Oh, man. What a letdown. Awarding a Zadie book a lackluster rating elicits a very uncomfortable and unfamiliar feeling from me, sort of like going to the polls and finding you've just accidentally cast your vote for the opposite candidate than intended. (Not that I expect any voting or poll-related similes to have any great resonance in fall 2016 USA.... Also, that was just metaphorical speaking; you can bet I triple-checked my vote for accuracy before submitting it this month!...which already feels a year long...but I digress.)
I'm disappointed with myself for not loving this book given my general love for Zadie Smith and her other works. NW is one of my favorite novels of all time, and one that captured better than anything I've read my own specific experience in growing up navigating the "blocks" of poor/working class community housing. It's such an amazing book in my view that I can't even bring myself to describe my appreciation: it left me feeling that I wasn't fucking worthy of even attempting to articulate her brilliance. Maybe on my deathbed I'll try to review it, was my ultimate conclusion, when I can hopefully channel the spirit of Virginia Woolf to express my admiration, which is the level of support I feel I'd need. Unfortunately - the books that fall flat are always a little easier to talk about....
I'd rather be disappointed with myself than with anything Zadie-related, but after reading a bunch of GR reviews, I had to admit that I'm among many readers who found this book disappointing for reasons they were able to cogently identify (and with which I fully agree). (Of course, there are eloquent proponents of the book as well; would that I were among you, my people from whom I've apparently self-exiled!) Since there are already so many other strong reviews that capture what this book tries to do and how it falls flat, I'll limit myself here to itemizing my top five gripes rather than launching into a full-on takedown. Perhaps this will also alleviate my guilt at betraying Zadie.
1. When word spread that Zadie had a new book coming, there was much rejoicing - and then an additional wave of rejoicing that this book would be about dancing. Through GR, I know I'm among many readers who love a good dance-related book; perhaps we are all still mourning the premature demise of Bunheads (anyone?). But, for a book in which dance supposedly functions as a central metaphor, Swing Time seems frightfully deficient in notable literary or philosophical writing about dancing. This is an especially egregious error in that Zadie Smith is certainly capable of doing the most elegant, affecting, poetic, and deft things with language. And wow, it seems like a passionate and visceral subject such as The Dance would have been an amazing target for her dazzling linguistics and insights! Sure, there's dancing going on IN the book: it's a recurring plot device in both the "Tracey/London" and "Aimee/Africa" sections, and as indicated by the book's title, the narrator references significant moments in the history of dance and their racial and cultural implications. But this is all as dispassionate and dry as the term paper it sounds like. There are no passionate descriptions, or even especially descriptive descriptions, of actual dance. There is much talk of the importance of dance and the love of dance, but absolutely no showing of it. A YA potboiler about vampire ballerinas would probably contain more fascinating writing about actual dance. The power of dance as conveyed through this book would be comparable to reading Billie Holiday's biography - a sad story, to be sure - but without ever actually hearing her songs or voice to bring that story to life.
2. You know how everyone is annoyed by Nick Carraway, especially when played in a film by Tobey McGuire, since in my experience everyone also seems annoyed by Tobey McGuire?...no, just me and the folks I know? Anyway, my point is that a passively observant (but not especially insightful or perceptive), shallowly characterized and non-evolving cipher of a narrator can be hard to love, and in Swing Time we have an excellent specimen. The narrator is unnamed, leading myself and others to consider the possibility that this character is "meant to be this (bland) way" in service of some grander big picture literary project. Maybe, but if you have to consider granting a special concession to the author on this kind of basis, then that literary project just didn't work.
3. Oh, and even if you don't mind the narrator, never fear: there are many other under- or un-developed characters to choose from. Specifically, most of the characters in Africa, Aimee and her entourage, and quite honestly, even Tracey (especially post-childhood). With most of these characters, I didn't get a solid sense of how they talked, looked, or behaved, what they believed, or what motivated their actions, which often seemed incongruous and came out of nowhere. In some of Zadie's other books, we get vivid stream-of-consciousness internal monologues from a diversity of characters, which worked a hell of a lot better for me than having everything filtered through the limited no-name-ator of this book. As others have observed, the narrator's mother is by far the most developed, multi-dimensional, interesting character, and I enjoyed parts of this book as a kind of novella about her.
4. The character of Aimee warrants a special critique. If, of all possible jobs that exist, you decide as an author to make your narrator/protagonist the personal assistant of a huge international pop star, then I feel like you have a responsibility to do more with the international pop star character than merely use her as a plot mechanism to send the narrator on periodic visits to Africa. Surely there are other ways to accomplish this, or even to incorporate the themes the Africa sections attempt to address. Aimee appears in only a few short scenes in the book, and her instant transformation into a clueless would-be humanitarian isn't discussed or described but rather a thing we are simply meant to understand and accept - again, lots of telling with no showing. Aimee is so shallowly characterized that getting any idea of what she is like relies on the reader's own ability to collage together attributes of various known celebrities (something I wasn't really able to do because I just don't give a shit about them). I know Zadie Smith is a hardworking author, so I was confused because this technique just seems super lazy and pointless. Also, I was resentful that I was forced to try to conjure up thoughts of people like Angelina Jolie when a big reason I read in the first place is to try to get away from pervasive celebrity culture that I don't give a crap about.
5. There are authors people read for plot, and Zadie Smith isn't one of them and doesn't need to be. So I was dismayed at how this book ultimately resorts to cumbersome plot devices, which toward the conclusion especially become dramatic and contrived. Without giving spoilers (and btw: having to worry about spoilers in a Zadie Smith book? Damn, that's cray-cray!), more stuff happens in the final chunk of pages than in large preceding swaths of the book. Even the whole shuttling back and forth in alternate chapters between London and Africa, past and present, and trying to tie together various loose ends, all feels belabored and forced. Like many readers, I came to dread the non-London chapters because their execution seemed so inferior in comparison.
What makes me saddest overall is that I really liked this book in its earliest pages, where Zadie uses her characteristic portrayal of diverse working-class London girlhood to begin exploring the themes and big ideas with which this book is concerned. I honestly think she could have continued on in this vein and wound up with a more effective and powerful book in the tradition of NW and White Teeth. I respect the author's right to embark on a new kind of project, but unfortunately, this book, and the reading of it, felt exactly like a project in the end.