A Hall of Mirrors

by Robert Stone

Rheinhardt, a disk jockey and failed musician, rolls into New Orleans looking for work and another chance in life. What he finds is a woman physically and psychically damaged by the men in her past and a job that entangles him in a right-wing political movement. Peopled with civil rights activists, fanatical Christians, corrupt politicians, and demented Hollywood stars, A Hall of Mirrors vividly depicts the dark side of America that erupted in the sixties. To quote Wallace Stegner, "Stone writes like a bird, like an angel, like a circus barker, like a con man, like someone so high on pot that he is scraping his shoes on the stars."

Genres: Fiction, Novels, American, Literature, Literary Fiction, The United States Of America, American Fiction

420 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

ROBERT STONE was the author of seven novels: A Hall of Mirrors, Dog Soldiers (winner of the National Book Award), A Flag for Sunrise, Children of Light, Outerbridge Reach, Damascus Gate, and Bay of Souls. His story collection, Bear and His Daughter, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and his memoir, Prime Green, was published in 2006.
His work was typically characterized by psychological complexity, political concerns, and dark humor.

A lifelong adventurer who in his 20s befriended Ken Kesey, Neal Cassady, and what he called ‘‘all those crazies’’ of the counterculture, Mr. Stone had a fateful affinity for outsiders, especially those who brought hard times on themselves. Starting with the 1966 novel ‘‘A Hall of Mirrors,’’ Mr. Stone set his stories everywhere from the American South to the Far East. He was a master of making art out of his character’s follies, whether the adulterous teacher in ‘‘Death of the Black-Haired Girl,’’ the fraudulent seafarer in ‘‘Outerbridge Reach,’’ or the besieged journalist in ‘‘Dog Soldiers,’’ winner of the National Book Award in 1975.

Reviews

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stone’s first novel is harrowing portrait of America on the utter edge of despair and destruction. This is surreal American poetry of unease; which has been compared to Lowry (the chemical addled rants and prophetic visions), Conrad (the “Hollow Men” Reinhardt and Sailor Farley), Nathaniel West (the deranged riot echoes the ending of Day of the Locust), and Chandler. Set in a Jim Crow era New Orleans (recast as a hell out of Bosch or Dante), but its unholy vision of conservative talk radio, false prophets of the Christian right, and the willingness to provoke violence to sway public opinion; has not dated at all.

[Jeff Jackson · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Compelling for its insightful portrait of extreme right-wing politics, showing the complex and sophisticated ways businessmen harness issues of welfare, race, patriotism, and religion to dupe an under-educated populace and magnify their hateful messages using talk radio. Written in 1964, this must have seemed brazenly cynical and paranoid at the time, but now it reads like a practical playbook for how things are done. There are brilliant set pieces full of dark comedy and the surreal New Orleans atmosphere is effective, but the story and prose are also clunky in places. Stone would perfect it all with his next novel "Dog Soldiers."

[Still · Rating 4 out of 5]

I need to reread this early novel by Stone. Read it while in college.
As best I recall, Stone essentially predicts the coming of Right Wing wacko radio station formats.
I recall being quite fond of this novel.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been hearing for years about what a great writer Robert Stone is/was so I decided to read this, his first novel. I have to say that I was completely disappointed and underwhelmed. I'm not even sure about the three stars, but I'll leave it that way for now.

There are three main characters, an alcoholic disc-jockey, a girl who's face was slashed with an oyster pick (I didn't know there was such a thing), and a guy who completes surveys with welfare recipients. All three of these people end up in New Orleans and they variously become entangled with a nefarious character who has it in for African Americans (in the book the N word is used repeatedly instead). Then basically at the end of the book all hell breaks loose, to what purpose I'm not really sure.

I have Dog Soldiers, which is supposed to be his best book, so I'll probably give that a try at some point, but I'm in no great hurry to do so.

[Eli Bishop · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's just ridiculous for a first novel to be this good. Yes, it sometimes wanders off into purple Beatness (which was one of the things I loved when I first read it way back when, and less so now) but it's still so rich and earthy and funny, and even when the humor is mean, there's a compassion to it that Stone didn't always bring to his later books. Rheinhardt is the kind of smart bitter wastrel that Stone has written about a lot and he's very good at writing that kind of dialogue (I still crack up every time I read the "seven years in Fernando Poo" scene), but if the book had all been about him, as it starts out seeming to be, it would've been empty. Geraldine and Rainey, the awkward characters with hearts, are what really ground the book and make Rheinhardt's choices feel so terrible.

Also, as well as being an often bizarre stream-of-consciousness satire and a tragic love story, it manages to be politically acute in a way that feels depressingly up to date. Stone makes it very clear where he stands, his right-wing radicals are definitely villains, but they're real people too (with the possible exception of one guy who may be the devil) and what they're doing makes as much sense as it ever did.

[George K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Βαθμολογία: 9/10

Ένα παρανοϊκό και τριπαρισμένο αλλά συνάμα απολαυστικό ταξίδι στη σκοτεινή καρδιά της Αμερικής της δεκαετίας του '60, από τον συγγραφέα του "Dog Soldiers", ενός από τα κλασικότερα μυθιστορήματα για τον πόλεμο του Βιετνάμ, που δυστυχώς δεν έχει μεταφραστεί στα ελληνικά. Το "Η αίθουσα με τους καθρέφτες" είναι το πρώτο βιβλίο του συγγραφέα (το είδε να εκδίδεται πριν καν γίνει τριάντα χρονών!), φυσικά αποτελεί και την πρώτη μου επαφή με το έργο του. Λατρεύω την αμερικάνικη λογοτεχνία, λατρεύω αυτά τα μυθιστορήματα παλαιότερων δεκαετιών που σε μεταφέρουν πίσω στον χρόνο και σου δείχνουν πώς ήταν κάποτε η ζωή σε ένα συγκεκριμένο σημείο του πλανήτη, λατρεύω τις ιστορίες παρακμής και παράνοιας με πρωταγωνιστές ως επί το πλείστον κάτι χαμένα κορμιά (ή, τέλος πάντων, με τύπους και τύπισσες που είναι στα κάτω τους), και αυτό το μυθιστόρημα μπορώ να πω ότι απλά με ταρακούνησε. Προφανώς και δεν είναι για όλα τα γούστα και όλες τις ώρες, μπορώ κάλλιστα να κατανοήσω όποιον το πετάξει εκνευρισμένος στην απέναντι γωνία μετά από κάποιες δεκάδες σελίδες, προσωπικά όμως το βρήκα εξαιρετικό και καθηλωτικό, μέσα στην τρέλα και τη μαυρίλα του. Ο Ρόμπερτ Στόουν ήταν ένας από την ομάδα των Merry Pranksters του Κεν Κέσεϊ, στα νιάτα του κατανάλωσε μπόλικες παραισθησιογόνες ουσίες, το βιβλίο αυτό -που φυσικά το έγραψε στα νιάτα του- είναι γεμάτο χαμένες ψυχές, κάθε είδους μαστούρηδες, απεγνωσμένους ακτιβιστές, φανατικούς Χριστιανούς και διεφθαρμένους πολιτικούς με σκοτεινούς σκοπούς -με τον συγγραφέα να αναδεικνύει την παράνοια που επικρατούσε στην πολιτική και την κοινωνία στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της δεκαετίας του '60-, οπότε όσοι επιλέξετε να το διαβάσετε πρέπει να είστε προετοιμασμένοι για ένα ωμό, σκοτεινό και σε σημεία παραληρηματικό και σουρεαλιστικό μυθιστόρημα με κατάμαυρη αίσθηση του χιούμορ, μπόλικο κυνισμό και κάμποση απαισιοδοξία. Υποθέτω ότι έχει αρκετά θέματα σαν βιβλίο, αλλά δεν μπορώ να μην του βάλω πέντε αστεράκια (τεσσεράμισι για την ακρίβεια), από τη στιγμή που με καθήλωσε και με ταξίδεψε σε μια τρελή εποχή.

[Albert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a fan of Robert Stone. I have previously read Stone’s A Flag for Sunrise and Dog Soldiers. I marveled at his ability to connect confusing sequences of scenes and events, where the only one with a clear understanding of what was going on was possibly a character somewhere off stage. The reader and most of the characters had to find their way through the murk or fog using only bits and pieces of the puzzle. None of the characters were unblemished or unbruised by the events; instead, it seemed like everyone was just trying to survive. Perhaps I like Robert Stone’s stories because personally I am not very good at finding my own way in those grey situations, without clear signals.

A Hall of Mirrors is Robert Stone’s first novel. I am not typically a fan of first novels. They tend to be painful and messy. I would rather be in the hands of someone who has mastered their art or at least honed their skills. Browsing some of the Goodreads’ reviews in advance just strengthened my thought that I should sidestep A Hall of Mirrors. But I had already bought the book, years ago, and there it was on my shelf.

A Hall of Mirrors has many of the characteristics of a first novel. It has scenes and dialogue that just don’t work very well. There were too many of these stretches. But it was remarkable to find Robert Stone’s style there from the first few pages. It did not take him several novels to find that style; it was clearly emerging, forming, from the very beginning. While his style is already apparent, he does not yet show us how he can gradually surface an intriguing plot despite general chaos. Enough is missing here that unless you are an avid Robert Stone fan, I would suggest you pass on this one.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just a quick ramble on this book as I think that is all I am going to be capable of: Now, what to say? What to say? This is not a badly written book. It is, however, a depressing book. I feel like I read this through a drunken stupor, because that is largely the point of view through which we read (so much cheap liquor). A frustratingly race-baiting, fear mongering, divisive (and political by the end) story line that seems intent on upsetting (and it is soooo successful). Having finished this book (and rather slowly I might add) I feel tired, I feel saddened, I feel sickened, I feel ashamed. The con men use the talents of some to play up the worst natures of others, and perhaps for some their sins come home to roost, but for others their lack of morals lead them to their goals - fleece the poor, take advantage of those with the least power... I do not doubt that there is some horrible reality behind the ugliness of this story, I do not doubt that pain and suffering are used to control, but I am not certain that I really want to read about it again any time soon. Sooo much apathy as well, I preferred the beleaguered, hopeless outrage to the apathetic self-centeredness of others - oh Mr. Rainy, perhaps the only redemptive character? From reading this I am left with the impression that Stone could have been the love-child of Flannery O'Connor & William S. Burroughs, though less clear than O'Connor and more purposeful than Burroughs. Not a bad book per say, but it's got a lot of bad cats, you dig? And this reader was ready to check out of this darkness.

[Kelly Daniels · Rating 5 out of 5]

So crazy, so wild, gritty and fun. Highly recommended for all Stone fans or anyone who enjoys that nebulous sub genre called "literary thriller." The surprising thing about it is its year of publication, 1968. It's about a right wing, racist uprising in New Orleans, and damned if the dialog and various speeches don't seem to come straight out of yesterday's report from Fox News. Nothing has changed in this country, concerning race, for the last fifty years. This novel is proof of that.

[AC · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 — Finally finished this. This was Stone’s first novel. All of the elements of his great novels are here, but they don’t quite fit together with the neatness and focus one expects from him. Thus, the book is more uneven, and the secondary characters (especially) are less compelling and less fully drawn. This is a good place to end with Stone, but not the place to start. Begin with *Dog Soldiers* instead.

[Matthew Wilder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best known as the origin of the Stuart Rosenberg 1970 WUSA, with Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Anthony Perkins, and Pat Hingle (all immaculately—PERFECTLY—cast), Stone’s novel today crackles in a way the preachy movie doesn’t. It feels as if Hemingway had Joan Didion’s home collection of books downloaded into his brain. That is to say, a novelist with an unerring feel for life or death stakes, but with the intellectual breadth of a writer much less attuned to a bullfight’s moment of truth.

The first half of HALL left me absolutely gobsmacked. Stone picks up a handful of drifters in pre-assassination 1963 New Orleans, and the feeling for homelessness, for blacking out in a Z-grade saloon, for getting pressured into whoring among drunk, violent men, and the maybe more dangerous proposition of resisting the job of whoring, is unlike anything I have encountered in American letters. The scent of sawdust and puke is as ferocious as it is in a Bukowski story, but with none of Bukowski’s horseshit self-sentimentalizing. When the action shifts to a very low-paying local factory run by rectitudinous right-wingers, the authenticity quotient is equally high. As the novel hurtles toward WUSA, a right wing station funded by New Orleans’ preeminent industrialist, it takes on allegorical baggage but—well, in 2022, that may be quite all right. I wish that the hero, Rheinhardt, were not a secret musical talent, like the seeming blue collar yobbo in FIVE EASY PIECES, but he is superbly drawn, as are Geraldine, the scar-faced drunken girl who struggles not to be a prostie, and Rainey, the welfare survey-taker who seems to be living in an improvised existential novel, somewhere between NAUSEA and TAXI DRIVER, in his head.

I am embarrassed to say I am new to Robert Stone. I can’t wait to devour the rest of his work—especially the rather Didion-sounding Hollywood crackup CHILDREN OF LIGHT.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great novel, although often grungy and unpleasant.
Also, considering that it was first published in 1966, it is surprisingly relevant for our times.
If it were published as a new novel today, it would get a lot of attention focusing on its portrayal of Black/White relations and Conservative versus Liberal attitudes and politics.

The characters are colorful and vivid. Stone relentlessly draws us into their lives, compelling us to understand and care, whatever we may think of their actions.

It is a remarkable achievement for a first novel.

[Bobby Braswell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gritty. Reminded me of McCarthy's Suttree. The protagonist, Rheinhardt, stumbles forward as the story reaches a crescendo of apocalyptic violence, and irretrievable loss. It won't be the last work I'll read by this author. Well-crafted.

[Robert Morgan Fisher · Rating 5 out of 5]

First Stone novel. It's all there, all the things we would come to love about this author. Eerily relevant to today. Timeless. Stayed up until 2am to finish it.

[Daniel Macha · Rating 2 out of 5]

12th book of 2022

Unsurprisingly, A Hall of Mirrors was a required course reading for a university class. The twelfth of the semester, and a doozy. The back cover of A Hall of Mirrors promises to be a surrealist tale of right-wing politics, Christian fundamentalism, and drifters, and I guess I have far too much experience with right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism - believe me, I actually do. It’s disgusting. - because I thought right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism played an incredibly small role within the novel. Granted, the backdrop of the story is defined by the logic of right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism, so for people who have lived outside the bubble of right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism, I can understand why one would find it overwhelming within this story. I guess I’m just used to radical conservative Christians possessing power - or rather, I guess I’m just aware of how much societal power is given to and owned by radical conservative Christians - because I wouldn’t say this story is about either conservatives or Christians. If I’m honest, I have no genuine idea what this novel is exactly about. It’s a surrealist wave pool, weaving between characters and fragments so much that I don’t think the novel moves in any particular direction. Book 1 really captivated me, and I was really interested. Book 2 & 3 lost me. Each book read like a separate episode of a character’s life with a loose connection between the three, giving the reader the job to fill in the cracks. In theory, I want to say I love stories like that, but each book spent so much time & energy describing such insignificant events that I lost interest.

That’s not to say I didn’t like Robert Stone as a writer though. It was refreshing to return to a writer whose feel was well-developed and consistent. I liked the lens Stone wrote from. I liked the logic of his sentences. I liked his focus on character rather than on narrative. For me, Stone seemed like a simpler, undeveloped version of the postmodernism within David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon. By that, I mean that the postmodern characteristics of Stone’s storytelling feel less forced and are merely a way of telling a story that makes sense to our postmodern world. Postmodernism in literature seems to emphasize the boundaries created by language and, therefore, is only capable of using language that fits our postmodern understanding of the world. That’s really the only way I can describe or explain why lines like these seem distinctly postmodern to me:

[1] He was nearly finished and was reflecting on the importance of fresh bread to a bologna sandwich when he looked up to see a tall man with unevenly chopped red hair looking unpleasantly at the sandwich in his mouth.
[2]“I’d like to find out what’s the difference between a street with people on it and a street where there aren’t any people.”

Overall, I’m mostly disappointed with A Hall of Mirrors, but I don’t think either I or the book are to blame. I love The Beatles, but I have really no concept of the 1960s. I still don’t fully understand the Vietnam War. Even the Civil Rights Movement, I only understand what white rural teachers taught me in high school. I don’t know that the novel aged well.

[Cian Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bang average

[Craig Werner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Set in mid-Sixties New Orleans, chillingly prescient about the forces that led both to the end of decade chaos and, even more eerily, the forces that would unfold around the 2016 election. The protagonist's name is Rheinhardt--pretty clearly a gesture to Ralph Ellison's protean hustler in Invisible Man. The Walpurgisnacht of Part 3 is particularly powerful.

A quote to suggest the flavor:
"The voice were closer now so that he knew suddenly what it was he hard and how the light could be so clear. It was the grain-scented wind of an American morning that blew over him, and he listened to each voice that the wind carried. Condolences, promises, guarded, ridicule, seductions, false laughter--hysteria barely suppressed, panting violence, endearment, fear, unexpected passion, humiliation, polite cruelty, polite deception--lies believed and lie unbelieved rose to his ears and died away."

Pretty much sums up something basic to America and the Sixties.

[Κώστας · Rating 1 out of 5]

Θα σας μεταφερω την εμπειρια μου απο την ενασχοληση μου με το "κλασικο on the road μυθιστορημα" (οπως αυτοχαρακτηριζεται στο εξωφυλλο) "Η αιθουσα με τους καθρεφτες".
Δυο κοινωνικα κατακαθια, ο αλκοολικος Ράινχαρτ και η καταρρακωμενη Τζεραλντίν,ψαχνοντας για δουλεια γνωριζονται μεταξυ τους.
Ενα φλυαρο οδοιπορικο,μια αδιαφορη περιπλανηση και η αναγνωση γινεται αγγαρεια.
Αυτοι ειναι-δυστυχως-οι αμερικανοι συγγραφεις (αναφερομαι και στον Τζων Σμολενς με τις "ψυχες στον παγο"),αυτα ειναι τα εργα της κλασικης αμερικανικης λογοτεχνιας.
Κριμα τα δεντρακια που θυσιαζονται για τετοια-ο Θεος να τα κανει-βιβλια.
Καταφερα να το φτασω μεχρι την 226 σελιδα,οπου παραιτηθηκα χωρις αποζημιωση,ξοδευοντας καθε ικμαδα υπομονης και ψυχικου σθενους που διεθετα.
Μεινετε μακρια γιατι θα υποφερετε.

[Ericpegnam Pegnam · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the idea of this novel but Robert stone doesn't carry it off. I read it several years ago but remember it as a weird cross Hemingway/Mailer's tough guy poses and Faulkner's southern decadence and meandering sentences. All his suggestive ambiguity which with Faulkner's best takes you someplace but at his worst seems a lot like "A Hall of Mirrors" I liked Stone's Dog Soldiers much better. The dialogue is funny and creepy and the characterizations seem spot on. Read that one instead.

[Paul Wilner · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The California of the mind.'' Great laundromat scene. Prescient takes on right wing ravers and racial politics at their most extreme. Mr. Stone's first published novel and he's in fine form here. No one like him. And the ending is heartbreaking.

[Ryan Swanson · Rating 4 out of 5]

How’d Stone anticipate Trump rallies 45 years in advance?

[Dean Harring · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dark, devious, and depressing but hard to put down.

[Morgan McBride · Rating 3 out of 5]

Haven't yet decided how I feel about this book, but I'm glad I read it. It can definitely go on for a while, but there are enough little gems scattered throughout the book to make it a worthwhile read.

The writing is definitely the best part of the book. Pretty much all of my favorite parts were conversations that sort of throw the many political and social viewpoints in the book against one another. Rainey and the bartender talking about the Big Store, Rheinhardt and Rainey's philosophical discussion near the middle, and the Rheinhardt, Bingamon, Jack Noonan all stand out as the best the book has to offer.

The story got me interested initially, but it takes a while to get into it and you never really learn much about the political stuff until the end. A lot of the book consists of characters talking, drinking, and speculating about themselves and the world at large. Not always bad, but it can get a little heavy handed and repetitive.

The characters range from relatively complex and interesting to one dimensional. Rheinhardt is probably the most developed, but that's not saying much. He's detached so unsurprisingly things go wrong for him, which he essentially takes as justification for his cynicism and detachment. At various times he realizes that he's really largely responsible for all the pain he's caused himself and others, but just collapses in on himself rather than make any meaningful changes.

Rainey started out as an interesting character, but sort of gets lost in the shuffle. He's constantly looking for meaning in his life but can't seem to get past this middle-of-the-road, half-measure existence. He pretty much lets the perfect be the enemy of the good through the whole book, and when he can't bring himself to manifest his ideals as actions, he finds someone who can do so, and attempts to pretty much "tag along." Unsurprisingly, he gets cold feet and screws things up for both of them, and somehow this is the decision he feels finally lets him off the hook. Yeah, Rainey kind of sucks.

Geraldine was by far the most disappointing - her story started off really well and was interesting (her scenes when she first arrives in New Orleans are great social commentary), but as soon as she becomes Rheinhardt's love interest we see less of less of her, and those scenes pretty much boil down to, "Why doesn't Rheinhardt love me back?" Not surprising that a dude from the '60s can't write great female characters, but the strong start made the fall that much harder.

So looking at all this it would appear that I didn't like the book, but I still keep thinking about it so there must be something there. While the characters are generally unlikeable, they're pretty well developed and the internal monologues and discourses are really well written and compelling. The book definitely made me feel something, it just wasn't anything good.

All in all, it's definitely a good book, but perhaps not a very enjoyable one.

[Hobart Mariner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Day of the Locust meets .... Robert Altman's Nashville? Just like in Dog Soldiers and a Flag for Sunrise, we get a trio of half-hearted martyrs against tyranny. Here rather than a pair of scummy drug dealers or a pseudonymous Honduran dictatorship, the tyranny is the genuine, real Amerikkka, a sort of loosely organized fascist police state. Stone's liberal Catholic humanist mindset is precise and razor-thin to interpose itself as moral lector between blandly annoying, lazy beatniks and well, genuinely sold-out fascist apparatchiks. Don't get me wrong - this book is insane and funny and full of outrageous shit. Lots of overdetermined references to Shakespeare and religion, but I'll allow it.

Synopsis: burnt-out elite musician Rheinhardt, badly treated hillbilly barmaid Geraldine, and liberally-afflicted Louisianan princeling Rainey cross paths in New Orleans. Rheinhardt, with his wit, education, etc, is recruited to talk on the radio by a local KKK/nazi/fascist consortium, while noble Rainey, under the dubious tutelage of a local landlord, collects info on welfare recipients. Is the latter project somehow linked to the former??? You might be asking what Geraldine is up to while the men are compromising themselves; the answer is that Stone isn't always sure what to do with women characters.

Fortunately everything comes to a head in a truly, unreservedly Apocalyptic showdown at a stadium. This is Stone at his bloody best, blending thriller elements, funny poetic descriptions, and moral collapse. It goes on for almost a hundred pages. Beast mode.

[Slagle Rock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, this book (my first by Robert Stone) appealed to the part of me that likes Hunter Thompson for this surely is a tale told in the Gonzo style, offering a hip, grim, violent take on ugly side of American culture in the 1960s.
The story is about a drunkard DJ who wears a God & Country (& Whites) First hat at the conservative radio station WUSA even though he doesn't really seem to be committed to any beliefs, political, religious or otherwise; his white trash girlfriend who is on the run from an abusive and tragic past; and a leftist do-gooder with a mental disorder who finds himself working for the same Hard Right folks who run the radio station.
The lives of the characters collide and intertwine in the racially-charged setting of New Orleans in the mid-1960s. "Walk Don't Run" seems to be playing in every hard-luck bar and corner of the Crescent City while dreary daily routines of work, drinking and debating move uneasily forward towards the book's denouement, which is a Patriotic Rally / Race Riot.
This book is an interesting, depressing study of human nature. The view is through a 50 year old prism but the politics, tribalism and divisiveness described within, seems, unfortunately, ever alive today.

[Razvan Banciu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Puține romane de debut au avut un asemenea impact precum cel de față, dovadă fiind și prestigiosul premiu, William Faulkner Foundation Award for notable first novel, primit în 1967.
Povestea, care are loc în New Orleansul deceniului șapte (evident, cu un secol în urmă) este tipică pentru societatea americană a acelor timpuri. Nu trecuseră chiar foarte mulți ani de la cel de-al doilea război mondial, vechile obiceiuri, bune și rele, ale Sudului încă se păstraseră, viața se trăia cu o altă viteză.
Cum se întâmpla de multe ori în acei ani, romanele bune ajungeau și ecranizări de succes. Astfel, în 1970, A Hall of Mirrors a apărut pe ecrane sub titul WUSA, scenariul fiind scris de Robert Stone și cu Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Anthony Perkins și Laurence Harvey în rolurile principale. Nu suna rău deloc...

[Paul Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm glad I didn't read this one first. While Dog Soldiers and A Flag for Sunrise are two of my favorite books, Robert Stone's first novel shows how hard it is to write like Robert Stone. Very sloppy, very long and highly undeveloped, this treatise on activism in the 60's (or is it a limp satire on southern culture) was illegible at times. He tried so hard to make his main characters hippies and scammers and racists that pages would go by and the reader would have no idea what Stone was talking about. A lot of stoned, wondering diatribes of social commentary. And the same with the anti southern culture part. Paragraph upon paragraph of trite stereotype. I was too hopeful, and suffered through this. Should have bailed.

[Drew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Robert Stone's "Hall of Mirrors" left a sour taste in my mouth. An on-the-scene look at the sinister side of right-wing politics, it presents the resurrection of Southern white supremacy in a jaded, deadpan manner that reads like Pynchonesque prose only feigning dark humor. His protagonist, a drunk clarinetist who becomes a proselytizing radio DJ without any conscience, is a two-bit imitation of a noir antihero while his girlfriend, a damaged blonde (of course), appears to be working with half a brain. The novel's moral champion, a pseudo-social worker, is an ineffectual blob without any true convictions. Yuck.

[Chris Wharton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A crazily insane novel of early 60s (1963) New Orleans, capturing time and place through a variety of characters, both locals and transients. The locals include the racist owner of a right-wing radio station, who arranges a Bircher-Klan-type stadium rally, and a black café owner and landlord whose African American tenants are the target audience of a survey from the welfare department. The transients include an alcoholic ex-musician who lands a job at the radio station, a young woman from West Virginia fleeing an abusive relationship in Texas, and a young idealist working on the welfare department survey after overseas Peace Corps-type service. None of the latter end well, while New Orleans comes across as a likely stewpot for things like assassination conspiracies. A worthy first-novel award winner (I remember some other first novels—William Kennedy’s The Ink Trunk and Cormac McCarthy’s The Orchard Keeper, for example—that showed me much less promise).

[Beer Bolwijn · Rating 4 out of 5]

[SPOILERS]

After "Dog Soldiers", one of my favorite books of all time, I was hungry for more. Unfortunately, this first work by Stone is a bit disappointing. It starts off well, interesting down on their luck characters that have their own ways to deal with the oppressive system. I think it could have done without the last third of the book (the whole stadium scene is too improbable) and have more fleshed out characters, especially Geraldine. Thankfully, Stone learned from this effort and improved dramatically in his follow-up.