What do you think?
Rate this book
Seven Types of Ambiguity
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
607 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
267 people are currently reading
4732 people want to read
About the author
Elliot Perlman
19 books331 followersElliot Perlman is an Australian author and barrister. He has written two novels and one short story collection. His work "condemns the economic rationalism that destroys the humanity of ordinary people when they are confronted with unemployment and poverty". This is not surprising in a writer who admires Raymond Carver and Graham Greene because they "write with quite a strong moral centre and a strong sense of compassion". However, he says that "Part of my task is to entertain readers. I don't want it to be propaganda at all. I don't think that for something to be political fiction it has to offer an alternative, I think just a social critique is enough". He describes himself, in fact, as being interested in "the essence of humanity" and argued that exploring this often means touching on political issues.
Perlman often uses music, and song lyrics, in his work to convey an idea or mood, or to give a sense of who a character is. However, he recognises that this "is a bit of a risk because the less familiar the reader is with the song, the smaller the pay off.
Perlman often uses music, and song lyrics, in his work to convey an idea or mood, or to give a sense of who a character is. However, he recognises that this "is a bit of a risk because the less familiar the reader is with the song, the smaller the pay off.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 593 reviews
January 29, 2015
A book about screwed up people and their screwed up lives! It’s like it was written specifically for me. The thing is, this book has got some flaws...big ones. But for the most part, the flaws are mitigated by good writing and by ambitious insight into human motivation—the factors that influence our behavior and interpersonal relationships. It’s like a Franzen novel, but with a psychological twist.
The Flaws
First of all, the connections in this novel are way too convenient. I could get past the fact that Anna, who used to screw Simon, is now tired of screwing Joe, and that Joe, who misses screwing Anna, has been enjoying screwing Angelique, and that Angelique, who has been screwing both Joe and Simon, is going to end up getting screwed by everybody. But then Perlman introduces even more coincidental connections that reduce his world to bizarrely small proportions, making the whole thing seem mildly claustrophobic.
Also, the characters are unlikeable. This is not necessarily a flaw in itself, as there are plenty of novels I love which contain characters that I do not; the flaw stems from the fact that I suspect I’m meant to like these characters, especially the protagonist Simon. Does the fact that I don’t like him mean the author has failed? Have I failed? When there is ambiguity between my emotional response to a character and what I suspect is the author’s intent, I feel uneasy. To me, these characters are self-centered, short-sighted, and their behavior, even after understanding the motivations behind it, makes it difficult for me to empathize with them.
My last gripe is that the final chapter of the book contributes very little to the story. There are seven chapters in all, each presenting a first-person account of a character mixed up in this tangled web of betrayals. They are:
The Insight
This part is pretty awesome. One of the first things this novel analyzes is the concept of human behavior and the motivations that drive it. These motivations could be something palpable such as hunger or sexual desire, or they could be more tenuous like jealousy or the need for social acceptance. Psychology professor Abraham Maslow categorizes these motivating factors into a hierarchical structure that provides a basic understanding of which needs take precedence over others and how they come to dominate human behavior. Like this!
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs separates “deficiency needs” from “betterment needs.” The deficiency needs are lower level needs that must be met before moving on to the betterment, or higher level, needs. Without having fulfilled one’s deficiency needs, he will not have the capacity for betterment. Of course, this is all an attempt at generalization—humans are much more complicated than this, and there are often multiple motivators occurring simultaneously that influence a person’s behavior. But overall, if someone has the emotional maturity to seek constant betterment, then it can be deduced that the person’s lower level needs have been met, and he’s probably in a state of sufficient mental health.
This title of this book takes its name from the the work of a poetry critic, William Empson, who talked about the elements of a poem that give it its greatness—specifically, a sense of ambiguity in word meanings. But Perlman refers here actually to the moral ambiguity of his characters, which is another topic of interest this novel addresses. In many ways, the protagonist Simon reminds me of Tony from The Sense of an Ending. He acts primarily out of self-interest but is too full of himself to see it that way, convincing himself instead that his actions are altruistic, and even goes so far as to throw his moral superiority into the faces of those he has clearly wronged.
Tony may not have been, but Simon is by most definitions mentally unstable. In fact, Simon’s mental health issues form the basis of this novel. Simon is described as having two particular traits that affect his mental health. First, he is acutely aware of the world around him—too acutely aware. “The illumination is not worth the candle.” Second, his self-appointed sense of empathy prevents him from attaining happiness because he is constantly concerned, so he says, with the welfare of others. He sees altruism on the decline in society and it depresses him.
But, you say, there are plenty of those who have an acute awareness of other people’s pain and the strong tendency to empathize with them, and not all of those people are mentally unstable, right? So true! And this is explained by a trait of last resorts called “learned helplessness.” If we convince ourselves that we are unable to change a situation for the better, even our acute awareness and our overwhelming sense of empathy will not be enough to make us batshit nuts. Perlman essentially describes the state of mental health as being one in which there is not an acute awareness or there is not an over-concern for others; or if these traits both exist, that they are kept at bay by learned helplessness. The fact that most people see the world through a lens of ambiguity, or the fact that we are driven by our desire to fulfill our own needs helps protect us from mental breakdown.
Throughout his life, Simon has acted mostly out of a motivation to satisfy higher level needs, which explains his ability to empathize (as his basic needs have already been met). But after losing his job he falls down the rungs a bit, and within a short time his behavior becomes dominated again by deficiency needs. This causes him to temporarily lose the ability to empathize and the danger for Simon lies in the fact that he is unable to acknowledge this. Combined with his grandiose sense of self-worth which disallows any learned helplessness on his part, Simon becomes delusional and these delusions are what end up driving his behavior.
I’m really glad to have read this book. Novels that pick apart the nuances of human motivation greatly interest me and Seven Types of Ambiguity is no exception, especially considering that the insight it provides far transcends its shortcomings.
The Flaws
First of all, the connections in this novel are way too convenient. I could get past the fact that Anna, who used to screw Simon, is now tired of screwing Joe, and that Joe, who misses screwing Anna, has been enjoying screwing Angelique, and that Angelique, who has been screwing both Joe and Simon, is going to end up getting screwed by everybody. But then Perlman introduces even more coincidental connections that reduce his world to bizarrely small proportions, making the whole thing seem mildly claustrophobic.
Also, the characters are unlikeable. This is not necessarily a flaw in itself, as there are plenty of novels I love which contain characters that I do not; the flaw stems from the fact that I suspect I’m meant to like these characters, especially the protagonist Simon. Does the fact that I don’t like him mean the author has failed? Have I failed? When there is ambiguity between my emotional response to a character and what I suspect is the author’s intent, I feel uneasy. To me, these characters are self-centered, short-sighted, and their behavior, even after understanding the motivations behind it, makes it difficult for me to empathize with them.
My last gripe is that the final chapter of the book contributes very little to the story. There are seven chapters in all, each presenting a first-person account of a character mixed up in this tangled web of betrayals. They are:
1. Alex, the Compromised PsychiatristEach of the characters is in some way involved in the plot and provides insight into his character and the characters with whom he interacts. The exception to this is Rachael, who has nothing to do with the story at all. Rachael’s chapter seems only to exist to push forth Perlman’s views on moral ambiguity and on what constitutes mental health. Rachael’s account feels out of place, and it is written from a future perspective which gives the characters a form of closure that does not suit them. Their futures, along with their moral certitude, should remain as ambiguous as it was in the rest of the book.
2. Joe, the Shallow Adulterer
3. Angelique, the Selfless Prostitute
4. Mitch, the Unstable Analyst
5. Simon, the Insightful Kidnapper
6. Anna, the Perpetual Victim
7. Rachael, the Unlikely Epiloguer
The Insight
This part is pretty awesome. One of the first things this novel analyzes is the concept of human behavior and the motivations that drive it. These motivations could be something palpable such as hunger or sexual desire, or they could be more tenuous like jealousy or the need for social acceptance. Psychology professor Abraham Maslow categorizes these motivating factors into a hierarchical structure that provides a basic understanding of which needs take precedence over others and how they come to dominate human behavior. Like this!
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [Maslow, A. H. (1943). “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50(4): 370–96.]
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs separates “deficiency needs” from “betterment needs.” The deficiency needs are lower level needs that must be met before moving on to the betterment, or higher level, needs. Without having fulfilled one’s deficiency needs, he will not have the capacity for betterment. Of course, this is all an attempt at generalization—humans are much more complicated than this, and there are often multiple motivators occurring simultaneously that influence a person’s behavior. But overall, if someone has the emotional maturity to seek constant betterment, then it can be deduced that the person’s lower level needs have been met, and he’s probably in a state of sufficient mental health.
This title of this book takes its name from the the work of a poetry critic, William Empson, who talked about the elements of a poem that give it its greatness—specifically, a sense of ambiguity in word meanings. But Perlman refers here actually to the moral ambiguity of his characters, which is another topic of interest this novel addresses. In many ways, the protagonist Simon reminds me of Tony from The Sense of an Ending. He acts primarily out of self-interest but is too full of himself to see it that way, convincing himself instead that his actions are altruistic, and even goes so far as to throw his moral superiority into the faces of those he has clearly wronged.
Tony may not have been, but Simon is by most definitions mentally unstable. In fact, Simon’s mental health issues form the basis of this novel. Simon is described as having two particular traits that affect his mental health. First, he is acutely aware of the world around him—too acutely aware. “The illumination is not worth the candle.” Second, his self-appointed sense of empathy prevents him from attaining happiness because he is constantly concerned, so he says, with the welfare of others. He sees altruism on the decline in society and it depresses him.
But, you say, there are plenty of those who have an acute awareness of other people’s pain and the strong tendency to empathize with them, and not all of those people are mentally unstable, right? So true! And this is explained by a trait of last resorts called “learned helplessness.” If we convince ourselves that we are unable to change a situation for the better, even our acute awareness and our overwhelming sense of empathy will not be enough to make us batshit nuts. Perlman essentially describes the state of mental health as being one in which there is not an acute awareness or there is not an over-concern for others; or if these traits both exist, that they are kept at bay by learned helplessness. The fact that most people see the world through a lens of ambiguity, or the fact that we are driven by our desire to fulfill our own needs helps protect us from mental breakdown.
Throughout his life, Simon has acted mostly out of a motivation to satisfy higher level needs, which explains his ability to empathize (as his basic needs have already been met). But after losing his job he falls down the rungs a bit, and within a short time his behavior becomes dominated again by deficiency needs. This causes him to temporarily lose the ability to empathize and the danger for Simon lies in the fact that he is unable to acknowledge this. Combined with his grandiose sense of self-worth which disallows any learned helplessness on his part, Simon becomes delusional and these delusions are what end up driving his behavior.
I’m really glad to have read this book. Novels that pick apart the nuances of human motivation greatly interest me and Seven Types of Ambiguity is no exception, especially considering that the insight it provides far transcends its shortcomings.
March 20, 2007
This is one of my top fave favorite books. It is an ambitious undertaking, but the author succeeds beautifully. The story centers around one major event, as told from the viewpoint of seven different people who were all involved in the event. It doesn't just tell the event over and over again but deals with what leads up to it and what follows it depending on which narrator you are dealing with. Because the author chooses to divide the book into seven distinct part, by narrator, there is no confusing jumping between narrators so you always know who are with. The language is lush and beautiful. The characters are real and flushed out and it's just a very well written story about the tragedies and difficulties that so often accompany the human condition. It's a long book....600 or so pages I believe, which some people find daunting. But it is well worth the effort and not a book you will soon forget.
June 30, 2010
I wasn’t really counting, but seven is a plausible tally for the types of ambiguity put forth here. I bet a lot of novels these days feature that many just to maintain their modern lit cred. What’s unambiguous is that there were seven parts to the book with seven different narrators, each with a key part of the story to tell. It centers around Simon who is still madly in love with Anna, an ex-girlfriend who broke up with him 10 years ago. He’s a hopeless romantic, but one infused with enough sensitivity, insight, and empathy that I’m pretty sure we’re meant to like him – this, despite his truly stupid ploy to win Anna back. I won’t spoil anything by saying what he did exactly, but will say that it was a risky, ill-conceived plan that involved her school-aged son.
It’s a long and ambitious book. Perlman should be credited for the homework he did to make his assorted narrators seem believable. This involved a working knowledge of psychology, finance, gambling, and prostitution. There was a trial, too, which played to an already existing strength. Perlman is a barrister in his native Australia.
I liked the way the seven different parts were structured. Each advanced the plot, but with overlap from one to the next. The different perspectives on the same events were revealing, and helped make the voices more distinct. I see that some reviewers have criticized the multifold narration for its lack of contrast, and that may be true, but at least the most noticeable attribute they shared was an appealing one: acute vision and understanding.
This struck me as a book about how to be. We’re given plenty of examples of idealism, loyalty, and social conscience, along with a few slightly less lofty attributes like readiness to protect turf, chutzpah, and the benefits of calculating well (financial outcomes, cards, and people’s reactions). There’s a lot to think about here. I might have even given it Steve’s 5-Star Seal of Special Merit were it not for a few annoying cases of Deus ex machina and overcooked coincidence. One was particularly bad, I thought. With no reason to suspect, a wife wanted to know if her cheating husband’s prostitute had committed a particular act involving corporeal gold (nothing to do with her heart, mind you; and not exactly a common practice). As it turns out, she had, but with a medical explanation. My other reason for docking a star is that I was reminded at times while reading it that the writer is a lawyer – a profession that involves lots of words, but not always ones destined for good prose.
It’s a long and ambitious book. Perlman should be credited for the homework he did to make his assorted narrators seem believable. This involved a working knowledge of psychology, finance, gambling, and prostitution. There was a trial, too, which played to an already existing strength. Perlman is a barrister in his native Australia.
I liked the way the seven different parts were structured. Each advanced the plot, but with overlap from one to the next. The different perspectives on the same events were revealing, and helped make the voices more distinct. I see that some reviewers have criticized the multifold narration for its lack of contrast, and that may be true, but at least the most noticeable attribute they shared was an appealing one: acute vision and understanding.
This struck me as a book about how to be. We’re given plenty of examples of idealism, loyalty, and social conscience, along with a few slightly less lofty attributes like readiness to protect turf, chutzpah, and the benefits of calculating well (financial outcomes, cards, and people’s reactions). There’s a lot to think about here. I might have even given it Steve’s 5-Star Seal of Special Merit were it not for a few annoying cases of Deus ex machina and overcooked coincidence. One was particularly bad, I thought. With no reason to suspect, a wife wanted to know if her cheating husband’s prostitute had committed a particular act involving corporeal gold (nothing to do with her heart, mind you; and not exactly a common practice). As it turns out, she had, but with a medical explanation. My other reason for docking a star is that I was reminded at times while reading it that the writer is a lawyer – a profession that involves lots of words, but not always ones destined for good prose.
March 13, 2022
Deduct one star for yet another version of the tart-with-the-heart-of-gold. That male fantasy has more legs than a centipede.
May 24, 2012
I went into this with low expectations, expectations I'm now slightly ashamed of, since they were born of prejudice. Never having heard of it made me feel like it wouldn't be good (ridiculous), and with the comparisons to Roth and Franzen, I expected prose that was unimpeachable but not exciting and an ambitious story that failed to deliver. But Seven Types of Ambiguity is actually great.
Simon, the protagonist, kidnaps the son of an ex-girlfriend (though this isn't ever directly dramatized), and the rest of the novel explores the ways in which this influences the lives of everyone Simon is even remotely connected with. And each of the seven sections of the book is narrated by a different character. This sounds lame and/or gimmicky, but it works. Perlman gives us the narrators that we'd want, and none of the sections belong to children or animals. Most of the sections bear directly on Simon's story, too, so you never spend too much time talking about details that aren't important. The writing style is good, but without pyrotechnics. Perlman is a lawyer--excuse me, barrister--and you can see that from his prose. There's plenty of subordinate clauses and tortured syntax and far-removed antecedents etc. in his sentences, so they're complex without using any words that might send you to the dictionary. For example:
"...even a sterile marriage, one in which the husband gets more warmth from the prostitute he visits regularly than from his wife, one in which the wife has been too successful in utterly repudiating everything she used to be before she managed to get everything her parents had taught her she would ever want."
Does it all work? Of course not. Perlman has a number of irritating tendencies I feel obligated to mention. First, he seems to have a need to impress with either his research or his background knowledge, as if he's saying, "Look how much I know about law! And casino blackjack! And escort services! And psychiatry! And Billie Holiday! And deconstructionism!" Not kidding about that last one; we really do get a several-page intro to deconstruction. Sigh. Second, his characters are pretty often types, like, as Paul Bryant pointed out, the tart with a heart of gold. Or the tortured psychotherapist, which, third, there's more psychotherapy in this than any good book should be able to contain. Fourth, Perlman goes out of his way to make sure his characters' lives are pathetic enough to tug at the heartstrings. Is character A. not as unhappy as she should be? Let's give her MS. Is character B. having too much fun in prison? How 'bout some rape? And let's get a round of clinical depression for everyone.
But Perlman pulls it off. For one thing, he can really write, and for another, he really cares about his characters. If either of those weren't true, my guess is that Seven Types of Ambiguity would be a complete failure. But they are, and I thought it was great, and a surprisingly quick read, and I'd recommend it with almost no reservations.
Simon, the protagonist, kidnaps the son of an ex-girlfriend (though this isn't ever directly dramatized), and the rest of the novel explores the ways in which this influences the lives of everyone Simon is even remotely connected with. And each of the seven sections of the book is narrated by a different character. This sounds lame and/or gimmicky, but it works. Perlman gives us the narrators that we'd want, and none of the sections belong to children or animals. Most of the sections bear directly on Simon's story, too, so you never spend too much time talking about details that aren't important. The writing style is good, but without pyrotechnics. Perlman is a lawyer--excuse me, barrister--and you can see that from his prose. There's plenty of subordinate clauses and tortured syntax and far-removed antecedents etc. in his sentences, so they're complex without using any words that might send you to the dictionary. For example:
"...even a sterile marriage, one in which the husband gets more warmth from the prostitute he visits regularly than from his wife, one in which the wife has been too successful in utterly repudiating everything she used to be before she managed to get everything her parents had taught her she would ever want."
Does it all work? Of course not. Perlman has a number of irritating tendencies I feel obligated to mention. First, he seems to have a need to impress with either his research or his background knowledge, as if he's saying, "Look how much I know about law! And casino blackjack! And escort services! And psychiatry! And Billie Holiday! And deconstructionism!" Not kidding about that last one; we really do get a several-page intro to deconstruction. Sigh. Second, his characters are pretty often types, like, as Paul Bryant pointed out, the tart with a heart of gold. Or the tortured psychotherapist, which, third, there's more psychotherapy in this than any good book should be able to contain. Fourth, Perlman goes out of his way to make sure his characters' lives are pathetic enough to tug at the heartstrings. Is character A. not as unhappy as she should be? Let's give her MS. Is character B. having too much fun in prison? How 'bout some rape? And let's get a round of clinical depression for everyone.
But Perlman pulls it off. For one thing, he can really write, and for another, he really cares about his characters. If either of those weren't true, my guess is that Seven Types of Ambiguity would be a complete failure. But they are, and I thought it was great, and a surprisingly quick read, and I'd recommend it with almost no reservations.
May 1, 2012
If I'd had to guess, I would have said 'tour de force' is one of those expressions we use, but the French don't. Not that we do use it, it's one of those expressions you can't use because it's been watered down in that way, you know. The coffee is awesome. That kind of way.
To my surprise, however, I see this book, which the French love, described by them as a 'tour de force'. I can't help thinking that when the French use this expression they probably don't mean it is a trivial thing, slightly better than another comparable trivial thing.
I was reading what the French have to say about Perlman because he is regularly described as being 'one of the 50 most important writers in the world' a tag accorded him by Lire magazine. I couldn't find that when I looked at their site. But they clearly adore him, as do the Germans:
So good, his work could be considered European. Thus does a blatantly Australian writer arrive.
How about in Australia? The SMH, in an interview, observed of this novel that 'it has also brought him extravagant praise he has not quite yet won here.' I guess I have to 'fess up. I've never read any of his books, though I did see the movie of his first and it was terrific. I'm making up for it, the others will be read soon.
Australians may take for granted this writer who has electrified the world with his work, but of the many awards and accolades Seven Types of Ambiguity has received, I wonder if one that would sit best with the author is The Queensland Premier's award for Advancing Public Debate. Here is a man who cares, Elliot Perlman, he cares passionately and he does not disguise that for one moment. This book is a moving indictment of white first world attitudes, the ones that have forgotten any sense of common good and are all about get more, more, more for me, me, me. In some writers you'd be relieved that he got away with this, that it didn't spoil a good yarn, but Perlman is so good he has you all but weeping with disgust at the way you live whilst utterly unable to put down a book which has a plot, characters, dialogue, clever construction and technique.
For several days in a row I did almost nothing but sit with all 607 pages in two point font. There are times when I feel bad that I give so many books 3 stars that others give more generously to. But then, every now and again a book comes along that is so obviously so superior that I remember why I save up 5 stars. In fact, right now what I think I'm going to do is review my 5 star ratings, just to make sure the others are worthy enough to be in the company of this book. It's that good.
To my surprise, however, I see this book, which the French love, described by them as a 'tour de force'. I can't help thinking that when the French use this expression they probably don't mean it is a trivial thing, slightly better than another comparable trivial thing.
I was reading what the French have to say about Perlman because he is regularly described as being 'one of the 50 most important writers in the world' a tag accorded him by Lire magazine. I couldn't find that when I looked at their site. But they clearly adore him, as do the Germans:
His second novel, Seven Types of Ambiguity, was a national bestseller in France where it was described as 'one of the best novels of recent years, a complete success' (Le Monde). In Germany it was called a 'literary sensation' (Deutschlandradio), 'an impressive, iridescent all-encompassing view of feeling' (Der Spiegel), and described as having "the virtues of the great modern European novel' (Süddeutsche Zeitung).
So good, his work could be considered European. Thus does a blatantly Australian writer arrive.
How about in Australia? The SMH, in an interview, observed of this novel that 'it has also brought him extravagant praise he has not quite yet won here.' I guess I have to 'fess up. I've never read any of his books, though I did see the movie of his first and it was terrific. I'm making up for it, the others will be read soon.
Australians may take for granted this writer who has electrified the world with his work, but of the many awards and accolades Seven Types of Ambiguity has received, I wonder if one that would sit best with the author is The Queensland Premier's award for Advancing Public Debate. Here is a man who cares, Elliot Perlman, he cares passionately and he does not disguise that for one moment. This book is a moving indictment of white first world attitudes, the ones that have forgotten any sense of common good and are all about get more, more, more for me, me, me. In some writers you'd be relieved that he got away with this, that it didn't spoil a good yarn, but Perlman is so good he has you all but weeping with disgust at the way you live whilst utterly unable to put down a book which has a plot, characters, dialogue, clever construction and technique.
For several days in a row I did almost nothing but sit with all 607 pages in two point font. There are times when I feel bad that I give so many books 3 stars that others give more generously to. But then, every now and again a book comes along that is so obviously so superior that I remember why I save up 5 stars. In fact, right now what I think I'm going to do is review my 5 star ratings, just to make sure the others are worthy enough to be in the company of this book. It's that good.
December 14, 2011
Akira Korosawa's film Rashomon is about a crime that is witnessed by several individuals who all have credible but polarized viewpoints of the event. SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY is an intellectual Rashomonian potboiler, a colossal coil of colliding and deviating entanglements. However, we KNOW how the crime occurred. But do we really know who is guilty, beyond the obvious defendant?
It is a world of contrasts and overlaps, of paradoxes and semblances, of poetry and corporate shenanigans, gambling and grumbling, prostitution and restitution, love and lust, betrayal and fidelity, infidelity and incorruptibility, obsession and distraction, and perhaps the kitchen sink.
This book is a courtroom thriller, a love story, a social inquiry, and a study of manners. It is structured with seven narrators whose lives intersect in surprising and stunning twists and twisted knots. The opulent story is situated in Australia, in the state of ambiguity. It is bold, with brazen characters and a show-stopping plot.
Seven narrators share the story, and each has only one section of narrative. Some narrators have twice as many pages as others, but all have a tremendous impact on the reader. You see it one way, and then the next narrator's perspective shifts the kaleidoscope a notch or two, substantiating the ambiguity evident in the previous viewpoint while cross-examining each character's version of clarity.
It opens with a middle-aged psychiatrist, Alex Klima, a transgressive therapist whose lack of boundaries violates every code of therapeutic ethics imaginable, and yet whose voice and unfathomable empathy is as humane as his breach is abominable. He is the central protagonist's psychiatrist and friend, (although it is really more of an ensemble, the central protagonist, Simon, is the one on trial) the one who visits Simon daily in jail and remains his closest confidante up and through the trial.
Simon has been arrested for kidnapping the son of his ex-girlfriend, a woman he hasn't even spoken to in ten years, but he is in psychic bondage, because his love for her won't stop. He is a schoolteacher who was laid off during the downsizing of mercenary Australia that stemmed from all the economic disasters that ensued after the collapse and entropy of global corruptions and end-stage capitalism. He is a poet and intellectual, whose dog Empson was named for the author of the book that the title of this book is poached from. Simon lives by the ideology of Empson's 1930 literary analysis of language; the principles of Empson are Simon's articles of faith.
According to Empson, there is such depth of meaning in words that there are complex and confounding interpretations of poetry/linguistics, that each verbal thrust contains highly interpretive subtleties. This concept wraps itself around the story, also, both generally and specifically, in a myriad of ways that are best left to the reader to discover.
The other five characters fuel this marathon of a book with such driven force and depth that I was literally sweating and weeping by the denouement. The final, short section's narrator is a dramatic surprise that does more than weld together the characters and story; it transforms it. Everyone in the book is on trial, and so is the whole human race. We are all guilty of ambiguity. And this book gave me hope--that we all testify to humanity.
It is a world of contrasts and overlaps, of paradoxes and semblances, of poetry and corporate shenanigans, gambling and grumbling, prostitution and restitution, love and lust, betrayal and fidelity, infidelity and incorruptibility, obsession and distraction, and perhaps the kitchen sink.
This book is a courtroom thriller, a love story, a social inquiry, and a study of manners. It is structured with seven narrators whose lives intersect in surprising and stunning twists and twisted knots. The opulent story is situated in Australia, in the state of ambiguity. It is bold, with brazen characters and a show-stopping plot.
Seven narrators share the story, and each has only one section of narrative. Some narrators have twice as many pages as others, but all have a tremendous impact on the reader. You see it one way, and then the next narrator's perspective shifts the kaleidoscope a notch or two, substantiating the ambiguity evident in the previous viewpoint while cross-examining each character's version of clarity.
It opens with a middle-aged psychiatrist, Alex Klima, a transgressive therapist whose lack of boundaries violates every code of therapeutic ethics imaginable, and yet whose voice and unfathomable empathy is as humane as his breach is abominable. He is the central protagonist's psychiatrist and friend, (although it is really more of an ensemble, the central protagonist, Simon, is the one on trial) the one who visits Simon daily in jail and remains his closest confidante up and through the trial.
Simon has been arrested for kidnapping the son of his ex-girlfriend, a woman he hasn't even spoken to in ten years, but he is in psychic bondage, because his love for her won't stop. He is a schoolteacher who was laid off during the downsizing of mercenary Australia that stemmed from all the economic disasters that ensued after the collapse and entropy of global corruptions and end-stage capitalism. He is a poet and intellectual, whose dog Empson was named for the author of the book that the title of this book is poached from. Simon lives by the ideology of Empson's 1930 literary analysis of language; the principles of Empson are Simon's articles of faith.
According to Empson, there is such depth of meaning in words that there are complex and confounding interpretations of poetry/linguistics, that each verbal thrust contains highly interpretive subtleties. This concept wraps itself around the story, also, both generally and specifically, in a myriad of ways that are best left to the reader to discover.
The other five characters fuel this marathon of a book with such driven force and depth that I was literally sweating and weeping by the denouement. The final, short section's narrator is a dramatic surprise that does more than weld together the characters and story; it transforms it. Everyone in the book is on trial, and so is the whole human race. We are all guilty of ambiguity. And this book gave me hope--that we all testify to humanity.
December 26, 2014
I'm not worthy of reviewing a book like this. Really. Seven Types of Ambiguity is huge, both physically and contextually.
Read this book if:
--You like Rashomon-like explorations of the subjective nature of truth.
--You like overlapping narratives that do more to obfuscate a given event than illuminate it.
--Deep characterization is your bag.
--You have ever harbored even a passing interest in critical theory.
--You love Billie Holliday.
--You are are passionate about health care issues (this book explores Australia's shift to managed health care).
Do not read this book if:
--You like morally unambiguous characters who are always on their best behavior.
--You have a short attention span.
--You hate ambiguity (and, really, the title should tip you off there).
--You like concrete, "big-red-bow" endings.
What else can I say, really?
Read this book if:
--You like Rashomon-like explorations of the subjective nature of truth.
--You like overlapping narratives that do more to obfuscate a given event than illuminate it.
--Deep characterization is your bag.
--You have ever harbored even a passing interest in critical theory.
--You love Billie Holliday.
--You are are passionate about health care issues (this book explores Australia's shift to managed health care).
Do not read this book if:
--You like morally unambiguous characters who are always on their best behavior.
--You have a short attention span.
--You hate ambiguity (and, really, the title should tip you off there).
--You like concrete, "big-red-bow" endings.
What else can I say, really?
September 17, 2007
Final Analysis:
A book that acts like a fine wine is hard to find: this one is such a book. It keeps getting better after it is finished being read; a very well-written work, it is magnanimous, comprehensive, lyrical, and prosaically refined, with a sharp eye on bringing out the depths of the normal. The only fault remains what I have referred to before and will, I think, call 'voice narration displacement.'
I think I may have discerned that Perlman in fact wrote parts 1, 5, 6 and 7 immediately based upon his intial impetus, and later wrote parts 2-4 in the name of character development. Though these middle parts could seem to some to be more fluff and overlap than necessary, and some of it did read much like an intro that was two paragraphs too long. This, and the lines of thought can be a little random or convoluted. This last bit I do not believe is intentional, given the author's usual choice of diction.
It is indeed worth staying with, though I would not recommend a purchase unless someone by default enjoys epic narrative and finds after looking into it that they already identify with one of the characters well enough. It is true that the work becomes inherently easier and more desirable to read as one continues. I actually enjoy it more and more with each day that has passed after I finished it. If I could, 4.5 stars.
What follows is the gradual breakdown I gave it, because of how long it took to read it.
*******
8/25/07:
Only being about a quarter of the way through the book, I am enjoying it. I get the feeling that at times the author has confused authorial narration (aka: 'third-person') with character narration (aka: 'first-person'), so that it sounds as if the character who is supposed to be talking to me is actually infused or even supplanted by the type of narration I would expect from a third-person perspective. In other words, I don't hear the character's voice as much as I hear details about the character's experience and life, which could be equally accomplished by third-person voicing the whole way through instead of seeming to intersperse the two. Perhaps this is intended and I will understand more of why this is as I continue...
9/6/07:
Page 385! I have actually found it a relief to find that I am in this section, since the others were not as directly related. Although, I do find that every once in a while a certain hint or two suggests itself beneath the flurry of pages - a clever trick to employ given the nature of the work!
9/7/07:
Done with Part Five. Assessment? An excellent job of character confusion. There is also a slight recognition that given the author's choice about the length of the novel, the actual use of it is well done, though it is still too early to say as such for the whole novel. The interweaving of multiple threads of possibilty was also good for keeping things fresh.
A book that acts like a fine wine is hard to find: this one is such a book. It keeps getting better after it is finished being read; a very well-written work, it is magnanimous, comprehensive, lyrical, and prosaically refined, with a sharp eye on bringing out the depths of the normal. The only fault remains what I have referred to before and will, I think, call 'voice narration displacement.'
I think I may have discerned that Perlman in fact wrote parts 1, 5, 6 and 7 immediately based upon his intial impetus, and later wrote parts 2-4 in the name of character development. Though these middle parts could seem to some to be more fluff and overlap than necessary, and some of it did read much like an intro that was two paragraphs too long. This, and the lines of thought can be a little random or convoluted. This last bit I do not believe is intentional, given the author's usual choice of diction.
It is indeed worth staying with, though I would not recommend a purchase unless someone by default enjoys epic narrative and finds after looking into it that they already identify with one of the characters well enough. It is true that the work becomes inherently easier and more desirable to read as one continues. I actually enjoy it more and more with each day that has passed after I finished it. If I could, 4.5 stars.
What follows is the gradual breakdown I gave it, because of how long it took to read it.
*******
8/25/07:
Only being about a quarter of the way through the book, I am enjoying it. I get the feeling that at times the author has confused authorial narration (aka: 'third-person') with character narration (aka: 'first-person'), so that it sounds as if the character who is supposed to be talking to me is actually infused or even supplanted by the type of narration I would expect from a third-person perspective. In other words, I don't hear the character's voice as much as I hear details about the character's experience and life, which could be equally accomplished by third-person voicing the whole way through instead of seeming to intersperse the two. Perhaps this is intended and I will understand more of why this is as I continue...
9/6/07:
Page 385! I have actually found it a relief to find that I am in this section, since the others were not as directly related. Although, I do find that every once in a while a certain hint or two suggests itself beneath the flurry of pages - a clever trick to employ given the nature of the work!
9/7/07:
Done with Part Five. Assessment? An excellent job of character confusion. There is also a slight recognition that given the author's choice about the length of the novel, the actual use of it is well done, though it is still too early to say as such for the whole novel. The interweaving of multiple threads of possibilty was also good for keeping things fresh.
January 31, 2016
The story of a pretentious, pseudo intellectual written by a pretentious, pseudo intellectual.
Said story is supposed to be told by seven different people, seven different viewpoints. At no point did any of these people feel any different from the next. Does Perlman understand that real human personalities are more than just words on a page? That they are complex, emotional beings? Apparently not.
He spends page after page saying "You see..." using his one dimensional characters to blather on about things completely irrelevant to the plot (like the Australian Stock Market, for example). And instead of having the two characters engage with one another, one serves as the audience he wants so desperately to preach to by saying absolutely nothing except for things like "Why?" and "How?" so that the one preaching can keep going on and on, page after page of the most mind numbingly boring, useless information.
At some point we are supposed to be convinced of the "main" character's (for lack of a better term) superiority over his college peers simply because he listens to Billie Holiday. The object of his affection becomes so mesmerized because of this, as he is clearly so above all others because of his choice to listen to an incredibly POPULAR singer. I have to admit, picturing this scene in my head makes me laugh wholly. That's like someone saying "Oh, I'm not like the rest of you. I'm geeky. I watch Doctor Who.", all the while Doctor Who is one of the most wildly popular shows on television.
This book is just awful. It is a perfect example of telling instead of showing (like the Billie Holliday example. That's somehow supposed to prove to us how amazingly intelligent and unique this character is? Give me a break. It's so bad it's hilarious). It's a bunch of pretentious, verbose dialogue that doesn't even vary stylistically from character to character. Everyone sounds the exact same. Basically, everyone is Perlman. And I would do many unpleasant things before reading anything from him ever again.
Said story is supposed to be told by seven different people, seven different viewpoints. At no point did any of these people feel any different from the next. Does Perlman understand that real human personalities are more than just words on a page? That they are complex, emotional beings? Apparently not.
He spends page after page saying "You see..." using his one dimensional characters to blather on about things completely irrelevant to the plot (like the Australian Stock Market, for example). And instead of having the two characters engage with one another, one serves as the audience he wants so desperately to preach to by saying absolutely nothing except for things like "Why?" and "How?" so that the one preaching can keep going on and on, page after page of the most mind numbingly boring, useless information.
At some point we are supposed to be convinced of the "main" character's (for lack of a better term) superiority over his college peers simply because he listens to Billie Holiday. The object of his affection becomes so mesmerized because of this, as he is clearly so above all others because of his choice to listen to an incredibly POPULAR singer. I have to admit, picturing this scene in my head makes me laugh wholly. That's like someone saying "Oh, I'm not like the rest of you. I'm geeky. I watch Doctor Who.", all the while Doctor Who is one of the most wildly popular shows on television.
This book is just awful. It is a perfect example of telling instead of showing (like the Billie Holliday example. That's somehow supposed to prove to us how amazingly intelligent and unique this character is? Give me a break. It's so bad it's hilarious). It's a bunch of pretentious, verbose dialogue that doesn't even vary stylistically from character to character. Everyone sounds the exact same. Basically, everyone is Perlman. And I would do many unpleasant things before reading anything from him ever again.
September 3, 2020
This is a long book full of ideas. There's discussion on the physical happenings when a male experiences an orgasm, the life of Billie Holiday, criticisms of modern literature and the standard of university teachings, court room procedures and rules of evidence, the shallowness of those seeking money then more money, psychiatric practices and limitations, the weirdness of corporate retreats, modern HR people and plenty of sex. Then there is the actual story of a highly intelligent charismatic young man, still fixated over his university lover, who picks up her young son from school one afternoon.
The story is told by seven different people and their views of the events of that day, the past, their lives and loves. The men are all horrible narcissists focused on the own needs for sex, money and power. The women are all beautiful but do come out of it as more rounded and empathetic characters.
I listened to the story as an audio book which had different narrators for each part of the novel. This worked well in keeping a long, and at times rambling story, interesting.
The story is told by seven different people and their views of the events of that day, the past, their lives and loves. The men are all horrible narcissists focused on the own needs for sex, money and power. The women are all beautiful but do come out of it as more rounded and empathetic characters.
I listened to the story as an audio book which had different narrators for each part of the novel. This worked well in keeping a long, and at times rambling story, interesting.
Want to read
January 16, 201216 November 2011- argh, this is the third time that I've started this book. The thing is, I haven't given up on it for any particular reason in the past; more interesting books have just come my way but I put it down a few weeks ago to read The Marriage Plot and now I'm back to where I was the first two times - it's just not compelling enough to woo me back! I want to love it and I may even love it just a little bit, his writing is incredible and the story is interesting enough. Maybe it's because it's really long, that's surely it - I fucking hate long books. You know how there's people who loathe short stories? I LOVE them. It must be that facet of my personality that prevents me from enjoying this one as I should. Unless it's desperately good then it's way too hard to keep me focused.
Worst thing is, I ordered some books from Readings last week (1Q84, Night Circus, The Leftovers, Yates) and promised myself I would finish this before they arrived. I didn't. And I'm at a standstill. Seven Types of Ambiguity sits there in it's fat-arse smugness daring me to not hold true to my word (I've owned the fucker since 2004!) and the new novels are luring me with their exciting new-book-glitter-glam. Actually it gets worse, I think I know deep down inside that I am going to abandon Perlman, yet again and just can't face it. But also 1Q84 is three million pages long and I feel nauseous at the very thought of it. I can't even read some and come back to it because my memory is so shit that I'd have to start all over again (like this fucking book) AND THAT IS THE WORST.
I'll have a cup of tea and give it one last go. My life is really hard at the moment and I just want a book to sweep me away from in-real-life shitfuckery. Not add more stress and guilt to my life. TORTURE. Fuck you Perlman, you verbose, dashing sod.
Worst thing is, I ordered some books from Readings last week (1Q84, Night Circus, The Leftovers, Yates) and promised myself I would finish this before they arrived. I didn't. And I'm at a standstill. Seven Types of Ambiguity sits there in it's fat-arse smugness daring me to not hold true to my word (I've owned the fucker since 2004!) and the new novels are luring me with their exciting new-book-glitter-glam. Actually it gets worse, I think I know deep down inside that I am going to abandon Perlman, yet again and just can't face it. But also 1Q84 is three million pages long and I feel nauseous at the very thought of it. I can't even read some and come back to it because my memory is so shit that I'd have to start all over again (like this fucking book) AND THAT IS THE WORST.
I'll have a cup of tea and give it one last go. My life is really hard at the moment and I just want a book to sweep me away from in-real-life shitfuckery. Not add more stress and guilt to my life. TORTURE. Fuck you Perlman, you verbose, dashing sod.
March 31, 2008
This novel took me forever to get through. I understand what the author was trying to do - interlace plot with different charcterizations by intertwining them. I just don't think Perlman executed it well. I found the characters extremely flat and annoying. I felt that Perlman at times was even showing off his writing ability through some of the characters. Basically, he writes in extremely wordy prose, trying to achieve an intellectual air. His use of first-person in the different narrations excludes rather than welcomes the reader into the minds of the characters. A truly unsensational story. Perlman should keep his job as a "barrista."
October 24, 2007
I got this book for Christmas two years ago from my family and was immediately intimidated by the size of the book, and the fact that it was given to me by my family, who know little about what kind of stuff I read.
I was very pleasantly suprised to find that I was immediately hooked after the first chapter. This might be my favorite, uh, modern dramatic novel ever.
The story is really great and the characters are very interesting and real as well. Perlman's voice is hypnotic. He sounds like he's drunk as he writes it and this makes the book pretty interesting to read. The whole thing reads like a last minute confession and oftentimes Perlman's writing manages to resonate in such a way it seems as if the characters were talking about you rather than some other person in the book.
I was very pleasantly suprised to find that I was immediately hooked after the first chapter. This might be my favorite, uh, modern dramatic novel ever.
The story is really great and the characters are very interesting and real as well. Perlman's voice is hypnotic. He sounds like he's drunk as he writes it and this makes the book pretty interesting to read. The whole thing reads like a last minute confession and oftentimes Perlman's writing manages to resonate in such a way it seems as if the characters were talking about you rather than some other person in the book.
December 5, 2008
Even bitchy ole me can't find 'owt wrong with this book. It's a triumph, really.
Smart without being pretentious, gripping, well written, set in one of my favourite places and the characterisation is superb, and that's understating it.
Difficult to believe it's his first novel, or even his third.
Out of the 20 odd books I've consumed in the last month and a half or so, this was the best.
The best this year even. Maybe the best since I can remember. Wish so much there was more where that came from.
Drool drool.
Smart without being pretentious, gripping, well written, set in one of my favourite places and the characterisation is superb, and that's understating it.
Difficult to believe it's his first novel, or even his third.
Out of the 20 odd books I've consumed in the last month and a half or so, this was the best.
The best this year even. Maybe the best since I can remember. Wish so much there was more where that came from.
Drool drool.
April 23, 2022
A gripping and hard to put down page-turner! Like someone in my reading group said, this book was like reading juicy gossip, but only more so since you also get a view into what each person is thinking. Each part is told from a different character's POV, so once you have an impression of someone, that impression can easily change once the same character is viewed from another POV - very interesting way of presenting a story.
I actually give it 4 1/2 stars, just short of 5 only because those are reserved for books I could see myself wanting to reread.
I actually give it 4 1/2 stars, just short of 5 only because those are reserved for books I could see myself wanting to reread.
August 19, 2013
It is surprising that I hadn't included this previously. There was at the time of its publication a certain buzz about the book, one hued all Franzen-like and I found out that it was availible in a local library outside of our county (this was before reciprocity) and I arranged for a friend to check out the novel and i quickly read such in the wake. It was very bleh; authorial wrinkles, people living suburban lives with a thoughtful poet at the core. Okay.
March 26, 2020
3.5 Stars
December 3, 2019
SEVEN Types of Ambiguity is in excess of SIX hundred pages, FIVE members gathered to discuss the book, but only FOUR managed to complete the course and get the souvenir T-shirt. TWO bottles of finest bitter were on hand to sustain the SINGLE blogger, yours truly.
Elliot Perlman is an Australian, post-grunge (!) author and barrister. The proposer informed us that in this context, “Grunge” refers to an “Australian literary genre concerned with dissatisfied and disenfranchised young people living in suburban or inner-city surroundings typically written by “new, young authors” who examined “gritty, dirty, real existences”, of lower-income young people, whose lives revolve around a nihilistic pursuit of casual sex, recreational drug use and alcohol which are used to escape boredom”. This may relate to some extent to the 80/90s Seattle rock scene, but the characters in STOA were far from penniless.
The proposer found the characters fascinating, believable and beautifully interlocked. The writing was clear, clever (with many interesting allusions), descriptive and amusing. He particularly enjoyed the “Shakespearian” resume making the long read well worthwhile. The work “condemns the economic rationalism that destroys the humanity of ordinary people when they are confronted with unemployment and poverty”. The book has been well received, shortlisted for the Miles Franklin Award, Australia’s most prestigious literary award in 2004. A six-part series based on Seven Types of Ambiguity was screened on ABC Television in 2017.
The title derives from the earlier work on ambiguity in poetry by the literary critic William Empson – and indeed is the name of the dog owned by Simon, the principal character in Perlman’s book. Few knew of Empson’s book, but one who had studied it as part of a literature course ventured a poor opinion of the work. Perlman’s book revolves about the tangled relationships between the obsessive Simon who still carries a torch for Anna, his student girlfriend, now married to Joe, a dealer in stocks and shares who has formed a partnership with Mitch, a financial analyst. Add to this web Angela or Angelique, the prostitute with the heart of gold, and the psychiatrist, Dr Klima, who each provide mental and/or physical massage with a certain disdain for the rules of the game. Perhaps Dr Klima is just too empathetic for both his and his client’s good, and his eventual suicide is as a result of this. Another victim of these events is Sam, Anna’s child, who is kidnapped by Simon in a possibly, irrational act, and Rachel who plays the role of Fortinbras to Simon’s Hamlet and inherits the sorry kingdom from the elder characters.
Writing from afar, an absent member (who listened to rather than read the book) stated that despite its length, complexity and repetition, he really enjoyed it, written in clear and easy language.
There’s a huge amount of information on relationships, but also many interesting stories. For example, the complex sub-plots on share dealing with managed care in the health sector, and of card counting to beat the casino, and even the court room drama that resulted from the complicated relationships could be considered as tangential, but opinions within the group differed on this.
We discussed the believability and motivation of the characters. One member suggested that the central flaw in the characters and indeed the book was the lack of meaningful life goals, and the struggle to achieve such goals, in which lies contentment. Not so, said another, the driving force is the pursuit of money and material wealth, certainly in the case of Joe and Mitch, who like to enjoy fast cars and prostitutes. In contrast, Anna’s father is painted as a more dogmatic personality, with fixed morals and ideas.
There was a discussion of the courtroom drama, considered by some as central to the plot, although others wondered at Anna’s behaviour in letting the trial proceed at all. The text of the book seems to suggest that Anna’s change of testimony within the trial is clever, rational and pre-conceived but this does not really fit her previous behaviour. In taking the child, was Simon being protective, knowing the state of the marriage from conversations with Angelique, or was this an understandable, irrational act from a disturbed individual? This book does not lend itself to easy answers. Everyone seems to be dysfunctional.
For some of our number who knew Australia well, there was disappointment that the book had no sense of place; it could be set anywhere, and some didn’t realise where until the text was well advanced. Does it matter? Another member pointed out that the book contains a rant about globalisation, understandable from an Australian perspective, and that the book was an accurate portrayal of how people behave and what motivates them.
So there was much to discuss and much to disagree upon. However, we were unanimous in asserting it was too long! Perhaps like Churchill, Empson was apologising for writing a long book because he didn’t have time to write a short one. We were all aware of the need to curtail, be brief and to edit one’s text. Did the author take advice from an editor, who might have made it shorter? A novelist amongst us noted that more prestigious authors tended to have more control over their manuscripts, as editors dare not offend. Initially engaged, another member lost all sympathy with the characters as the book progressed.
To summarise, of the 5+1 contributors to the discussion, there was a majority who would recommend the book, but not universal approbation. We agreed that the book was clearly meant to be the Magnum Opus (“many incarnations”), but perhaps it was just too “clever”, and that the characters do not have unique voices – they are mouthpieces for the author’s view.
This is an extract from a Monthly Book Group review. Our reviews can be found at http://monthlybookgroup.wordpress.com/ or at http://monthlybookgroup.blogspot.com/
(less)
Elliot Perlman is an Australian, post-grunge (!) author and barrister. The proposer informed us that in this context, “Grunge” refers to an “Australian literary genre concerned with dissatisfied and disenfranchised young people living in suburban or inner-city surroundings typically written by “new, young authors” who examined “gritty, dirty, real existences”, of lower-income young people, whose lives revolve around a nihilistic pursuit of casual sex, recreational drug use and alcohol which are used to escape boredom”. This may relate to some extent to the 80/90s Seattle rock scene, but the characters in STOA were far from penniless.
The proposer found the characters fascinating, believable and beautifully interlocked. The writing was clear, clever (with many interesting allusions), descriptive and amusing. He particularly enjoyed the “Shakespearian” resume making the long read well worthwhile. The work “condemns the economic rationalism that destroys the humanity of ordinary people when they are confronted with unemployment and poverty”. The book has been well received, shortlisted for the Miles Franklin Award, Australia’s most prestigious literary award in 2004. A six-part series based on Seven Types of Ambiguity was screened on ABC Television in 2017.
The title derives from the earlier work on ambiguity in poetry by the literary critic William Empson – and indeed is the name of the dog owned by Simon, the principal character in Perlman’s book. Few knew of Empson’s book, but one who had studied it as part of a literature course ventured a poor opinion of the work. Perlman’s book revolves about the tangled relationships between the obsessive Simon who still carries a torch for Anna, his student girlfriend, now married to Joe, a dealer in stocks and shares who has formed a partnership with Mitch, a financial analyst. Add to this web Angela or Angelique, the prostitute with the heart of gold, and the psychiatrist, Dr Klima, who each provide mental and/or physical massage with a certain disdain for the rules of the game. Perhaps Dr Klima is just too empathetic for both his and his client’s good, and his eventual suicide is as a result of this. Another victim of these events is Sam, Anna’s child, who is kidnapped by Simon in a possibly, irrational act, and Rachel who plays the role of Fortinbras to Simon’s Hamlet and inherits the sorry kingdom from the elder characters.
Writing from afar, an absent member (who listened to rather than read the book) stated that despite its length, complexity and repetition, he really enjoyed it, written in clear and easy language.
There’s a huge amount of information on relationships, but also many interesting stories. For example, the complex sub-plots on share dealing with managed care in the health sector, and of card counting to beat the casino, and even the court room drama that resulted from the complicated relationships could be considered as tangential, but opinions within the group differed on this.
We discussed the believability and motivation of the characters. One member suggested that the central flaw in the characters and indeed the book was the lack of meaningful life goals, and the struggle to achieve such goals, in which lies contentment. Not so, said another, the driving force is the pursuit of money and material wealth, certainly in the case of Joe and Mitch, who like to enjoy fast cars and prostitutes. In contrast, Anna’s father is painted as a more dogmatic personality, with fixed morals and ideas.
There was a discussion of the courtroom drama, considered by some as central to the plot, although others wondered at Anna’s behaviour in letting the trial proceed at all. The text of the book seems to suggest that Anna’s change of testimony within the trial is clever, rational and pre-conceived but this does not really fit her previous behaviour. In taking the child, was Simon being protective, knowing the state of the marriage from conversations with Angelique, or was this an understandable, irrational act from a disturbed individual? This book does not lend itself to easy answers. Everyone seems to be dysfunctional.
For some of our number who knew Australia well, there was disappointment that the book had no sense of place; it could be set anywhere, and some didn’t realise where until the text was well advanced. Does it matter? Another member pointed out that the book contains a rant about globalisation, understandable from an Australian perspective, and that the book was an accurate portrayal of how people behave and what motivates them.
So there was much to discuss and much to disagree upon. However, we were unanimous in asserting it was too long! Perhaps like Churchill, Empson was apologising for writing a long book because he didn’t have time to write a short one. We were all aware of the need to curtail, be brief and to edit one’s text. Did the author take advice from an editor, who might have made it shorter? A novelist amongst us noted that more prestigious authors tended to have more control over their manuscripts, as editors dare not offend. Initially engaged, another member lost all sympathy with the characters as the book progressed.
To summarise, of the 5+1 contributors to the discussion, there was a majority who would recommend the book, but not universal approbation. We agreed that the book was clearly meant to be the Magnum Opus (“many incarnations”), but perhaps it was just too “clever”, and that the characters do not have unique voices – they are mouthpieces for the author’s view.
This is an extract from a Monthly Book Group review. Our reviews can be found at http://monthlybookgroup.wordpress.com/ or at http://monthlybookgroup.blogspot.com/
(less)
July 5, 2020
An engaging, interesting, long novel about characters associated with Simon, a 30 year old unemployed man who kidnapped Sam, a six year old boy, from a schoolyard in Melbourne, Australia. The story is narrated by six characters. Alex, Simon's psychiatrist, begins the novel. Angelique is Simon's friend. Angelique is also a prostitute. Angelique has an interesting background. Anna was Simon's girlfriend when Simon and Anna were are University. Sam is Anna's son. Joe, Anna's husband is a stock broker. Joe and Anna's marriage is failing.
A worthwhile read about a number of issues including relationships, the law, gambling, the stock market and prostitution. The characters are well developed and there is good plot momentum.
Here are a couple of quotes from the book:
'You know you're in love with somebody when you wake up next to them, comfortable despite your breath smelling, like the week-old water at the bottom of a vase, when you are terribly excited to see them, to talk to them again, having missed them after all that sleep.'
'Hell is the special pain that dwells in that loss which you yourself have caused.'
This book was shortlisted for the 2004 Miles Franklin Award.
A worthwhile read about a number of issues including relationships, the law, gambling, the stock market and prostitution. The characters are well developed and there is good plot momentum.
Here are a couple of quotes from the book:
'You know you're in love with somebody when you wake up next to them, comfortable despite your breath smelling, like the week-old water at the bottom of a vase, when you are terribly excited to see them, to talk to them again, having missed them after all that sleep.'
'Hell is the special pain that dwells in that loss which you yourself have caused.'
This book was shortlisted for the 2004 Miles Franklin Award.
January 5, 2023
I was a little intimidated by the length, but the structure and the writing style as well as the incredible character development make you wish the 600 pages didn’t end there. Some of the most eloquent and heartbreaking prose I have ever read, especially in Part VII. I’m not someone who annotates books, but i found myself grabbing a pen to underline passages.
April 11, 2015
"There's the ambiguity of human relationships, for instance. A relationship between two people, just like a sequence of words, is ambiguous if it is open to different interpretations."
The complexity of human relationships makes it possible for two people who went through the same experience to perceive and describe it in different ways.
Seven Types of Ambiguity brings all the perspectives together to try to get a look at the whole picture.
Simon Heywood is an unemployed teacher who decides to seek psychological treatment for his unhealthy fixation with Anna, an ex girlfriend Simon has idealized to the point of obsession. Shortly after, he finds himself at the center of a national scandal when he decides to kidnap Anna's son. That is the event that sets the action in motion. This book is divided into seven parts and each segment is narrated by a different character that adds a layer of intricacy to the story.
When I began reading this I thought that the structure and premise were wonderfully thought out by the author. I couldn't wait for the story to unfold and get into the head of these extremely flawed individuals to put the puzzle together. But by the time I got to the third and fourth point of view, I started getting a little underwhelmed by the story.
The first narrator is Alex Clima, Simon's psychiatrist. It's not long before you realize he could use a little therapy himself. He is a deeply troubled person and a very intriguing character.
The other characters aren’t very interesting or original. There is the shallow materialistic woman with an unsatisfying marriage; her husband, a man who seeks company in prostitutes; the hooker with the heart of gold, and two other people that add nothing to the story. The most interest character is supposed to be Simon but the reader never fully gets into his head or understands why it’s important that we are sympathetic to his side of the story, other than the author almost blatantly stating so. The last narrator is Clima's daughter and her point of view functions as an epilogue, but it is a very anticlimactic conclusion to the story.
The book is enjoyable but it never reaches full potential. The characters are not completely plain but most are based on clichés and don’t have a distinctive voice that differentiates them from each other.
Overall it was an entertaining book but it also feels like a missed opportunity.
April 20, 2017
This was definitely a page turner of a book. It is split into 7 parts - with 6 different narrators. Of course, all these 6 narrators are linked to each other, whether they know it or not.
What I appreciated about this book: I love a story told from different perspectives. It's so intriguing to see how a different character views the same relationship or same scenario. It brings the world to life in a more accurate way: we each experience it differently. It also means you avoid boredom, as a new perspective generally breathes new life into a book.
I also liked the concept: How one person in a relationship perceives that relationship can be entirely contrasted with how the other person perceives it. As you reflect on the book, you can't help reflecting on your own relationships - curious about how the other people involved perceive you and your relationship with them.
What I did not appreciate about this book: Three main things irked me - firstly, that the six narrators were too similar. People talk and think in different voices, and I simply did not feel each character was properly brought to life in a believable way. I found the male characters much more believable than the females, which brings me to my second issue.
Elliot writes in a very masculine voice and I just did not relate to his female characters as fellow women! I've never experienced this so strongly in a book before this. I think this wasn't helped by his clear fascination with prostitution. I don't have a problem with a book depicting this but nearly every character had a very detailed connection and story with the prostitute.
I suppose this brings me to my third issue. It was just a very negative view on life, which left me after every read feeling quite depressed! I have read many stories of hardship (both true and fictional) but they have all had much more light and shade to them. Human experience is so rarely all bad! I know I could be attacked for speaking from my own perspective (as I have not experienced a life of hardship) but I just think, and have heard from close friends who have had lives of hardship - they have moments of beauty and joy, amongst the struggles. This book didn't give this and I really missed it.
Overall a good read, but definitely not a favourite that I would ever read again.
What I appreciated about this book: I love a story told from different perspectives. It's so intriguing to see how a different character views the same relationship or same scenario. It brings the world to life in a more accurate way: we each experience it differently. It also means you avoid boredom, as a new perspective generally breathes new life into a book.
I also liked the concept: How one person in a relationship perceives that relationship can be entirely contrasted with how the other person perceives it. As you reflect on the book, you can't help reflecting on your own relationships - curious about how the other people involved perceive you and your relationship with them.
What I did not appreciate about this book: Three main things irked me - firstly, that the six narrators were too similar. People talk and think in different voices, and I simply did not feel each character was properly brought to life in a believable way. I found the male characters much more believable than the females, which brings me to my second issue.
Elliot writes in a very masculine voice and I just did not relate to his female characters as fellow women! I've never experienced this so strongly in a book before this. I think this wasn't helped by his clear fascination with prostitution. I don't have a problem with a book depicting this but nearly every character had a very detailed connection and story with the prostitute.
I suppose this brings me to my third issue. It was just a very negative view on life, which left me after every read feeling quite depressed! I have read many stories of hardship (both true and fictional) but they have all had much more light and shade to them. Human experience is so rarely all bad! I know I could be attacked for speaking from my own perspective (as I have not experienced a life of hardship) but I just think, and have heard from close friends who have had lives of hardship - they have moments of beauty and joy, amongst the struggles. This book didn't give this and I really missed it.
Overall a good read, but definitely not a favourite that I would ever read again.
December 24, 2008
If you love words and imaginative phrases, this is a book that cannot be missed. With remarks like, “you would love the way he sees you,” Perlman at once writes a compelling story and poetically delivers the near truths that our romantic selves imagine real. Near truths about ourselves and the capacity of those we love.
The story itself is a ambitious and boldly intellectual tale told from seven perspectives about kidnapping and lost love. It's a little Jonathan Franzen, a little David Foster Wallace with a little Mary Pipher thrown in.
Perhaps I should let Ambiguity speak for itself:
"Whatever vestiges of middle-class sensibilities have stayed with Simon, and there are many, it is not these that keep him from Angelique. It is you. The myth of you. So please, don’t laugh at him or Angelique. You have, perhaps become shy around empathy. It makes you uncomfortable now. You can live without it in the elaborately designed artifice that surrounds the swimming pool Simon and I have sat by. You really do live without it. Perhaps people ought to feel with more imagination."
The story itself is a ambitious and boldly intellectual tale told from seven perspectives about kidnapping and lost love. It's a little Jonathan Franzen, a little David Foster Wallace with a little Mary Pipher thrown in.
Perhaps I should let Ambiguity speak for itself:
"Whatever vestiges of middle-class sensibilities have stayed with Simon, and there are many, it is not these that keep him from Angelique. It is you. The myth of you. So please, don’t laugh at him or Angelique. You have, perhaps become shy around empathy. It makes you uncomfortable now. You can live without it in the elaborately designed artifice that surrounds the swimming pool Simon and I have sat by. You really do live without it. Perhaps people ought to feel with more imagination."
May 10, 2010
This is by far and away the longest book I have ever reached the end of. From the first two paragraphs I was hooked. The way Perlman writes about the protagonist's endearing - but ultimately over-romanticised and distorted - memories of his ex- grabbed me immediately. The image of the thoughtful, sexy woman, hair held with chopsticks, donning tortoise-shell glasses, sipping diet coke and reading in the bay window is a fantasy I share in, albeit a fairly pathetic and cliched one.
I found the changing narrative perspectives at once disorientating and engaging; it gave a freshness to each chapter, providing a subtly different version of events, whilst still propelling the plot forwards and tying up the previous chapters' loose ends.
The novel takes in literature, poetry (who knew about the Ern Malley hoax, prior to Perlman's novel?), law, philosophy, and yet manages to remain fundamentally a story about the complexities of the human condition.
It is an ambitious novel; reading it is a major undertaking, but it was all worth it.
If you get the time, please read it.
I found the changing narrative perspectives at once disorientating and engaging; it gave a freshness to each chapter, providing a subtly different version of events, whilst still propelling the plot forwards and tying up the previous chapters' loose ends.
The novel takes in literature, poetry (who knew about the Ern Malley hoax, prior to Perlman's novel?), law, philosophy, and yet manages to remain fundamentally a story about the complexities of the human condition.
It is an ambitious novel; reading it is a major undertaking, but it was all worth it.
If you get the time, please read it.
Read
March 15, 2007Seven Types of Ambiguity is divided into seven chapters, each narrated by a different character. At the center of the story is Simon Heywood, and he's obsessed with Anna who left him a decade ago. Anna is unhappily married to Joe, but she stays in the marriage because of her son. Simon kidnaps her son in an attempt to win her back, creating havoc that boomerangs through many lives, including his psychiatrist and his friend, a prostitute who has Joe as one of her clients. The title is borrowed from literary critic's William Empson book about poetic ambiguities. Elliot Perlman explores the ambiguities and complexities of modern life and the chaos caused by greed, commerce, and self-indulgence. Seven Types of Ambiguity has received mixed reviews with BookPage saying, "This 672-page tome might be difficult to pick up, but it's almost impossible to put down."
*This review comes from an online source-it caught my attention when looking up the top 100 books of 2006 list.
*This review comes from an online source-it caught my attention when looking up the top 100 books of 2006 list.
August 30, 2007
Seven Types of Ambiguity is, without question, one of the best novels I have ever read. With that said, I am having a difficult time coming up with a way to describe what it's about without giving too much away. At its center, there's a kidnapping, but to say that this novel is about kidnapping is akin to saying that Don Quixote is about windmills. There is a kidnapping, yes, but the true heart of this novel is in the characters and their varied reactions to it.
Told in seven chapters, each narrated by a different voice who might not or might not be directly affected by the crime, Perlman's novel is a masterful work of emotion and turmoil that ranks as one of the bets novels to hail from Australia in quite some time.
Told in seven chapters, each narrated by a different voice who might not or might not be directly affected by the crime, Perlman's novel is a masterful work of emotion and turmoil that ranks as one of the bets novels to hail from Australia in quite some time.
May 9, 2013
Beyond masterful. Over 600 pages of intellectual, emotional and intelligent brilliance. It hurts to think how many people would not like, or even understand, this book.
On page 609, there is a discussion about "unremitting acuity". There is a "division between those people who are burdened by the clarity with which they see the world and those who are not. For those who are not, no semblance of emotional statis or equilibrium is threatened only by things particular to them...But what about the other group, those who, if only fleetingly and from time to time, are encumbered by their perception of the way the world really is?"
Brilliant.
On page 609, there is a discussion about "unremitting acuity". There is a "division between those people who are burdened by the clarity with which they see the world and those who are not. For those who are not, no semblance of emotional statis or equilibrium is threatened only by things particular to them...But what about the other group, those who, if only fleetingly and from time to time, are encumbered by their perception of the way the world really is?"
Brilliant.
February 4, 2012
Well, I just realized that I meant to read the OTHER "Seven Types of Ambiguity", which is something I wish I would have discovered before having spent time reading 623 pages of a book I wouldn't have read if I had been paying better attention.
That being said, this book was an interesting look at one event and its consequences through the eyes and experiences of several intertwined lives.
Now I might read the OTHER one - and maybe get a new understanding of THIS one.
I stand corrected - this IS the book I meant to read. My earlier thinking about this must have been ambiguous.
That being said, this book was an interesting look at one event and its consequences through the eyes and experiences of several intertwined lives.
Now I might read the OTHER one - and maybe get a new understanding of THIS one.
I stand corrected - this IS the book I meant to read. My earlier thinking about this must have been ambiguous.
November 10, 2017
If you are not with the zeitgeist, if you are a victim of it or if you resist it, you're out in the cold. You are left to sell crafts at weekend markets....you're marginal, you dont count. p169
There is a lot of room for ambiguity in the convoluted relationships of the 7 people connected here by their secrets as much as any affinity. EP in his fluid prose has unpacked for us seven perspectives, illuminating the complexity that riddles even the simplest facts. I especially appreciate how, in this determined inquiry into the ethics of desire, EP refrains from moralizing, allowing the reader to piece together their own conclusions.
I can imagine that a familiarity with the original literary classic of the same name might enhance but is not essential for sheer enjoyment.
There is a lot of room for ambiguity in the convoluted relationships of the 7 people connected here by their secrets as much as any affinity. EP in his fluid prose has unpacked for us seven perspectives, illuminating the complexity that riddles even the simplest facts. I especially appreciate how, in this determined inquiry into the ethics of desire, EP refrains from moralizing, allowing the reader to piece together their own conclusions.
I can imagine that a familiarity with the original literary classic of the same name might enhance but is not essential for sheer enjoyment.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 593 reviews