This book put me in a bit of a slump. I've put off writing about it for some time now, but I feel ready to say what I think should be heard.
While I found the first page enticingly full of texture (the grass in the park is wet and steaming and each individual blade is "stroked harp-like by invisible fingers of air"), 'Falling Hour' wasn't worth the twenty-five dollars I spent to obtain it. It almost made me hate literature, actually. The poetic language of the first page led me to believe that the book had something more to it-- if not a story, then some meaningful message-- but beyond that first page is an obnoxious ramble that demands far too much from readers.
Though I did manage to read the whole book in full, each successive chapter proceeded to suffocate me more than the last. It did not inspire. It did not open up my soul to higher planes of existence. It brought me down, down, down into the mires of a history that no individual in their right mind can ever be properly aware of, all at once, in any given lifetime.
Countless times, I found myself wondering: How is this a novel? My asking this has nothing to do with the fact that 'Falling Hour' is plotless. There is some plotless fiction that I like. The thing is, I spent more time thinking about the nature of this book and its composition-- why it is the way it is-- than I did its substance (which is interesting, given that the purpose of fiction, in my opinion, is to allow readers to forget who or where they are, to inspire change or creation, and to encourage empathy). Instead of getting to escape my reality, I was made all the more painfully aware of my privileged existence in a "fake country" that is inevitably a part of a troubled world. It's not terrible to be reminded of this fact, but it is precisely the reason I (and most people) read books: to forget, and then remember again in a way that is humbling as opposed to nauseating.
At times, I wanted to shake the narrator, to beg him to please follow through (and not postpone until the very end) with one meaningful strand of narration or theory. I suppose his inability to do this is owing to his self-diagnosed "broken brain" or "skin of ice." Some excuse for wholly abstaining from linearity, if you ask me...
The book *was* able to hold my attention when discussing religion or Canadian nationalism. I like the bit on p. 85, when Hugh calls Canada out for being "a liberal-Methodistical state [...] prevent[ing] a fight for real socialism, real radicalism, and hushing anybody who tries to with its smothering and suffocating and rules." There's no doubting that Geoffrey is gifted in terms of his ability to trace complex historical movements, all in decent prose, but the whole thing is a tangled mess. Maybe that's the point? If it is the point (for the book to be a tangled mess) then I really do wonder what is going on at Coach House these days.
Two stars: I recognize the book has merit, but I strongly believe it could have been condensed into a short story, and been much better for it. The author can write a good sentence, but can he write a good book? I would love to see it.