Wolf’s review of Harvest > Likes and Comments
74 likes · Like
I agree. I used to be an agricultural historian and wanted to love this book but I found it artificial and contrived. The semi poetic language grated upon me. I didn't believe in Walter Thirsk, or indeed any of the characters. Disappointing.
Disagree, but from a different perspective. This isn't a work of historical fiction in the mode of, I don't know, Phillipa Gregory say. If you come to it like that, then of course you will be disappointed. The history and the enclosure setting are just a stage on which to set Crace's real interests - an exploration of how social relations can break down, what they mean to us and how we react in these situations. The prose is literary in style because Crace is a literary writer. Few writers can deal so easily and to my mind so convincingly with such a complex interaction of themes and ideas as this. Harvest is actually a very important book - especially as it is probably the last from one of our very best writers.
I'm very glad that you enjoyed the book a bit more than I did! As I think I tried to say, it's not a bad book but was, for me, a disappointing one. I also appreciate that I am probably in something of a minority of readers.
I appreciate your point of view and understand that what Crace is trying to do is something that goes beyond the literal and examines themes and ideas wider than a specific historical set of events. I think I acknowledged this when I made reference to the fact that looking for a clear time period when the novel is set might be missing the point of the novel.
That said, sadly, it just did not work for me. Even a fantasy needs to be sufficiently grounded in a reality that we can accept it. For me, the issues I had meant that the story constantly bumped up against its own internal problems.
His prose style, I'm afraid, whilst at times beautiful and poetic just became arch and implausible for me at greater length. Personally, I don't find the fact that he is writing a self consciously literary novel excuses this.
Hi Wolf. Well it wouldn't do for us all to think alike, I suppose. I think a lot of people failed to like Crace (and not this his 11th novel) because they find his disregard for precision a problem. It was slated by the Daily Telegraph reviewer in much the same terms as your comments for example. Me, I strongly suspect that people will be reading and studying "the Crace canon" in 200 years time. People ask me what author does he most resemble. Well... Crace uses historical settings to spin what is essential an oral story, makes up words, plays with his audience and packs more themes and metaphors on a page that most people are comfortable with on a first reading - so Shakespeare then is clearly his nearest comparator. If you want a more modern one, maybe Jim Farrell. No one accuses either of these two of "being too poetic" or loosing it through lack of exact historic accuracy.
thanks for your review Wolf, I agree with it so much! You put exactly what I thought into words, Walter was such an annoying narrator that I actually felt resentful to him as he was preventing me from getting closer to the characters that were more interesting (every other character except him!) was totally surprised that Jim Crace won a literary prize this week of 100,000e.I suspect this is due to his body of work as a whole. Don't think I could ever risk reading Crace again though..the last few chapters were torture!I felt like I was the one in the stocks..
Thank you, Belinda. It seems to be a book which sharply divides opinion - not necessarily a bad thing - but like you this book irritated me too often.
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful commentary but I think some of the issues you point out with the story were actually intentional ex. I think the author is deliberately abstract with his characters so the story can have universal reach.
Thank you.
I agree with you that the author did intentionally avoid filling in a lot of details because Crace wanted to avoid a definite setting. I've no doubt he would also say it was to emphasise the universality of the setting and the timelessness of so much of life in the countryside before enclosure and the agricultural revolution. For me, at least, it just doesn't work. The result was I just didn't find it convincing at all because people's lives did change in ways that altered what they did and their attitudes.
Still, I hope you enjoyed it more than me!
I like when the narrator abandons a 4-year-old to death, sets an innocent prisoner free only to help him, ploughs a field to prove a point, and then takes 'shrooms. It all makes sense if you think about it!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jan
(new)
Nov 02, 2013 07:39AM
I agree. I used to be an agricultural historian and wanted to love this book but I found it artificial and contrived. The semi poetic language grated upon me. I didn't believe in Walter Thirsk, or indeed any of the characters. Disappointing.
reply
|
flag
Disagree, but from a different perspective. This isn't a work of historical fiction in the mode of, I don't know, Phillipa Gregory say. If you come to it like that, then of course you will be disappointed. The history and the enclosure setting are just a stage on which to set Crace's real interests - an exploration of how social relations can break down, what they mean to us and how we react in these situations. The prose is literary in style because Crace is a literary writer. Few writers can deal so easily and to my mind so convincingly with such a complex interaction of themes and ideas as this. Harvest is actually a very important book - especially as it is probably the last from one of our very best writers.
I'm very glad that you enjoyed the book a bit more than I did! As I think I tried to say, it's not a bad book but was, for me, a disappointing one. I also appreciate that I am probably in something of a minority of readers.I appreciate your point of view and understand that what Crace is trying to do is something that goes beyond the literal and examines themes and ideas wider than a specific historical set of events. I think I acknowledged this when I made reference to the fact that looking for a clear time period when the novel is set might be missing the point of the novel.
That said, sadly, it just did not work for me. Even a fantasy needs to be sufficiently grounded in a reality that we can accept it. For me, the issues I had meant that the story constantly bumped up against its own internal problems.
His prose style, I'm afraid, whilst at times beautiful and poetic just became arch and implausible for me at greater length. Personally, I don't find the fact that he is writing a self consciously literary novel excuses this.
Hi Wolf. Well it wouldn't do for us all to think alike, I suppose. I think a lot of people failed to like Crace (and not this his 11th novel) because they find his disregard for precision a problem. It was slated by the Daily Telegraph reviewer in much the same terms as your comments for example. Me, I strongly suspect that people will be reading and studying "the Crace canon" in 200 years time. People ask me what author does he most resemble. Well... Crace uses historical settings to spin what is essential an oral story, makes up words, plays with his audience and packs more themes and metaphors on a page that most people are comfortable with on a first reading - so Shakespeare then is clearly his nearest comparator. If you want a more modern one, maybe Jim Farrell. No one accuses either of these two of "being too poetic" or loosing it through lack of exact historic accuracy.
thanks for your review Wolf, I agree with it so much! You put exactly what I thought into words, Walter was such an annoying narrator that I actually felt resentful to him as he was preventing me from getting closer to the characters that were more interesting (every other character except him!) was totally surprised that Jim Crace won a literary prize this week of 100,000e.I suspect this is due to his body of work as a whole. Don't think I could ever risk reading Crace again though..the last few chapters were torture!I felt like I was the one in the stocks..
Thank you, Belinda. It seems to be a book which sharply divides opinion - not necessarily a bad thing - but like you this book irritated me too often.
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful commentary but I think some of the issues you point out with the story were actually intentional ex. I think the author is deliberately abstract with his characters so the story can have universal reach.
Thank you. I agree with you that the author did intentionally avoid filling in a lot of details because Crace wanted to avoid a definite setting. I've no doubt he would also say it was to emphasise the universality of the setting and the timelessness of so much of life in the countryside before enclosure and the agricultural revolution. For me, at least, it just doesn't work. The result was I just didn't find it convincing at all because people's lives did change in ways that altered what they did and their attitudes.
Still, I hope you enjoyed it more than me!
I like when the narrator abandons a 4-year-old to death, sets an innocent prisoner free only to help him, ploughs a field to prove a point, and then takes 'shrooms. It all makes sense if you think about it!
