When I heard the riveting title of John Irving’s most recent novel, “Last Night in Twisted River,” and read a few blurbs describing the subject matter and the characters, I just knew in my heart he had finally written another book worthy of being placed next to his early masterpieces on the bookshelf of honor. I just knew I would feel the same rush of excitement I felt when I was introduced to Owen Meany or T.S. Garp, or Dr. Larch or even Susie the Bear, and first entered their strange and revelatory worlds. My palms were sweaty just thinking about it. I just knew this was the one. I knew it. And that was my first mistake.
“Last Night in Twisted River” is an ambitious novel that tackles themes that might seem a natural progression for Irving who tackled themes relating to childhood, young love, lust, sexuality, infidelity, rebellion, and identity, in earlier books, then began to further explore themes related to parenting, child-rearing, loss, grief, success, human rights, and the nature of religion in later works, and now adds to those themes with an in-depth look at the nature of aging, dying, and coming to terms with one’s past decisions (not to mention a lengthy running theme about lethal grudges and warring factions that is meant to tie in to America’s political and military history, and our contemporary war on terrorism). In fact, there is a literal “running” theme of running away from danger, and of danger always following, always being right there at your heels. Compelling stuff, in theory. And let me be clear, I was not put off by either the themes or by the political platform (admittedly, Irving’s politics have usually mirrored my own, and his themes have always captivated me). In fact, I desperately wanted Irving to write a novel that illuminated those themes for me in a way that moved me, caused me to reflect, or even left me emotionally gutted, if necessary. At the very least, kept me engaged. None of those things, however, indeed, actually happened.
Some reviews have criticized the fact that Irving seemed to be rehashing material he had used before, reaching into an old bag of tricks and trying to make something new out of it. Have these people not read Irving before? He started doing that in book two. In my opinion, this is part of Irving’s allure, part of his familiar voice, a little shout out to his cult following. We want to see the usual hallmarks. If you go to the carnival, you want to see a Ferris wheel. If you read a John Irving novel, you want to see some bears. And this novel does not disappoint on that front. He mentions most of the biggies: bears, wrestling, New Hampshire (even Exeter, by name), the draft, the usual “sexual suspects,” odd mixes of people living together in one big complex, the writing life, and even a shout out to his own books. It had all the elements. It really should have worked.
So, why didn’t it? As a big fan of Mr. Irving (and I am – a huge fan), this novel seemed really self-indulgent. Stopping just short of building a soapbox, Irving preached his views rather than incorporating them into a well-crafted story. Irving certainly knows how to craft a brilliant story. In “Cider House Rules” he managed to take a volatile issue like abortion and explore it with depth and purpose through the lives of his very well-developed characters and the situations that were thrust upon them as they explored both the theme and their own feelings about it. Intelligent people on either side of that issue could have appreciated the story despite their feelings about the subject matter. But here, rather than having characters engrossed in situations that let the reader discern the struggles and inherent complexities of those situations, Irving just basically went on tirades that often seemed bombastic, and worse, unrelated to the material at hand.
But even more troubling, in “Twisted River,” there also seemed to be an emotional disconnect, something I never detected in Irving’s other novels. Early in the book, for instance, we are introduced to a sympathetic maternal character who unexpectedly meets a tragic end at the hand of another main character, someone for whom the victim cares deeply and who supposedly cares deeply for her. The death is accidental, but never once do we feel that the victim is mourned, that her death is anything more than a convenient plot contrivance to further the theme. Not once are there any genuine feelings of grief expressed or of wistful remembrance or even of guilt or regret. More is made of the absurd logistics of disposing her body than of the affect she had on the child she cared for or the character who was her lover. She is forgotten almost as soon as her body is left behind. This type of emotional disconnect with various important characters occurred throughout the novel for me, and always made me cringe. I realize that part of Irving’s purpose was to convey to the reader that often people come into our lives unexpectedly and sometimes those people are just as unexpectedly removed from our lives; but, he also set these characters up as people we should care about. How can we care about them if they don’t seem to care about each other all that much? In fact, the very few attempts at emotional connection (usually merely sexual) bothered me almost as much as the many instances in which it was non-existent. For instance, at the end of the book, an emotional connection is actually forced upon us, and is so implausible in its ridiculousness as to border on insulting our intelligence. (I’ll just say it involves buying a suddenly urgent and deep love between two characters who met once, briefly, and haven’t had ANY contact in forty years.) I often found myself thinking that, perhaps in the writing of this novel, Irving had made a list of absurd images and plot developments in his head, all of which had to be strung together using the characters at hand, and, as such, the characters became mere props for those images, more important as plot contrivances than as genuine people actually witnessing or taking part in the events. Irving has written many books that involved plot contrivances and absurd situations, but in the best of those, I never once questioned the validity of the situations, and never once felt that the characters involved had less than authentic reactions to the events. In this book, nothing ever felt fully real or fully realized.
Another bothersome aspect for me involved the dialogue. Perhaps, in trying to capture the way he believed Coos County loggers would speak (or the way North End Sicilians would speak), Irving took a risk and went whole hog. Granted, for me, his river driver character, Ketchum, is the most interesting (and endearing) character in the book and makes for the most lively aspects of it, but Irving never quite makes the dialogue natural, not only with Ketchum but with most of the other characters, as well. Ketchum, in particular, comes off more as cartoon than man, (I always pictured him as a kind of fleshed out version of Yukon Cornelius from the “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” special). And Ketchum was my favorite character, so you can see how things deteriorated from there.
As a last aside, (and just a pet peeve, really), I was also irritated with Irving’s obvious use of the Danny Angel character to mirror his own literary ascent. I don’t mind that he wrote a character based on himself or made reference to obvious milestones in his own career. That’s not it at all. It was the constant references to how great he was and how many famous people he knew and how rich he had become and how ignorant ALL those press people were who asked him such tedious questions and all those fans who mischaracterized his work and how he could never possibly answer all their letters. Ah yes, fame is so difficult and being great is such a chore. That grew tiresome rather quickly.
So, my favorite author has written a book that I just don’t like. I’m sure he’ll get over my disapproval. As his friend and mentor, Kurt Vonnegut, (who is mentioned several times in the book) would say, “And so it goes.” The truth is, it doesn’t matter. My great love of many of his other novels is not diminished by my lack of love for this one. Would I have liked to have gotten some meaningful insights into these compelling themes from a man I have always admired and maybe idolized a little? Of course I would have. But if I am expecting to learn my life lessons from a John Irving novel, maybe I am already lost. If anyone is reading this review, and has never read an Irving book before, please don’t let this stop you. In fact, go out and buy a copy of “A Prayer for Owen Meany” immediately. Trust me, you’ll never be the same. And you’ll love him, too – no matter what.