What do you think?
Rate this book
Subtle Bodies
In his long-awaited new novel, Norman Rush, author of three immensely praised and award-winning books set in Africa, including the best-selling classic Mating, returns home, giving us a sophisticated, often comical, romp through the particular joys and tribulations of marriage, and the dilemmas of friendship, as a group of college friends reunites in upstate New York twenty-some years after graduation.When Douglas, the ringleader of a clique of self-styled wits of “superior sensibility” dies suddenly, his four remaining friends are summoned to his luxe estate high in the Catskills to memorialize his life and mourn his passing. Responding to an obscure sense of emergency in the call, Ned, our hero, flies in from San Francisco (where he is the main organizer of a march against the impending Iraq war), pursued instantly by his furious wife, they’re at a critical point in their attempt to get Nina pregnant, and she’s ovulating! It is Nina who gives us a pointed, irreverent commentary as the friends begin to catch up with one another. She is not above poking fun at some of their past exploits and the things they held dear, and she’s particularly hard on the departed Douglas, who she thinks undervalued her Ned. Ned is trying manfully to discern what it was that made this clutch of souls his friends to begin with, before time, sex, work, and the brutal quirks of history shaped them into who they are now––and, simultaneously, to guess at what will come next.Subtle Bodies is filled with unexpected, funny, telling aperçus, alongside a deeper, moving exploration of the meanings of life. A novel of humor, small pleasures, deep emotions. A novel to enjoy and to ponder.From the Hardcover edition.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
About the author
Norman Rush
21 books121 followersNorman Rush (born October 24, 1933 in Oakland, California) is an American novelist whose introspective novels and short stories are set in Botswana in the 1980s. He is the son of Roger and Leslie (Chesse) Rush. He was the recipient of the 1991 National Book Award and the 1992 Irish Times/Aer Lingus International Fiction Prize for his novel Mating.
Rush was born in San Francisco and graduated from Swarthmore College in 1956. After working for fifteen years as a book dealer, he changed careers to become a teacher and found he had more time to write. He submitted a short story about his teaching experiences to The New Yorker, and it was published in 1978.
Rush and his wife worked as co-workers for the Peace Corps in Botswana from 1978 to 1983, which provided material for a collection of short stories he published as Whites in 1986, and for which he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His Botswana experience was also used in his first novel, Mating, which won a National Book Award for fiction in 1991, and in his second novel, Mortals.
He lives in Rockland County, New York.
Rush was born in San Francisco and graduated from Swarthmore College in 1956. After working for fifteen years as a book dealer, he changed careers to become a teacher and found he had more time to write. He submitted a short story about his teaching experiences to The New Yorker, and it was published in 1978.
Rush and his wife worked as co-workers for the Peace Corps in Botswana from 1978 to 1983, which provided material for a collection of short stories he published as Whites in 1986, and for which he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His Botswana experience was also used in his first novel, Mating, which won a National Book Award for fiction in 1991, and in his second novel, Mortals.
He lives in Rockland County, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews
November 2, 2013
“Subtle Bodies” could also be called “Subtle Humor and Subtext”. This is the first book I’ve read by this author, and I will read his previous works. Rush has a dry sense of humor and a wily wit. It’s not a fast read, in fact, it’s a multiple time read. The basic story line is 5 guys are best friends when they are NYU students. They’re now in their 40’s, and the ring leader, Douglas, dies suddenly. The widow, Iva, demands the friends to immediately put in an appearance for his Memorial. The main character, Ned, flies off without question, leaving his wife, Nina, in a lurch. Ned and Nina are trying to conceive a child and Nina is ovulating. Outraged at his ovine behavior, she chases after him and becomes an unannounced guest. It’s through Nina that Rush provides the hilarious observations of the ridiculous behavior of the friends. Nina thinks the whole escapade is like a bad opera. Nina and her mother provide joyful entertainment. Meanwhile, Ned is trying to figure out why the heck they were friends in the first place and if they are still friends. “And the question was still there of whether their true interior selves—the subtle bodies inside—were still there and functioning despite what age and accident and force of circumstance may have done to hurt them…. That when they had become friends it had been a friendship established between subtle bodies, by which he meant the ingredients of what they were to be….” There is some politics involved, and Rush uses Ned to make the reader see the idealized and dubious sides of politics. Ned is innocent and altruistic; the reader sympathizes for him. It’s a subtle read with many subtexts. This is a great read.
July 31, 2013
Four NYU college friends, who haven't seen each other in twenty years, meet up in a house in the Catskills to memorialize the fifth friend, the one who lived there and died in a tragic accident on his mower. Douglas, the recently deceased, was the acolyte of the group, the maestro.
Back in the 1970's, these four friends prided themselves on their subversive wit and forward-thinking ways. Walking out on foreign films at the Thalia that they judged as overrated, writing inflammatory letters to their college newspaper, playing frivolous but highbrow literary games with each other.
They were going to be social renovators of some kind, and always have a sense of unity and brotherhood between them. "Subtle bodies" was a term that meant the ingredients of their future selves, an inner shine that emanated and eventually emerged. But now that Douglas was dead, there were concerns within members of the group that all of this future accomplishment together had now been foreclosed. Yet, they hadn't even kept in close touch over the years.
Ned, the main male protagonist of this story, is a political activist (this is 2003, before the war with Iraq), assembling, with his wife, a protest march called the Convergence. He's had to postpone this in order to converge with his friends for the funeral of "Le Grande Douglas."
Ned's wife, Nina, was desperately trying to get pregnant with the help of fertility drugs and timed sex, and as the novel opens, she is angry at Ned for taking off to this gathering in the gloaming, and has followed him there, primarily because she was in a fertile time of the month.
The other members of the group were Elliot, the smug organizer of this quasi "media event" memorial, Gruen, who owned an agency dedicated to PSA announcements, and Joris, the smartest of the bunch, who had a fetish for married woman and prostitutes.
It is difficult to describe this novel, which isn't so much a cohesively arranged story as it is a collection of incidents and self-reflections that take place up at the estate. It is avant-garde, brainy and didactic Big Chill-y type of story (it is not "entertaining" and smooth flowing like Big Chill, the only similarity is superficial, i.e. the framework), where the characters test themselves and each other. Themes of love and friendship materialize, particularly the interplay of marriage and friendship, and how these loyalties and former ideals are regarded and evaluated in the present day. But it was so pointedly intellectual/cerebral, without the needed emotional connection, that I felt at a grave distance.
Nina, the "outsider," is the most passionate character in the novel, and the glue that does allow some consolidation, a forward progression, and narrative tension. To me, she was the only lifelike character of all the characters, whereas the others seemed often like mouthpieces for Rush's politics or social activism. It could be argued that Ned was the second most palpable character, but without Nina, Ned would have been more broadcast than substance. It is intriguing to note that Rush was imprisoned as a conscientious objector during the Korean War, and it seems that Nina and Ned's Convergence stems from that experience.
It is painful for me to give a 3-star rating to Rush, as he is one of my literary champions of the modern novel. MATINGS was one of my most treasured books of all time, a colossal achievement. His prose may have been self-consciously erudite, but his story was emotionally hefty. His protagonist was female, and I never felt that Rush had taken over her story. MORTALS was a monumental and absorbing tale, also, about the conflicts of a CIA agent, the inner demons that cleave you to and from your true self. Both novels were set in Botswana. Rush had spent five years in the Peace Corps there, and he penned both books with a remarkable backdrop, based on his genuine comprehension of the area and the social iniquities of the time.
Like the past two novels, Rush has this Renaissance Man's ability to cover subjects from anthropology to zoology, and fold them into a tale about humanity. He can use a third person POV and, by the end of the sentence, corral us to the first person. His prose is unparalleled. Here, in his new novel, there is no loss of stunning and brainy words, sentences, passages. And there are concrete, down to earth assertions that make you think, such as:
"Douglas's death was bound to bring out all the anxieties that go with looking back and summing up what a life came down to, the choices made, what the verdict would be if life ended suddenly without any warning or chance to do the things that were left to do that could improve the judgment an existence got."
In the end, however, I didn't feel satisfied. It was arm's length, for the most part--observational, scholarly, and contained scintillating philosophical insights. But, as a story, I felt a bit cheated out of any emotional gratification or connection. However, if you are a Rush fan, that is a compelling enough argument to read this and decide for yourself.
Back in the 1970's, these four friends prided themselves on their subversive wit and forward-thinking ways. Walking out on foreign films at the Thalia that they judged as overrated, writing inflammatory letters to their college newspaper, playing frivolous but highbrow literary games with each other.
They were going to be social renovators of some kind, and always have a sense of unity and brotherhood between them. "Subtle bodies" was a term that meant the ingredients of their future selves, an inner shine that emanated and eventually emerged. But now that Douglas was dead, there were concerns within members of the group that all of this future accomplishment together had now been foreclosed. Yet, they hadn't even kept in close touch over the years.
Ned, the main male protagonist of this story, is a political activist (this is 2003, before the war with Iraq), assembling, with his wife, a protest march called the Convergence. He's had to postpone this in order to converge with his friends for the funeral of "Le Grande Douglas."
Ned's wife, Nina, was desperately trying to get pregnant with the help of fertility drugs and timed sex, and as the novel opens, she is angry at Ned for taking off to this gathering in the gloaming, and has followed him there, primarily because she was in a fertile time of the month.
The other members of the group were Elliot, the smug organizer of this quasi "media event" memorial, Gruen, who owned an agency dedicated to PSA announcements, and Joris, the smartest of the bunch, who had a fetish for married woman and prostitutes.
It is difficult to describe this novel, which isn't so much a cohesively arranged story as it is a collection of incidents and self-reflections that take place up at the estate. It is avant-garde, brainy and didactic Big Chill-y type of story (it is not "entertaining" and smooth flowing like Big Chill, the only similarity is superficial, i.e. the framework), where the characters test themselves and each other. Themes of love and friendship materialize, particularly the interplay of marriage and friendship, and how these loyalties and former ideals are regarded and evaluated in the present day. But it was so pointedly intellectual/cerebral, without the needed emotional connection, that I felt at a grave distance.
Nina, the "outsider," is the most passionate character in the novel, and the glue that does allow some consolidation, a forward progression, and narrative tension. To me, she was the only lifelike character of all the characters, whereas the others seemed often like mouthpieces for Rush's politics or social activism. It could be argued that Ned was the second most palpable character, but without Nina, Ned would have been more broadcast than substance. It is intriguing to note that Rush was imprisoned as a conscientious objector during the Korean War, and it seems that Nina and Ned's Convergence stems from that experience.
It is painful for me to give a 3-star rating to Rush, as he is one of my literary champions of the modern novel. MATINGS was one of my most treasured books of all time, a colossal achievement. His prose may have been self-consciously erudite, but his story was emotionally hefty. His protagonist was female, and I never felt that Rush had taken over her story. MORTALS was a monumental and absorbing tale, also, about the conflicts of a CIA agent, the inner demons that cleave you to and from your true self. Both novels were set in Botswana. Rush had spent five years in the Peace Corps there, and he penned both books with a remarkable backdrop, based on his genuine comprehension of the area and the social iniquities of the time.
Like the past two novels, Rush has this Renaissance Man's ability to cover subjects from anthropology to zoology, and fold them into a tale about humanity. He can use a third person POV and, by the end of the sentence, corral us to the first person. His prose is unparalleled. Here, in his new novel, there is no loss of stunning and brainy words, sentences, passages. And there are concrete, down to earth assertions that make you think, such as:
"Douglas's death was bound to bring out all the anxieties that go with looking back and summing up what a life came down to, the choices made, what the verdict would be if life ended suddenly without any warning or chance to do the things that were left to do that could improve the judgment an existence got."
In the end, however, I didn't feel satisfied. It was arm's length, for the most part--observational, scholarly, and contained scintillating philosophical insights. But, as a story, I felt a bit cheated out of any emotional gratification or connection. However, if you are a Rush fan, that is a compelling enough argument to read this and decide for yourself.
October 2, 2013
Ok, so I need to preface this review by saying that (a) I don't generally write negative reviews, since I usually find SOMETHING to enjoy in a book, and (b) I loved Norman Rush's 'Mating' when I read it over a decade ago. I was excited to see Rush had a new novel out -- he's a very deliberate writer, and 'Mating' was full of big, exciting ideas. So it was extremely disappointing to encounter 'Subtle Bodies.' A story of how four male college friends reunite over the mid-life death of Douglas, the fifth and most charismatic of their set, this has obvious echoes of 'The Big Sleep' and all those other movies where forty-something friends are forced to re-evaluate their lives in the wake of a sudden death. Not only does Rush not add anything to the conversation, but his characters bear very little resemblance to actual human beings. Their conversations are stilted, their reactions either overwrought or passive, and even their names -- Joris, Gruen -- seem artificial. I'm within the target demographic of this book -- I'm the same age as the main character, and even have a house in upstate New York within 10 miles of where the action of this novel is set -- but it left me cold. Aside from one or two discrete set pieces, like the argument two characters have over the legitimacy of the Iraq War, or another conversation where a character reveals surprising facts about prostitutes, there was really nothing memorable or interesting here. The big theme, about our ability to discern people's true essences (their "subtle bodies") rang hollow because these characters were thinly drawn and lacking in subtlety.
September 30, 2013
Well I loved it, and for some of the same reasons that I loved Mating, which for me was as good as it gets. I loved that central relationship, and how they worked with each other, their bon mots, the elegance of their understatements. Many of the reviews on this page sounded more than a little like what Michiko had to say and in my opinion, she's getting pretty curmudgeonly: for me, Subtle Bodies was a laugh a minute. You know what I think? I think this is an older person's book: it lacks histrionics, and therefore (you could say), it's subtle. It has a sort of sigh about it; that deep breath ou that indicates the view turned outwards rather than inwards. I loved Mating for (again) that relationship between him and her, but I loved it also for the newness of the scenery, and this, for me anyhow, Subtle Bodies lacked. But Rush's curlicued sentences--intermittent! surprising! amusing!--mark him as one of this reader's favorites, Kakutani notwithstanding.
July 23, 2013
One of the weirdest reading experiences in a long time. The outline is simple enough; Ned and Nina are trying for a baby. When the timing for conceiving is spot on, Ned disappears to old college friends for the memorial of a fifth friend of theirs. Without thinking, Nina travels after Ned, after which follows the confrontation between Ned and Nina and Nina and Ned's old friends.
Okay, so what was wrong with it? First and foremost, I didn't know what to make of all the conversations and characters. Some passages and pages I kept rereading but without result. I felt like the outsider looking in on a bunch of very close friends with their own references and jokes. The novel doesn't include the reader, the reader is kept at bay, with not a clue of what to make of it all. At first I thought, okay I have to try to figure out what is going on, but halfway through I lost interest. At times the book was engaging or even funny but that wasn't enough for me. The only character I could vaguely relate to was Nina, but she never struck me as a woman of flesh and blood. The entire idea of the novel was a bit too intellectual for my taste.
Okay, so what was wrong with it? First and foremost, I didn't know what to make of all the conversations and characters. Some passages and pages I kept rereading but without result. I felt like the outsider looking in on a bunch of very close friends with their own references and jokes. The novel doesn't include the reader, the reader is kept at bay, with not a clue of what to make of it all. At first I thought, okay I have to try to figure out what is going on, but halfway through I lost interest. At times the book was engaging or even funny but that wasn't enough for me. The only character I could vaguely relate to was Nina, but she never struck me as a woman of flesh and blood. The entire idea of the novel was a bit too intellectual for my taste.
October 13, 2013
In a hurry at the book store (a mortal sin in my family to which I confess here, only in order to explain why I didn't know about this fine author before), I picked this book up by mistake, confusing Norman Rush with another writer I like, Howard Norman. It turned out to be a spectacular mistake. I found "Subtle Bodies" ( a PERFECT title) completely engaging, with fully drawn characters, and spot-on dialog. In fact, I kept interrupting my husband to read him little bits between Ned and Nina. The main players have both edges and substance -- opaque substance, not the transparent kind that too many of the routine characters in today's novels have. I wanted Ned and Nina to be my next door neighbors so that Nina could be my new best friend or just be present in my life. Motives and actions of the lesser characters can be a bit muddy, but I think that's all right, since life is that way; the truth is not always revealed. Rush does, however, give us enough of the truth to provide a sufficient ending. Sometimes a mortal sin pays off.
October 2, 2013
I will never give Norman Rush anything less than five stars. We need more writers like him! But he is ORIGINAL. So. And then--a depiction of a happy marriage in a contemporary novel! Lo, what wonder is this! No infidelities, no deceptions or secrets, no abandonment, not even ennui. His wife--witty, winning, well-rounded, steadying, he worships her. How many men are able to create female characters like Nina? Too few, far too few. What if female writers were as terrible at creating male characters would they still be able to win our devotion--like Hemingway does, like Salinger, like ole what's his name the one who wrote Sophie's Choice, even though Sophie is so clearly unreal and idealized? Of all the big name men who write how many of them actually understand or care about women as humans enough to portray them accurately and realistically?? But, enough of the rant.
I love that Norman Rush is full of fun and humor. I laughed out loud so many times during this book. I am so fond of his wit! The book is about adult male friendship, which is a light thing in my opinion. Why? Because one puff and it evaporates. A marriage, a change in location, a difference of any kind and the very weak connection will disappear. I, like Nina, roll my eyes at the ridiculous worship the friends have for the absent because dead Douglas, the leader of the men's clique formed in college, but clearly he meant something to the men for they have arrived at the scene to mourn him and speak at his funeral. This is the kind of book that some may find frustrating because the plot doesn't consummate. But I liked its understatement, things are happening behind the scenes, we know it, but we don't know it. The meaning is signified, alluded to, but never overt, never would he hit you over the head with anything, but just give you nudges... The back cover compares Rush to Updike and Roth, and I much prefer Rush to either of them. Here is a man who doesn't take himself too seriously, but his intellect shines through anyway. Compared to Rush, Updike and Roth come off as pompous and over wrought.
A sampling of his wit:
"Talking about getting pregnant he had said, about his own attitude to it, I can't decide whether I'm ambivalent or not."
"Scenery is probably good for your blood pressure, he thought."
Coy hated one of Douglas's Christmastime song parodies like "It's Beginning to Look a Bit Like Kwanzaa"
"I read more than Ned! . . .my family culture was better than his in terms of grammar and I knew when I was still tiny that there was no such month as Febuary and no such word as nother."
"Elliot had undergone a prostatectomy. . .There was a bevy of details on the protracted healing process. One detail that was tough to hear was Elliot's account of discovering, through an embarrassing incident, that he had become insensitive to a faint odor of urine it seemed he was carrying around with him although he was faithful about changing his pads. . .They all wanted to hear the grim minutiae of Elliot's path back to continence. Or rather, they didn't and they did."
"Casually spitting in public used to be a male prerogative, sort of. . . it could go on Douglas's list of deprivations that men were experiencing. A campaign against spitting in the street had been conducted in his junior high, and he remembered one of the campaign posters: If You Expectorate Don't Expect To Rate."
I love that Norman Rush is full of fun and humor. I laughed out loud so many times during this book. I am so fond of his wit! The book is about adult male friendship, which is a light thing in my opinion. Why? Because one puff and it evaporates. A marriage, a change in location, a difference of any kind and the very weak connection will disappear. I, like Nina, roll my eyes at the ridiculous worship the friends have for the absent because dead Douglas, the leader of the men's clique formed in college, but clearly he meant something to the men for they have arrived at the scene to mourn him and speak at his funeral. This is the kind of book that some may find frustrating because the plot doesn't consummate. But I liked its understatement, things are happening behind the scenes, we know it, but we don't know it. The meaning is signified, alluded to, but never overt, never would he hit you over the head with anything, but just give you nudges... The back cover compares Rush to Updike and Roth, and I much prefer Rush to either of them. Here is a man who doesn't take himself too seriously, but his intellect shines through anyway. Compared to Rush, Updike and Roth come off as pompous and over wrought.
A sampling of his wit:
"Talking about getting pregnant he had said, about his own attitude to it, I can't decide whether I'm ambivalent or not."
"Scenery is probably good for your blood pressure, he thought."
Coy hated one of Douglas's Christmastime song parodies like "It's Beginning to Look a Bit Like Kwanzaa"
"I read more than Ned! . . .my family culture was better than his in terms of grammar and I knew when I was still tiny that there was no such month as Febuary and no such word as nother."
"Elliot had undergone a prostatectomy. . .There was a bevy of details on the protracted healing process. One detail that was tough to hear was Elliot's account of discovering, through an embarrassing incident, that he had become insensitive to a faint odor of urine it seemed he was carrying around with him although he was faithful about changing his pads. . .They all wanted to hear the grim minutiae of Elliot's path back to continence. Or rather, they didn't and they did."
"Casually spitting in public used to be a male prerogative, sort of. . . it could go on Douglas's list of deprivations that men were experiencing. A campaign against spitting in the street had been conducted in his junior high, and he remembered one of the campaign posters: If You Expectorate Don't Expect To Rate."
July 31, 2013
After an extensive internal struggle over what to rate this book, I settled on two stars.
I can't even tell you how much I hated the beginning of this book. So obnoxious. So pretentious. Do people like Ned and Doug really exist? Unfortunately yes, because they are the kind of people I have to deal with at my job. They think they're smart. They think they're funny. They use big words to try to confuse other people. They think they're better than everybody else. Honestly, I get enough of it at work. I don't really need to read about it when I get home. Maybe that's a reason why I disliked this book.
I would now like to give you a rundown of some of the vocabulary words used in the book. Exophthalmic. Burgomaster. Miasma. Hinterland. Patrician. More? Okay. Baronial. Weltanschauung. Cineastes. Aoroi. Derisory. The list goes on. At certain points, it seems like Rush just consulted a thesaurus with no regard for common usage. I love words -- I have a BA in Linguistics, after all -- but I had to step away from this book several times because I couldn't even handle the vocabulary.
And then the plot. Or the lack of plot, for the majority of the book. Men talking. Men reminiscing. Men sulking. A wife. An ex-girlfriend. Nothing cohesive. The best plot summary I could think of was "Old guys using big words at a funeral." Honestly, I stopped worrying about the plot about halfway through. I concentrated on Nina, my favorite character, and took the book as a distraction, or just something to read to relax before bed. I enjoyed it much more.
I think this book was probably intended for a demographic that I do not fit.
[Insert obligatory "I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review" disclaimer here.]
I can't even tell you how much I hated the beginning of this book. So obnoxious. So pretentious. Do people like Ned and Doug really exist? Unfortunately yes, because they are the kind of people I have to deal with at my job. They think they're smart. They think they're funny. They use big words to try to confuse other people. They think they're better than everybody else. Honestly, I get enough of it at work. I don't really need to read about it when I get home. Maybe that's a reason why I disliked this book.
I would now like to give you a rundown of some of the vocabulary words used in the book. Exophthalmic. Burgomaster. Miasma. Hinterland. Patrician. More? Okay. Baronial. Weltanschauung. Cineastes. Aoroi. Derisory. The list goes on. At certain points, it seems like Rush just consulted a thesaurus with no regard for common usage. I love words -- I have a BA in Linguistics, after all -- but I had to step away from this book several times because I couldn't even handle the vocabulary.
And then the plot. Or the lack of plot, for the majority of the book. Men talking. Men reminiscing. Men sulking. A wife. An ex-girlfriend. Nothing cohesive. The best plot summary I could think of was "Old guys using big words at a funeral." Honestly, I stopped worrying about the plot about halfway through. I concentrated on Nina, my favorite character, and took the book as a distraction, or just something to read to relax before bed. I enjoyed it much more.
I think this book was probably intended for a demographic that I do not fit.
[Insert obligatory "I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review" disclaimer here.]
September 11, 2013
I’m not fully sure what I expected when I picked up Norman Rush’s Subtle Bodies. The premise is simple but promising. Ned and Nina are a married couple trying to get pregnant with their first child when Ned is called away to attend the funeral of an old college friend (the ringleader of their witty, irreverent nonconformist clique) with whom he has had little contact for twenty years. Furious that he has left in her most fertile time of the month, Nina takes off after him and arrives to ensure their offspring, and to navigate Ned through the analysis of the brief friendship which shaped his life. Rush is a wonderfully observant writer and there is much that he gets right about the haunting dynamics of lost friendships, and the insular concerns of career and marriage, but there was a lack of emotion connecting the threads, and some insufferable characters, that made this a slow and tedious read. The characters are given to long winded political rants and lengthy conversations that lack a true conversational feel, and seem to serve more as an arena for the presentation of very big ideas (invasion, war, Jewish and Palestinian problems in the Middle East). Hopefully Rush’s other acclaimed work will more prominently feature the emotional impact missing from this one.
Read
June 8, 2020Do-gooder narcissists. I would avoid.
***
This review in the New Republic says it all much better than I could. Where the hell does the this dude get off thinking he's s much smarter and morally superior to the rest of us. No thank you.
https://newrepublic.com/article/11470...
***
This review in the New Republic says it all much better than I could. Where the hell does the this dude get off thinking he's s much smarter and morally superior to the rest of us. No thank you.
https://newrepublic.com/article/11470...
April 5, 2018
I struggled with this one. Unfortunately it did not hold my interest.
May 18, 2013
Yes, I did just spend the evening at Medieval Times where my daughter was ecstatic to be named Queen of the Tournament and, yes, we’re taking the kids to Disneyland for the first time tomorrow. But, alas, all is quiet for a bit. Tim is checking his e-mail. And I’m going to review Norman Rush’s latest.
First, you should know his work if you don’t already. Many do, so he doesn’t need me to be his cheerleader—BUT it seems as if some of my bookish friends aren’t familiar with him. Second, I feel a special affinity for him because we’ve both written about expats and white people in Africa. (You’ll love WHITES and MATING.) Third, one thing I admire is he’s kinda old—and he’s still writing!
So, SUBTLE BODIES. This refers to the idea that the essence of an individual emanates or surrounds a person. These “subtle bodies” speak to our realities, our secrets, the people we really are. (I know: you heard the title, didn’t know a thing about Rush, and you assumed from the sexy title that it was trash. Admit it! Especially when I professed to pick up Bridget Jones next.) Norman Rush does a wondrous job in revealing interiority. There are moments that remind me of a less-brutal Philip Roth, moments in which the proximity to the mind is so close you squirm.
I also liked Ned and Nina’s marriage, which was an intimate portrayal of a pretty successful marriage. Nina is the most interesting character. She’s strong, sassy, but not above hiding in a closet to eavesdrop on a conversation. Plus, she calls her mom often, though her mom drives her a little crazy.
The novel’s plot and context is interesting, from beginning to end. A group of old college friends (NYU!), who were—during the seventies—given to wit and political protest plus annoying amounts of superiority and smarm, gather together in their middle-age when one of their number dies. They’ve led interesting lives as intellectuals. They’ve grown apart. They try to memorialize the dead man. We stay close to Ned, one of the remaining friends, who’s in the middle of a political protest.
The truth is that the end doesn’t measure up to the rest of the book. I’m glad I read this. I’d keep reading Rush. But the end was abrupt and a little too easy. It amounted to this “seize the day/live in the moment” mantra, and I guess I wanted more.
There have been some comparisons with Meg Wolitzer’s The Interestings. This is fun, but not totally valid. Both books deal with life-long friends, who formed their relationships at a time marked mostly by ignorance. But they each focus on different things. While Wolitzer might be looking at changes over a lifetime, Rush might be looking more at what the poet Matthew Arnold refers to as “The Buried Life.”
September 15, 2013
This book has been praised to the firmament, but I can't go that high (except maybe for the dust jacket). Composed in the wry funereal model of Graham Swift's Last Orders, or even better, Edward St. Aubyn's At Last, Rush's story is about a group of dead friends remembering the first of their clique of "wits" to die. The superbly-crafted prose is never less than enjoyable. The neurotic Nina, whose interior mono-rant opens the book, is a fantastic creation, reminding me a bit (probably unreliably) of the best of William Spackman. The other characters are entertaining, even if a couple kept confusing themselves with each other in my mind. Like a meal in an expensive tapas restaurant, each chapter was delicious but at the end I wasn't convinced it added up to anything… well, there is the very bleak joke at the end that made me want to bang my head against a mirror, because I was there.
Read
June 5, 2013I don't know how to rate this. It was very strange and reminiscent of the kind of oddball humour of an Iris Murdoch novel - a charismatic figure with a group of devoted acolytes, financial and emotional hijinks, a kind of narrative unsteadiness.
I think it's about the kind of seminal relationships that we form in college and that make us who we are. As we grow older, we might choose what to keep.......and what to leave behind.
I think it's about the kind of seminal relationships that we form in college and that make us who we are. As we grow older, we might choose what to keep.......and what to leave behind.
February 24, 2023
Stop me if you've heard this one: a bunch of old friends get together for the funeral of one of their college friend group who has died midlife, prompting revelations and reevaluations of the past and the friends' relationships, musings about time and the nature of death, and personal insights about life itself. You've read this kind of short story or novel before, right? You've seen the movie, right?
Well, that's not what this book is. I mean, it is *kind of*, but picture that setup with a lot of clever but ultimately vapid discourses and discursions about all kinds of items and objects and memories that are maybe supposed to be totemic representations of something--although I'll be damned if I can figure out what--throw in several characters who appear and then disappear without any sort of arc or resolution or even point, and then to top it off make every character too much of an idiot to see that they range from vapid to terrible in the most upper-middle class, well-educated liberal sort of way.
It's a book that ends *just* when it seems like Rush might be done clearing his throat and getting ready to actually write something that matters, something that might *mean* something. I don't mind books where "nothing happens" and I don't mind books where the characters are flawed or vain or even obnoxious, and I don't mind books where nobody realizes how banal they all are, or books where there aren't any answers or great insights, or even unevenly written and paced books--but *man* if you give me all of those together... That's just a lot to ask of a reader.
It gets two stars because there are some funny bon mots here and there--among pages of things that I think are supposed to be clever but really aren't--and because in the very last twenty pages or so, there's a glimmer of *something* that starts just as the pages run out.
Well, that's not what this book is. I mean, it is *kind of*, but picture that setup with a lot of clever but ultimately vapid discourses and discursions about all kinds of items and objects and memories that are maybe supposed to be totemic representations of something--although I'll be damned if I can figure out what--throw in several characters who appear and then disappear without any sort of arc or resolution or even point, and then to top it off make every character too much of an idiot to see that they range from vapid to terrible in the most upper-middle class, well-educated liberal sort of way.
It's a book that ends *just* when it seems like Rush might be done clearing his throat and getting ready to actually write something that matters, something that might *mean* something. I don't mind books where "nothing happens" and I don't mind books where the characters are flawed or vain or even obnoxious, and I don't mind books where nobody realizes how banal they all are, or books where there aren't any answers or great insights, or even unevenly written and paced books--but *man* if you give me all of those together... That's just a lot to ask of a reader.
It gets two stars because there are some funny bon mots here and there--among pages of things that I think are supposed to be clever but really aren't--and because in the very last twenty pages or so, there's a glimmer of *something* that starts just as the pages run out.
March 13, 2019
I do like Norman Rush. This is not as good as Mating, but then again, few books are.
I think he's especially good on the details of the delightful little things that happen inside a couple -- private, shared idiolect, in-jokes, the kind of fun that you have that doesn't seem big or glamorous or photogenic. He's also, in some of the same ways, very good at the relationships between people generally, and the friends here get an interesting double treatment as seen by Ned and then also as seen by Nina.
I was much less enthused by the whole anti-war thing, which seemed tacked on or artificial somehow. I'm not sure that this book really needed something like that to make it serious and valuable.
I think he's especially good on the details of the delightful little things that happen inside a couple -- private, shared idiolect, in-jokes, the kind of fun that you have that doesn't seem big or glamorous or photogenic. He's also, in some of the same ways, very good at the relationships between people generally, and the friends here get an interesting double treatment as seen by Ned and then also as seen by Nina.
I was much less enthused by the whole anti-war thing, which seemed tacked on or artificial somehow. I'm not sure that this book really needed something like that to make it serious and valuable.
October 11, 2018
Norman Rush is a fantastic writer & student of the mind.
August 11, 2024
the funniest book i’ve read in a LONG TIME
December 25, 2013
Having enjoyed Norman Rush's Mating some twenty years ago, I expected that his latest book would be well worth my time. It wasn't. Written mostly in flat, declarative sentences, complemented by uninspired dialogue, Subtle Bodies is meandering, pointless, and not very subtle. Too often it feels like a warmed over version of The Big Chill, with lots of silly puns substituting for a mostly-Motown soundtrack.
In case you don't have the dust jacket handy, here's a quick synopsis: Following the accidental(?) death of his college buddy Douglas, protagonist Ned inexplicably feels the need to travel immediately from his San Francisco home to a memorial gathering of Douglas' college friends in Upstate New York. Ned's travel urge is so acute that he simply leaves his wife Nina a note, but his abrupt departure is especially inconvenient given that the couple has been trying desperately to conceive a child, and this is Nina's time of ovulation. Nina's only recourse is to follow Douglas; hence, she shows up at the compound so they can finish what they've started. As for the rest of the gathering, it's not clear why this small collection of male NYU graduates once comprised a tight group, or why Douglas held sway over them. Part of their new-found time together seems aimed at trying to answer these questions, but they never do. Meanwhile, some reports of hanky-panky surface, as do vague conjectures about Douglas' mysterious professional life, along with Big Questions about unfulfilled human potential. Maybe we get the answers, and maybe we don't, and maybe you will find the uncertainties existentially bracing. I didn't.
Beyond their quasi-philosophical pomposities, the characters are intelligent and sometimes clever, but essentially lifeless. And the forced drama surrounding what kind of eulogy Ned will deliver -- dangled as a teaser until the final pages -- culminates with a whimper rather than a bang, as does the book itself. (Oh yes, there's another gripping sub-plot: Ned has been organizing a demonstration against a looming war in Iraq. Will he, or won't he, succeed in getting all of his old NYU friends to sign his anti-war petition?)
Rush's title is twice explained, but in ways that aren't particularly congruent. The first attempt, attributed to Nina's semi-mystical mother, speaks of a field "inside or surrounding or emanating from every human being and . . . if you could see it, it told you . . . about the essence of a person, their secrets for example" [p. 4]. Alternatively, according to Ned, "friendship [had been] established between subtle bodies, by which he meant the ingredients of what they were to be" [p. 198]. So, on one account, we're dealing with the actual; on the other, with the possible. It would be nice if something important could be made of this presumably portentous titular concept (or its variant interpretations), for that might cast a lifeline to Rush's story. But, as with the rest of Subtle Bodies, all we're ultimately left with is a perplexing -- and therefore, ostensibly, profound -- notion that in actuality just adds another layer of pretension to a novel that sinks under its own pontifical weight.
In case you don't have the dust jacket handy, here's a quick synopsis: Following the accidental(?) death of his college buddy Douglas, protagonist Ned inexplicably feels the need to travel immediately from his San Francisco home to a memorial gathering of Douglas' college friends in Upstate New York. Ned's travel urge is so acute that he simply leaves his wife Nina a note, but his abrupt departure is especially inconvenient given that the couple has been trying desperately to conceive a child, and this is Nina's time of ovulation. Nina's only recourse is to follow Douglas; hence, she shows up at the compound so they can finish what they've started. As for the rest of the gathering, it's not clear why this small collection of male NYU graduates once comprised a tight group, or why Douglas held sway over them. Part of their new-found time together seems aimed at trying to answer these questions, but they never do. Meanwhile, some reports of hanky-panky surface, as do vague conjectures about Douglas' mysterious professional life, along with Big Questions about unfulfilled human potential. Maybe we get the answers, and maybe we don't, and maybe you will find the uncertainties existentially bracing. I didn't.
Beyond their quasi-philosophical pomposities, the characters are intelligent and sometimes clever, but essentially lifeless. And the forced drama surrounding what kind of eulogy Ned will deliver -- dangled as a teaser until the final pages -- culminates with a whimper rather than a bang, as does the book itself. (Oh yes, there's another gripping sub-plot: Ned has been organizing a demonstration against a looming war in Iraq. Will he, or won't he, succeed in getting all of his old NYU friends to sign his anti-war petition?)
Rush's title is twice explained, but in ways that aren't particularly congruent. The first attempt, attributed to Nina's semi-mystical mother, speaks of a field "inside or surrounding or emanating from every human being and . . . if you could see it, it told you . . . about the essence of a person, their secrets for example" [p. 4]. Alternatively, according to Ned, "friendship [had been] established between subtle bodies, by which he meant the ingredients of what they were to be" [p. 198]. So, on one account, we're dealing with the actual; on the other, with the possible. It would be nice if something important could be made of this presumably portentous titular concept (or its variant interpretations), for that might cast a lifeline to Rush's story. But, as with the rest of Subtle Bodies, all we're ultimately left with is a perplexing -- and therefore, ostensibly, profound -- notion that in actuality just adds another layer of pretension to a novel that sinks under its own pontifical weight.
September 21, 2013
I had seen several reviews of this book that made it seem like it might be interesting. It wasn’t. Maybe I missed something the author had in mind? Not being familiar with what the term Subtle Body could be referring to, I looked up a definition : “A subtle body is one of a series of psycho-spiritual constituents of living beings, according to various esoteric, occult, and mystical teachings. Each subtle body corresponds to a subtle plane of existence, in a hierarchy or great chain of being that culminates in the physical form.” That helped. Now I’m really perplexed because if this had something to do with this book it completely escaped me.
What I found was a story about a group of four male friends coming together for their wealthy friend Douglas’ funeral. Douglas had been the elitist center of the group’s existence during their college days in New York – sort of a groupie “Dead Poets Society”. The central character Ned, has abruptly left his wife Nina behind without notice to attend the memorial services at Douglas’ Mansion in the New York countryside. Since they were seriously trying to have a child, and Nina has hit her ovulation hot spot, she follows Ned there. I guess their efforts in this area were supposed to add some levity. On the serious side, Ned is also trying to enlist popular support to oppose the pending invasion of Iraq so he brings a petition and spends half the book trying to get his friends to sign it. The friends are supposed to be preparing a eulogy for the memorial service, at which international press is in attendance. However Douglas’ wife Iva and one of the “groupie” friends, Elliot, who was Douglas’ business manager, are trying to script the whole affair as the group wrestles with their conscience and affections over what to say. Also, for this affair supposedly taking place at a mansion with friends and and press staying as guests, I’m wondering how serving them banquet style meals of beans and franks fits in unless that was intended to add some humor (ha, ha)? There are some other things like Iva having an affair with one of he friends and one also addicted to visiting prostitutes which I guess were supposed to add interest but they really just filled space.
I managed to slog through the entire book without managing even a slight smile or a deep thought. In fact I found none of the goings on either deep or humorous. In addition, none of the characters (save possibly Nina) were interesting or likeable and the thought of educated, grown men elevating their worship of their leader to such an extent was beyond my comprehension. So this book was a deep disappointment for me based upon my expectations. I note that many of the posted reviews on goodreads.com were either four or two stars so readers either loved it or hated it. I think my two star rating may have been overly generous based upon my expectations for a good read. I’m sure Norman Rush is a very good writer based upon his awards. For whatever reason this book didn’t reflect it.
What I found was a story about a group of four male friends coming together for their wealthy friend Douglas’ funeral. Douglas had been the elitist center of the group’s existence during their college days in New York – sort of a groupie “Dead Poets Society”. The central character Ned, has abruptly left his wife Nina behind without notice to attend the memorial services at Douglas’ Mansion in the New York countryside. Since they were seriously trying to have a child, and Nina has hit her ovulation hot spot, she follows Ned there. I guess their efforts in this area were supposed to add some levity. On the serious side, Ned is also trying to enlist popular support to oppose the pending invasion of Iraq so he brings a petition and spends half the book trying to get his friends to sign it. The friends are supposed to be preparing a eulogy for the memorial service, at which international press is in attendance. However Douglas’ wife Iva and one of the “groupie” friends, Elliot, who was Douglas’ business manager, are trying to script the whole affair as the group wrestles with their conscience and affections over what to say. Also, for this affair supposedly taking place at a mansion with friends and and press staying as guests, I’m wondering how serving them banquet style meals of beans and franks fits in unless that was intended to add some humor (ha, ha)? There are some other things like Iva having an affair with one of he friends and one also addicted to visiting prostitutes which I guess were supposed to add interest but they really just filled space.
I managed to slog through the entire book without managing even a slight smile or a deep thought. In fact I found none of the goings on either deep or humorous. In addition, none of the characters (save possibly Nina) were interesting or likeable and the thought of educated, grown men elevating their worship of their leader to such an extent was beyond my comprehension. So this book was a deep disappointment for me based upon my expectations. I note that many of the posted reviews on goodreads.com were either four or two stars so readers either loved it or hated it. I think my two star rating may have been overly generous based upon my expectations for a good read. I’m sure Norman Rush is a very good writer based upon his awards. For whatever reason this book didn’t reflect it.
July 22, 2025
good beach read! i would have liked this more if the author didnt express random pro- israel sentiments throughout lol
March 23, 2017
This is a contemporary version of the Big Chill story. Middle-aged men who used to be friends in college reconvene at the home of the one who dies. I agree with others who did not like the book on the grounds that the characters are not fully developed and the story never seems to go anywhere. On the other hand, I thought this captured a certain kind of reminiscent longing that people have for their “salad days.” Many people (well-off Americans anyway) spend their college years cultivating friendships that revolve around free-ranging bullshit sessions combining idealism with the desire to be clever and cool.
As we age, what we are actually motivated to do with our vague, philosophical musings gets contaminated by other, competing motivations. Like Douglas and Elliot, some of us pursue successful careers and are invested in maintaining the persona of an elite intellectual or professional. Others, like Iva, Claire, Nina, Joris and Ned, are motivated by our basic evolutionary drive. We want to find partners who will supplement and maintain our resources, and with whom we can have sex, mate and bear children. Even where idealism survives, it is muted by the practical exigencies of politics. Sometimes idealism succumbs to a depressing mélange of hedonism and existential nihilism (Gruen’s character?).
I don’t think that this book was necessarily about any of these things, but the characters and the writing evoked these thoughts, in me anyway. I also agree with others who enjoy Rush’s use of language, which includes sophisticated word plays and lots of humorous banter.
As we age, what we are actually motivated to do with our vague, philosophical musings gets contaminated by other, competing motivations. Like Douglas and Elliot, some of us pursue successful careers and are invested in maintaining the persona of an elite intellectual or professional. Others, like Iva, Claire, Nina, Joris and Ned, are motivated by our basic evolutionary drive. We want to find partners who will supplement and maintain our resources, and with whom we can have sex, mate and bear children. Even where idealism survives, it is muted by the practical exigencies of politics. Sometimes idealism succumbs to a depressing mélange of hedonism and existential nihilism (Gruen’s character?).
I don’t think that this book was necessarily about any of these things, but the characters and the writing evoked these thoughts, in me anyway. I also agree with others who enjoy Rush’s use of language, which includes sophisticated word plays and lots of humorous banter.
July 30, 2013
First, let me say thanks to Knopf for sending me an ARC of this book. I generally love the books Knopf publishes and it was a pleasure to win a Goodreads giveaway.
This is decidedly not my type of book - self-obsessed middle-aged people acting like teenagers (Please - I see that every night from behind the bar!) and the author writes in a way I can only describe as "freestyle" with little structure and not much plot. Other authors have had success with this method and so has this author, Norman Rush, I suppose, though I have not read his most famous book, "Mating", however his style did not endear me to his characters and I finished the book as a courtesy I felt I needed to return for winning a copy.
Note: The ARC copy I received has a paper cover announcing that this was an "uncorrected proof" so perhaps the final copy (Announced First Printing listed at 50,000 copies) will be much better.
This is decidedly not my type of book - self-obsessed middle-aged people acting like teenagers (Please - I see that every night from behind the bar!) and the author writes in a way I can only describe as "freestyle" with little structure and not much plot. Other authors have had success with this method and so has this author, Norman Rush, I suppose, though I have not read his most famous book, "Mating", however his style did not endear me to his characters and I finished the book as a courtesy I felt I needed to return for winning a copy.
Note: The ARC copy I received has a paper cover announcing that this was an "uncorrected proof" so perhaps the final copy (Announced First Printing listed at 50,000 copies) will be much better.
July 10, 2014
I struggled with author Norman Rush's Mating, and Subtle Bodies is definitely lighter, less academic, and more contemporary; but still lofty, philosophical and foreign-seeming. Full of funny pithy witticisms.
Ned and his wife Nina are trying to conceive, he is older than she is and they are perfectly matched, in fact I found it exhausting just reading this being demonstrated, their being best friends and each others source of constant entertainment i.e., "their inventory of facetious devices they used to josh one another out of bad moods". Douglas, the leader of Ned's former circle of NYU friends has died unexpectedly, and so a reunion takes place in upstate New York. It's a literary The Big Chill with mysterious machinations, and political intrigue.
Ned and his wife Nina are trying to conceive, he is older than she is and they are perfectly matched, in fact I found it exhausting just reading this being demonstrated, their being best friends and each others source of constant entertainment i.e., "their inventory of facetious devices they used to josh one another out of bad moods". Douglas, the leader of Ned's former circle of NYU friends has died unexpectedly, and so a reunion takes place in upstate New York. It's a literary The Big Chill with mysterious machinations, and political intrigue.
January 14, 2014
Just finished "Subtle Bodies" by Norman Rush. What an entertaining read! I laughed at the "subtle" humor throughout the book. It is also a study of characters and how friendship formed early has a special bond that carries on but morphs into something not always easy to define. It is also about convictions and as believing in a cause and giving it your 100% does not insures it's success. The writing is pure pleasure. Not your typical book.
May 7, 2016
Agreeing with other reviewers, this is a grownup's book that is hilarious at times if you know what it is to be a mature person in a mature relationship. There's a subtle humor that develops, unique to each couple. That Rush could capture that, and immerse me in it, was a marvel. So original and deft. Also a book in which not much actually happens but just enough does happen to keep you interested.
December 5, 2013
The amusing dialogue and the profound intimacy between the married couple at the center of the novel makes this an enjoyable read by one of my favorite authors, despite some admittedly wacky plot points.
May 26, 2013
scored a galley of this book. one of my top 5 favorite american writers. so many great apercus in this. so many. . .
August 31, 2013
Mind stretching and bending!
October 26, 2013
Alas, only one of them falls off a cliff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews