas - but the journey is just so enthralling and you don’t know whether he’s going to kill the hostages or not.

Eggers is a writer whose work is socially aware and this book is also a commentary on a number of contemporary issues (perhaps that’s why the book’s format is dialogue only, to help focus the reader on its topics?). Like the extreme way police forces deal with threats and violent American culture in general, the problems of boom and bust capitalism, the lack of help available for the mentally ill, and the seeming lack of a direction for the modern generation, no great cause to dedicate themselves to (coughclimatechangecough).

In one way Thomas is representative of all the directionless, frustrated young people out there who don’t know what to do and desperately want someone to point them into a productive direction. In another way he’s a cautionary tale for those who choose to let the past dictate their future, who can’t help but keep looking backwards and want to paint themselves as helpless victims instead of making the effort to try something, anything, to make their lives have meaning and move them forwards. One character nails it: “Thomas, we all get what we work for. Maybe there’s some variation, but still.” - Thomas didn’t work for anything, instead allowing his disillusionment to consume him, and this is where he ended up.

If you’re wondering what that title has to do with anything, it’s implied that they’re words that the character the book is really about - but who we never hear from directly for reasons that’ll be clear once you read it - says at a key scene that sets off this chain of events that leads Thomas to where he is now. The book is so artfully constructed, I’m in awe of Eggers’ abilities, really. He chose an ambitious approach for this story and effortlessly pulled it off.

I will point out one minor critique in the cop character who happens to have a very pertinent role in the larger story and yet Thomas just randomly stumbled across him. It was a little too convenient that this cop was so very relevant to the narrative. Maybe you could make the case that this is taking place in a very small town with only so many cops, etc. but even if it’s a stretch, I’m willing to overlook it as I enjoyed the story so damn much.

Your Fathers… is a complex, superbly-written masterpiece that shows Eggers’ heights as a skilful, gifted and enormously imaginative storyteller; it has depth and layers that are so impressive. Yet I don’t want to put people off from reading it by thinking this is an intimidating, exhaustive, unapproachable literary read - it’s not. First and foremost it’s a fast-paced and genuinely exciting thriller that also happens to have merit beyond being vastly entertaining. But entertaining it is and I couldn’t have been more engrossed reading it. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for an unusual but gripping and intense story.

[Hell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't understand why so maybe people hated this book. I thought writing in all dialogue was interesting. Challenging to some, maybe, but we were told where they were, what it was like. We knew. I'm not a man. But I understood his plight. I don't think it was about middle aged white entitlement. I think he could have been any color, really. It was about people who have this feeling of displacement. That they have this energy, this something inside them that isn't exactly destructive but not exactly civilized, either. Even though they've done everything right, they still don't fit. Some people grow out of it. Some don't. Maybe he's right and building a canal or blowing up a mountain would have helped. Is that so much different than the new "therapy" of going places and smashing things? He felt the injustice for the astronaut. And of course he did these things the wrong way but there are people all of us would like answers from. Most of us wouldn't chain them up but hey, maybe the idea is intriguing. In the end, he had the ridiculous idea of wanting his happy ending, too. The guy had hope. One of my favorite parts was when he said we spend so much money on wars but we never give people anything to dream about anymore. Nothing to hope for. And it's true. He just wanted to clear his head. He just wants to be an honorable man. Like the astronaut. He did the wrong thing, though. But maybe it wasn't wrong for him. He got what he wanted. He cleared his head. Someone said there was no point to this book. But I disagree. I thought it was powerful and explains how a lot of people, men and women feel. Like this sort of world of office jobs and endless tv isn't where we belong. I thought it made people feel not so alone. And to me, that's the point of a lot of literature. To tell you that you aren't the only one to feel something.

[Elyse Walters · Rating 5 out of 5]

I LOVED IT!!!! Enormously provocative and hilarious.
The first half of the book, my husband and I read aloud together. (we were having a blast --stopping and having discussions) --- I finished the last half myself after he went to sleep.

Several negative reviews???? I do NOT AGREE!!! This book allows for DISCUSSION ---
Its too thin of a book to share much or give much away. Its best just reading it. It will only take a few hours of your time: FULLY WORTH the CREATIVE experience!!!!!

Here are a 'few' lines to get your juices going: (without giving anything away)


..."Son, did you really kidnap me to talk about the Space Shuttle?"
..."Mainly, Yes."
..." Holy Jesus."

..."Do you remember the eighties, Mr. Hanson?"
..."Yes, I remember the eighties"
..."Watch your attitude, Mr. Hanson. You're tied to a post.

..."I'm tall? I'm healthy? That's your defense? You did a good job with me because I'm tall and don't have leprosy? You are phenomenal."

..."I take the same amount of responsibility as any parent. Which should be limited."

If Dave Eggers wrote about the phone book --I think I'd be fully engage. He's got to be one of the best contemporary writers in our country today. I've yet to read any book by him which I haven't enjoyed. This one is a TRIP...of reading pleasure!!!

[Jessica Woodbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a lot of Dave Eggers books. (I used to own 3 different versions of SACRAMENT.) In some ways this is a return to form of some of his earlier novels. Loose, strange, not in search of any greater good but just there to tell an unusual story with unusual characters. And as much as I adore WHAT IS THE WHAT and his ambitious fiction, I can't deny the enjoyment of reading YOUR FATHERS, WHERE ARE THEY? and how quickly I was able to dash through it.

It is hard to review this book, it certainly doesn't have anything resembling a typical plot or structure. Let me just tell you how it starts.

Kevin, an astronaut for NASA, wakes up chained to a post and held captive by a man who seems to know everything about him. The book is made up entirely of conversations as the reader gradually figures out who this man is and what his intentions are. It's played well, slowly revealing little bits along the way. As a mystery love, I would've preferred a more smash-bang ending, but I can't really see how I would change it.

Don't be put off by the lofty sounding title. This is a book you can read on an airplane or on a beach, you zip through it and it happily takes you on an exhilarating ride.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this as I was flying into a place that was unknown to myself; love and retrieval of the future was my main focus and I succeeded in both and for that, I will always be thankful.

Now…my thoughts with this book and author.

Rating would have to be closer to a 3.5.

Dave Eggers is an interesting one. He always tends to bring up national/international issues within his books, but with a quirky sense of satire mixed in.  With his newest “Your Fathers, Where Are They? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever?”, he furthers his niche while trying to get to the reason why his friend, Don Banh, was ultimately killed by law enforcement.  Each character is important in what Mr. Eggers is trying to convey in his message with the sanity (or insanity) of the main character Thomas.  

Not the best starting point for someone new to his style of writing, but for others who enjoy his material, I’d recommend it for the dialogue on its own.

Update: Love does last.

[Alice-Elizabeth (Prolific Reader Alice)]

DNF at Page 72 (I don't leave star ratings to books I don't finish!)

This is a dialogue format story about a NASA astronaut who discovers he has been kidnapped and the one who kidnapped him claimed to know him from the past. They spend lots of time discussing and answering questions and accusations. The story was most definitely not for me. I wasn't a fan of the subject content and felt quite triggered by one exchange between the two characters during the section I read. I can see why readers will like this, but sadly, I'm not one of them!

[Héctor Genta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un grande futuro dietro le spalle?
Alle volte ho l'impressione che la facilità di scrittura di certi autori (nordamericani, soprattutto) rappresenti più un freno che uno stimolo a fare di più.
Eggers è uno scrittore originale e curioso, che in questo libro ha deciso di fare il punto della situazione: dove siamo, perché non siamo arrivati dove volevamo, cosa è andato storto? Roba grossa, materiale su cui si potrebbe riflettere a lungo, con la certezza di approdare a risposte sostenute da argomentazioni solide ma che probabilmente finirebbero per andare in direzioni diverse. Nulla di male, la complessità dell’argomento è tanta manna per uno scrittore che nell’abbondanza è libero di scegliere dove intingere la penna e dove sorvolare; questo non è un saggio ma un’opera narrativa, qui non ci interessa tanto la teoria o la costruzione di modelli quanto il ragionamento, il percorso, lo sviluppo della trama e dei personaggi.
Ottimo l’argomento quindi, e ottima ed originale anche la scelta della forma. I vostri padri è un romanzo fatto di soli dialoghi, Thomas, il protagonista, vuole delle risposte dalla società, dagli altri, e per averle non esita a rapire diverse persone per costringerle a parlare con lui, per capire perché ad un certo punto della sua vita si è guardato intorno e non ha trovato più nessuno. Lui ha sempre creduto in quello che gli raccontavano, nelle spiegazioni, nelle motivazioni e nelle promesse che via via gli sono state proposte… e allora perché si è ritrovato da solo? Perché gli altri non sono più accanto a lui? Perché non fanno quello che dicono? Cosa ne è stato, per riassumerla in una frase, del sogno americano?
«Ho qui un astronauta che ha fatto tutto quello che gli era stato detto di fare e questo non l’ha portato da nessuna parte. È solo un esempio. Arriva al massimo nel suo campo e gli rifilano un calcio in culo. Dall'altra parte della scala c’è Don, che voleva essere lasciato in pace, che era confuso, e il prezzo per essere una persona confusa in questo mondo sono diciassette pallottole ricevute nel giardino di casa tua.»
Il problema, secondo me, è che l’autore dispone molto bene le carte sul tavolo ma poi non sviluppa il gioco, si accontenta di quello che ha abbozzato senza voler andare oltre. Peccato, perché Thomas è un personaggio interessante, con un sacco di sfaccettature che avrebbero meritato di essere approfondite; potenzialmente vedo il lui l’antieroe del romanzo del nuovo millennio (ok, magari esagero un po’…), eppure Eggers sembra non accorgersene o non essere interessato alla possibilità di scrivere il grande romanzo. Si ferma sulla soglia, e quando scrive:
“Etichettiamo tutto alla velocità della luce, senza appello, tanto che non troviamo più spazio per le sfumature”
ecco, ho l’impressione che in questo libro lui abbia fatto lo stesso.

[Lea · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very easy and quick read, especially since it's written entirely as dialogue between a kidnapper and a varity of kidnapped people. Overall, while I was entertained enough, I didn't think it was terribly exciting or had much to say.

[Leo Robertson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ahahaha!! That was one of the worst things I've read in a while.

You know, like it's all dialogue, which I guess is a technique he's partly biting from William Gaddis, who obviously did it wayyyy better! I was at least looking forward to a mess of speakers all at once but it's just one guy who pairs off folk and talks to them one-on-one, which makes it much easier to write than a novel written in standard form with even a single scene with many people in the same room, so it's far from daringly written or well done at all. Even the additional dialogue mechanics required to make it work are badly done, and constitute little more than the speakers unnecessarily saying each other's names to keep you on track.

It's hilarious. All the bits I liked I was like 'Yeah I remember that line from Girl with Curious Hair, it was a good one' or 'That was an excellent point that David Foster Wallace made in Oblivion, wasn't it Dave?' This and my point about Gaddis, it's such a shame when a writer bases his success on the notion that his readers are less well-read than him, like, is that all you have to offer??

The funny thing is that it's so goddamn earnest in its terrible execution that it's like a play written by a 14 year-old. There's about 12 Googleable facts in it, so it has all the content of a Buzzfeed article.

You know that way sometimes when someone invites you to a play and you're like 'Well, doesn't look like my kinda thing but it's got rave reviews', then you sit down in the front row, and your friend's dead excited because they picked something out and they're being all cultured, then the curtains open and it's just one guy in an armchair reading the newspaper and he turns to the crowd and goes

'Oh hey, I was just thinking how unfair the holocaust was.'

And you're like fuuuuuuuuuck we totally can't leave! Are we locked in for two hours of this?? And you turn to your friend and she's all serious-faced and like believing it!!

So much art is terrible!!!!!

[Snotchocheez · Rating 2 out of 5]

1.5 stars

Easily the worst of Eggers' offerings I've read so far, YFWAT?ATPDTLF? is another effort of his to champion a "cause", and rally for the rights of the disenfranchised. Unlike vastly superior efforts like What is the What and Zeitoun, this time Eggers tries humorless Palahniuk-y gimmickry coupled with limp Mamet-esque theatrics to deliver his message. As my political viewpoints are similarly aligned to his, Eggers is preaching to the choir, but thanks to an utter lack of subtlety and (curiously, for Eggers) cohesion in the message, his bully pulpit sermon makes me feel like an unwilling abductee along with his protagonist's captives. Unpleasant, in the extreme.

Unless you're a die-hard Eggers fan, skip this and read Zeitoun or What is the What instead.

[Bob Lopez · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was written with urgency; unfortunately, it's a kind of condescending urgency you would find in a college application essay where the kid thinks he should get into an Ivy League school but really probably belongs at a Tier 2 institution. Smug and self-satisfied, preachy

[Vartika · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you've ever watched the Netflix series You, you may be interested in exploring more of the trope Joe Goldberg typifies: the sociopathic character who's got society's evils right and himself very wrong. If I did manage to get that right, then Your Fathers, Where Are They? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever? is the perfect next read for you.

I for one tore through this novel, which takes the idea of a troubled person being the the most searing and capable interrogator of a profoundly sick society to its literal and rather exhilarating extreme. It is dialogue-driven, but also character driven — by Thomas, a smart but disappointed young man who, according to the author "has internalised the mythology of the West" and had reaped none of the glory promised to him.

Thomas presents himself as both a symptom of and an aid to what he sees as a festering wound: American society, and in the course of the book he catechizes many of its most pertinent sores, including police brutality, vulnerable childhoods, and the manufactured 'lack' of funds for education and culture. If we're drawing parallels with You's Joe Goldberg: Thomas is not a serial killer like Joe was—he doesn't really harm any of his abductees—and he's a lot more of a justice man than a romance man—though definitely still obsessive. That's all I'm giving away about that. Or not: he's probably also slightly more self-aware than Joe, just enough, which makes this book an interesting study of white male fragility and its concurrent illusions of grandeur and victimhood.

At its core, this is an extremely pared-back novel of ideas explored briefly but with considerable nuance. It's not the very best thing I've ever read, but it is gripping and thoughtful. Probs better than You, but don't quote me on that.

[Kristen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm going four stars on this because I really liked it, but I didn't looooOOOOoooove it.

I proposed this to my bookclub and it was turned down immediately, and I feel that was probably due to the long title and the fact that it's written entirely in dialogue. This can come off as gimmicky and probably pretentious, but if that's wrong, then I don't want to be right. A couple other reviewers have argued it doesn't have a plot, and while it doesn't have a plot in the sense of "here-are-a-lot-of-various-events-that-occur," I would argue it does have a plot. Otherwise, that means movies/shows that all take place in one space (such as any apartment based episode of Friends or the movie Buried) doesn't have a plot, and I don't think that's fair to say. This book is most certainly very character driven and the main character, Thomas, is a character we can't trust because he's clearly out of his gourd. We get bits of pieces from him (but again, remember, he's not trustworthy) and as much information that his kidnapping victims can expose from their pasts with him or from what they can draw out of them. I think people who like Catcher in the Rye could like this book, but I like Thomas a bit more than Holden Caulfield. They're conceived, I think, from very similar human cores.

There's a dog that pops up, but it doesn't ever bark in the background. What a time to be alive.

[Madaline · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 270 pages, Eggers manages to speak what we know but can't always articulate. As a nation, we fought WW2, made sacrifices for the war effort. In the 60's our goal was the space race, to get to the moon. In recent years, we have become a nation of divorce, pills, and isolation. Eggers brings this home when he introduces us to Thomas, who has some issues in his earlier life that have left him in some considerable pain and has been driven over the edge. We get it though, because we are children and grandchildren of the Camelot era. We were raised to believe in trust, church and hope but slowly, it has turned on us. So, we get why Thomas has isolated his captives and interrogated each one face to face. It is so painful, to read, because although we know he has gone too far, has chosen the wrong way to go about making solutions in his life, we know that he has valid points. Why do police shoot to kill when someone has not been a threat before? Why have we so much money to spend on wars, but it takes a valiant effort to save PBS?

I can't write a review to save my life but I am so glad Dave Eggers is writing books.

[Michael Bohli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dave Eggers startet mit seinem neuen Roman ein Versuch. In reiner Dialogform geschrieben, handelt das Buch von einem verwirrten Mann, der sich in der heutigen Zivilisation nicht mehr zurecht findet. Seine Lösung? Er entführt diverse Personen, welche in gewissen Lebensabschnitten seinen Pfad gekreuzt haben, und erhofft sich dadurch Antworten und neue Wege.

Der Autor versucht dabei in dieser Abhandlung diverse Themen der Gesellschaft aufzugreifen. Ausgrenzung, Rassismus, Krieg, Intoleranz, die Aussichstlosigkeit der Jugend. Oft geschieht die Betrachtung der Probleme mit einem cleveren Kniff, oft bleibt es aber auch zu oberflächlich und allgemein. Dass schlussendlich alles eine simple Lösung findet und kein Gespräch etwas bewirkt, dies darf man als beissenden Kommentar oder auch Inkosequenz sehen. Trotzdem, die Geschichte regt zum denken an, trotz ihrer unrunden Form.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Christians, the Bible. It’s all about who’s at fault. A whole religion based on accountability. Who’s to blame? What’s the judgment? Who gets punished? Who gets jailed, banished, killed, drowned, decimated. You want to know the main takeaway most people got from Jesus’s death? Not sacrifice, nothing like that. The takeaway, after all that Old Testament judgment, is that the Jews did it.

Fast, engaging read written entirely as dialogue. And what dialogue! Includes some of the most honest language I've read about parenthood, religion, the individual’s responsibility within a society, and the state of American society generally.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

At least it was slightly more interesting (and a lot shorter) than The Circle.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I totally get why people wouldn't like this book. Completely understand and appreciate it. A borderline magical realism book consisting only of dialogue with an ambiguous ending that leaves you wondering what's real and what's not (if any of it even is at all)? I get it, man. But holy crap is this right in my wheelhouse. Plot is overrated. "Before the Fall" was overflowing with plot, and it was kind of crappy. I'd much rather be immersed in a book full of subtle ideas and philosophical discussions for which there are no real answers. Pump it directly into my veins, I can't get enough.

As much as I enjoyed 'The Circle,' this is the Dave Eggers I fell in love with. Frank, honest discussions about life and the social contract, what does it all mean type of shit with no easy answers. The protagonist of this book is not right in his general philosophy of life, but he's not wrong, either. The world is an imperfect place, and just because you've been given advantages in life doesn't mean you're on easy street. Everyone's personal experience and the ways we interpret that experience is unique, and it's not fair to minimize people's struggles. But that doesn't mean you get to throw a brick through the window of the happy family next door, either.

If that doesn't make any sense, okay. But that's like, my opinion, man. And it's why I loved this wacky book. I couldn't put it down. My faith in Dave Eggers's staggering genius is restored, but I still understand if you disagree for all sorts of reasons. You're not wrong. But neither am I.

[Beansoda · Rating 1 out of 5]

Imagine Holden Caulfield all grown up, but 1000 times more impotent and whiny. This is the main character of this book. It starts with an interesting premise, but slowly just becomes a platform for complaining about the unfairness of life. Good grief, I've never hated a protagonist more, and not in a good way.

Since the book is entirely dialogue, clumsy attempts are made to fill the reader in on what is happening. He's kidnapped an astronaut--how do you know this? Because he exclaims to himself "Wow, a real astronaut!"

The only saving grace of this book is that it is mercifully short. And Ye Gods, the pretentious title. David Eggers, shut up.

[Naomi's Novels · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where can I find more of this?

[Leo Robertson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gave this another go because it's all dialogue and I'm all about plays and single settings at the moment :) Because I started filmmaking much later than I started writing, and if you can overcome the creative constraints of one location with a good script, your film is free and it takes the focus off of fancy cinematography, about which I know very little, haha! (Though with each project I'm gradually integrating more ways of using the camera, lenses, colours and lighting to tell the story, and moving away from my comfort zone of writing :D)

Well, this is an interesting experiment, and as odd a group of people that it puts in the spotlight, it does seem to have hit a nail on the head about a cultural issue. (The group in question I think is best summarised by this Onion article.) It pre-empts the rise of the alt-right and the meteoric rise of Jordan Peterson with all his slaying dragon stuff. I was fascinated by Jordan Peterson's theories for a good while before I realised that all my productivity and joy and meaning out of life, or whatever, comes from a place far less intense than this, like, "Your daily habits and actions force you away from hell and towards heaven, the place of maximally assumed responsibility. Earn your sunrise! Look after your community!" Like, omg, you come at me with that crap and I don't want to get out of bed, how's that?

So I'm not a member of the group of people who need culture to provide them with meaning. I like that the world is inherently meaningless and that I can create my own meaning out of it. And then change that meaning if it no longer serves me. I cannot be told what to do, and if anyone tries I usually end up doing either the opposite or nothing.

But just a few years later and the prescience of this book has become apparent. But structurally it suffers from a number of issues. Firstly, the characters that the protagonist kidnaps are pretty loosely associated with the narrative. The function that each character serves is not that clear. And the plot progresses with more kidnappings, with the addition of a new person in a new warehouse that the protagonist goes and talks to. Every conversation of unattributed dialogue is between two people at a time. Which shows the limitation of the unattributed dialogue format. Used by other novelists like Gaddis, Foster Wallace, McCarthy and (I believe) Puig, I think the effect is to remove all the bullshit out of the text and make characters live with their distinct voices, to create an immersive reading experience. But I find it a bit pretentious and unnecessary. There's also what I think is a very American enjoyment of rhythm in dialogue, where characters repeat expressions or questions to one another that I only ever find frustrating:
- Did you go there?
- Did I go there?
- Yes, that's what I'm asking you. Did you go there?
- No, I didn't go there.
For example. But these kinds of emphases I feel could just be cleaned up. If the style you have opted for is supposedly so lean, get there faster! (I remember reading Tarantino's script for The Hateful Eight--which I don't recommend doing--and into hour #3 they're like, "Have you ever had the best coffee in the state?" "No, but I would like to try the best coffee in the state" or whatever it is they say and it's like, Tarantino have mercy, this lifeless indulgent dialogue is killing me. Speed it the fuck up!)

However, what if the protagonist had kept kidnapping new people and putting them in the same warehouse, so that they could talk not only to him but to one another, and some interlocking mystery transpired in which they were all more directly involved, a bit like Inspector Calls? And they all worked together to convince the protagonist to quit his mission, and each time he went away and came back, they would use different tactics that they had discussed and agreed upon in his absence?

That's a longer and much more complicated book, but a 5* one for sure. This one is 3*.

[jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

If it was only for A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, I think I would still be blindly buying just about anything that Eggers writes. That I loved What is the What, You Shall Know Our Velocity, and We Are Hungry just solidifies his status as one of my favorite authors, so despite thinking that both Hologram for the King and The Circle were two of the weaker entries in his oeuvre I was excited to add Your Fathers… to my shopping cart without reading either (yes, that’s with a long “i”) synopsis or reviews… and then the package arrived…

I was, admittedly, a little saddened by the low page count, and I proceeded with some trepidation as the story began with such a flippant conversational tone that it had me thinking this would be the substantive heir of Hologram. Not that I disliked that book because it was poorly written or lacked coherence, but what I want from Eggers is the emotionally raw and deeply personal prose that initially brought me into his world – the kind of world with which I readily identified, characters in whom I became easily invested, and, most importantly, (pseudo-) fictional outcomes that had a not-at-all fictional effect upon my own (pseudo-) fictional reality. It was easy to find that world in those earlier works… perhaps too easy. Perhaps I had become complacent and forgotten how to look for what I wanted. Perhaps the words on the pages gelled so well that it became too easy to leave myself behind – instead of getting lost in the story I was just lost. Instead of waiting for “something to inspire [me] in some goddamned way” along with the protagonist/antagonist I had to be my own inspiration. I don’t know why that quote caused me to come to that conclusion, (maybe that’s the author’s magic) but I’m glad it did, as I think that change in attitude helped me find exactly what I was seeking in this brief collection of dialogs.

Initially it seemed like the main focus of this story was to uncover just how much we tend to rely on society, our parents, our teachers, our friends… our authors… to show us, give us, tell us, provide for us… fit us into a “larger narrative.” I didn’t realize it at the time, but it wasn’t the maimed but successful Congressman, the astronaut who had his dreams taken away, the parent, the policeman, or even the potential young love that really summed up what this meant. All of these people have something or are something that I want or I wish I could be, and each conversation uncovered a different facet of our inability to stand alone in an ever growing world that continually needs or wants us less and less. Yet it was the reformed/reforming and self-aware sexual deviant… the only one who, on the surface, was not a representation of what I wish I had… who appeared to have succinctly stamped the book closed a third of the way in. It wasn’t his extrapolation that, “I am one person, and my story is absolutely unique.” It wasn’t the affirmation of individuality in, “I don’t conform to any established modus operandi.” It wasn’t the introduction to which I alluded earlier that, “I’m not part of some larger narrative.” It was simply two words… “I’m me.”

Thomas, our “hero” if you will, had obviously reached a breaking point in his struggle to realize what “me” really was. We’re all flawed, but he could neither seem to understand that about himself nor forgive it in others, so he looked externally in an attempt to justify, to blame, and to find reason in a reasonless world. If only, he laments, “we’d been part of some universal struggle, some greater cause than ourselves,” then he, “would have turned out better, and everyone I know would have turned out better.” Eggers has broached the subject before. A passage from Velocity, which I’ve quoted many times before while in the thralls of my own directionless self-doubt, spells it out brilliantly: “I wanted so many times while driving to flip, to skid and flip and fall from the car and have something happen. I wanted to land on my head and lose half of it, or land on my legs and lose one or both. I wanted something to happen so my choices would be fewer, so my map would have a route straight through, in red. I wanted limitations, boundaries, to ease the burden… All I ever wanted was to know what to do.” It would be so easy if someone could tell us who “me” really is.

For as long as I can remember having known the phrase, “nature vs. nurture,” I have been a proponent of “80% nurture, 20% nature.” It is odd considering how innately amazing I am that I would have arrived at that conclusion, but I think I wanted to believe that my adoptive parents played a significant role in shaping who I became… that an adoption was something that really could change a person for the better. Not just living conditions, but who a person really was. I also wanted to believe that, some day, I might have the same opportunity to raise and shape someone else in, hopefully, an equally loving and nurturing environment. The real-world evidence, however, seems to contradict what I wanted to believe, and Thomas’s mother backs it up: “If you were raised in a standard two-parent family,” she says, “with all the money and stability in the world, you would have turned out exactly the same. Maybe with some superficial differences. You’d have slightly different clothes.” I look at that, and I wonder how it is that someone like me came from the home I did, and my foundation is shaken, and maybe we really are all just who we are from the very beginning. Is there hope to change? Is there hope to avoid your destiny? (Conversely, is there the horror of missing your destiny?)

I don’t suppose we can ever know, but it is Kev, the astronaut, shortly thereafter who voices the only possible solution to the problem using only a handful of words. He believes, he says, “in true love, and destiny, and love at first sight.” I used to believe in those things too, and then I didn’t. And then I did again, and now… now what? Kev’s solution? “Go for it.” Go for what? I don’t know, and neither do you, and neither does anyone, but go for opportunity; go for possibility; go for believing it can happen. Go for the “maybe,” and not the “never.” Go for it, and don’t forget that, “I’m me,” and, ultimately, that has to be enough. Go for it, and don’t forget, also, that, “You’re you,” and that is equally important. The pitfall this story opens up is the belief that your life’s story is also the story of those around you. Thomas’s actions come from, “a sense of knowing what’s right, and what should happen, and wanting to get started,” but he forgets that he can only “know” something for himself. We don’t know the future, and we certainly don’t know the hearts of others. Chance can look like fate, and destiny can look transient, and the danger comes from believing that our plan is, “the plan” when all we can ever know is that we owe it to ourselves to keep trying.

“I didn’t know I wanted you, but it’s all so obvious now that it was all leading up to this, to us. Now we have to complete it.” Thomas was lost at the beginning of this story… he lacked a sense of self, and a sense of his place in society, and then he finds it in a quiet wave across the sand, in the imperceptible movement of someone else’s hand in is, and in the smallest effort of someone willing to walk “20 feet” across the beach with him. What he didn’t understand – perhaps what I don’t understand – is just how selfish and vain we can be. How wrong we can be as soon as we step outside of ourselves and attempt to intertwine our lives with another. “Now we have to complete it,” Thomas says, but he’s forgotten that everyone is their own story. The reply is harsh and direct: “Not we.” In his fervor to finally rely on someone else… to believe that someone will let him rely on them, he forgets that there is a path that must be taken first. To “see something and want it” is not enough, and he doesn’t “want to do any of the steps to get there.”

We aren’t given people on whom we can rely simply because we exist, nor is there anyone we can blame for our shortcomings. We have to learn how to walk on our own before we can rely on another. And we cannot rely on anyone else until we are also willing to be relied upon. As satisfying and safe as it might feel to have your back-up or to have someone standing next to you, isn’t it infinitely better to know that you are (or could be) that to someone else? And, truly, isn’t the magnificence of that in the fact that someone else has to choose you and allow you to choose them at the same time? “We’re in here, and we’re safe.” Those are the luckiest people. Hail, Hail.

[Ryandake · Rating 4 out of 5]

lotta reviewers here crapping about how it's all dialogue, or how parts of it stretch credulity, or about how it's a long whine about white-boy privilege... ya, sort of. but.

the central issue of the book--which i take to be about how the US has abandoned the idea of doing anything Big (like going to space) and thus left generations of young, bright men with nothing heroic to do--well, it may not have the emotional punch of more desperate needs, but that doesn't make it meaningless. a writer can examine all aspects of human life--they're all fair game. and i think he has a point with this one.

a lot of young men do feel that way--that they want to do something Big, and have an effect in the world, have their lives mean something. what's wrong with that? nothing, except that we don't live in those times. maybe by choice, maybe by circumstance (the only two frontiers left are space and the oceans)... but we don't live there.

our protag essentially kidnaps a whole bunch of folks, one by one, and seeks some answers from them. from the astronaut: why aren't we going to space? from the congresscritter: where did our big dreams go? from the teacher: why did you molest us (or, did you?)? from his mom: why didn't you keep me safe? from the cop: why are you shooting us? and from the "love"-interest: why won't you run away with me?

it's pretty easy to look at the list and see a great big whine in the making, but unless one has excavated a chernobyl-sized hole in one's memory and covered it over with concrete six feet thick, it's also really easy to see some fundamental questions there ought to be answers for. adolescents ask these kinds of questions, and adults poo-pooh them until they stop. that doesn't mean the questions aren't worth asking, or that the answers aren't deeply revealing about who we are as a people.

i don't take each of the kidnapees as a "real human"--i'm not looking for emotional depth in them (which is good, because it's not there). they're there to be the mouthpieces for society's answers to impossible questions. they're a function, really, not a character. and i'm totally fine with that, because having a "real human" would just muddy the issues our kidnapper brings up.

my only complaint about the book is that there really isn't any room in it for women. we have a representative Mom and a representative Love Object, and that's it. it probably wasn't in Eggers' remit for the book, but it's still kind of disappointing to me that the questions that young women ask never enter this discussion at all.

and one thing i think Eggers failed to make best use of: Fort Ord itself. the place is superlatively creepy and would have made a great character--28,000 acres of former artillery ranges, open space, dilapidated and crumbling buildings, parking lots being taken over by weeds. for his book, he understandably emptied the place and locked the "gates", but Fort Ord in daylight is a monument to waste and greed, and at night is full of ghosts and homeless folks. it's entirely emblematic of so many of the things he rails against in the book.

i listened to the audiobook version--it was very well performed.