Melanie’s review of The Bone Clocks > Likes and Comments

Good review. Hope to get to this one soon.

I will not buy this at the airport. I will not buy this at the airport.

It's MY vacation. If I feel like buying this at the airport and schlepping it around France, I will. So there. Great response to JW, Melanie.

Exactly.

"Suspension of disbelief does not annihilate meaning."
Touché Mélanie. So sorry for you Mr. Wood.
Your perceptive words flicker with light and hope in spite of whatever dark future awaits us, Mélanie. Brilliant. Brilliant and powerful words, yours are.

Excellent Mélanie.

Diane S. wrote: "Good review. Hope to get to this one soon."

Thanks Diane! I really enjoyed this one...

Julie wrote: "I will not buy this at the airport. I will not buy this at the airport.

It's MY vacation. If I feel like buying this at the airport and schlepping it around France, I will. So there. Great respon..."

Ha! I hope you did buy it! And say hello to France for me, I'm long overdue...

T.D. wrote: "Exactly."

I really enjoy James Wood's reviews but this one rubbed me the wrong way. :)

Dolors wrote: ""Suspension of disbelief does not annihilate meaning."
Touché Mélanie. So sorry for you Mr. Wood.
Your perceptive words flicker with light and hope in spite of whatever dark future awaits us, Méla..."

Thanks Dolors! I really felt like coming to this novel's defense. I thought James Wood confused too many things in his review.

Lynne wrote: "Excellent Mélanie."

Thanks Lynne! I felt combative yesterday. ;)

Oh, man. That Woods review was *super* problematic and annoying. A nice rejoinder.

I loved this review.

Thanks Kristen! That review was problematic on many levels and as much as I usually love and value his reviewing, he really did confuse things in this one. You cannot ask a Picasso to be a Vermeer.

Thank you Garima! :)

I am not much of Mitchell fan. But I absolutely loved the sentiments expressed in this review, Melanie.

Thank you Megha! :)

I didn't read the The Bone Clocks yet but I loved your review. Nothing like a strong takedown of a "professional" critic. Fantastic!

Did you read Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet? That was pretty great.

I don't trust James Wood's reviews. Since there is so much to read anyway, I've found myself skipping them. He sometimes seems to me to be all about demonstrating his "superior" opinions, and I don't want him spoiling books for me. I prefer your review, Melanie!

Thanks Craig!

Thanks Jan! He's written the occasional passionate endorsement of a writer or new talent and those are his best, most genuine reviews. But he can be quite the elitist when he wants to...

"Suspension of disbelief does not annihilate meaning." What a great line, and so fitting for this book and for readers who might shy away from the fantasy elements in it.

Thanks Genevieve! I completely agree with you. :)

Great review. I live my reading life suspending my disbelief. I thought that was the purpose of fiction.

Thanks Sue! Exactly. :)

Love your review! My first time reading this author. I think I will have to continue.

Thanks Dawn! The only other novel that I've read by him is "Cloud Atlas" which was equally great. :)

The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me.

Ted wrote: "The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me."

Melanie's review is beautiful counsel to enjoy a reading experience and not to worry about what others think.

I guess we all have limitations on our time, and some guidance helps us prioritise our reading, but I despair when people dismiss the potential of an author or book they might like on the basis of one assertion.

Megha wrote: "I am not much of Mitchell fan. But I absolutely loved the sentiments expressed in this review, Melanie."

Echoing that comment, and the central message of your review wholeheartedly, Melanie. But we all, even James Wood, have the right to express our feelings when a book hasn't given us a satisfying reading experience. I haven't read this one or Wood's review but it seems to me from the gr reviews I have read that for every enthusiastic response to The Bone Clocks, there's an unenthusiastic one to match it.
I love that we have the freedom to say what we feel and the logical extension of your argument is that one reader's definition of dazzling gifts is not the same as another's. The argument should not be about the fact that being transported and moved are second-rate emotions. Clearly they are not and never have been. But what transports and moves one reader may bore/disappoint another reader completely.

Fionnuala wrote: "...what transports and moves one reader may bore/disappoint another reader completely."

True, Fi, but wouldn't you expect that the boredom/disappointment would be described in subjective terms, not "objective" assertions that the writing is "bad"?

Did he say that? Hmm. Will have to look him up.
Can we never say that writing is bad though?
If you said my writing was bad, it would make me examine it more closely and that would be a good thing. If we can never pronounce the word 'bad', we may be in danger of thinking the poor and the mediocre to be good and great.

I'm trying to differentiate between I think something is bad (because there is something about it I don't like) and something is "objectively" bad. Sometimes the wording of the review doesn't imply a subjective "I think". I'm not necessarily commenting on JW.

Skim-read the Woods review, a bit too much summary for my taste, but I thought the general commentary fair and objective - I didn't spot where he said that the writing is bad but I did notice that he said Mitchell's prose is better than Mark Haddon's.

Sorry, Melanie, for using your review to continue a conversation Ian and I have been having elsewhere. Bowing out now.

Ted wrote: "The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me."

It is just this reaction that worries me about James Wood. He carries a lot of weight, and in several cases he has led me astray. Maybe as Melanie said, it's the elitist thing, looking down his nose at books he may not understand and oh so magnanimously elevating other books. At least read other reviews where Mr. Wood is concerned, I'd say--both professional and Goodreads.

Ted wrote: "The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me."

I can completely see how some people would not like this book, and that's perfectly fine. I just happen to think he's a much deeper writer than James Wood made him sound like. You'd probably like "Cloud Atlas" more if you haven't read it. :)

Fionnuala wrote: "Megha wrote: "I am not much of Mitchell fan. But I absolutely loved the sentiments expressed in this review, Melanie."

Echoing that comment, and the central message of your review wholeheartedly, ..."

I completely agree! The thing that bothered me the most was not that James Wood didn't like the book, that is his right entirely, but the fact that he indirectly implied that elements of "fantasy" in a novel meant an absence of meaning or any deep thinking. :)

Jan wrote: "Ted wrote: "The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me."

It is just this..."

Reading James Wood is great but yes, I totally agree, readers should also follow the great Ron Charles in the Washington Post, Laura Miller of Salon, a few in the New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books and the Guardian. Not to mention the amazing interviews by Michael Silverblatt on the "Bookworm" podcast. An array of opinions is always better than just one. :)

Melanie wrote: "Reading James Wood is great but yes, I totally agree, readers should also follow the great Ron Charles in the Washington Post, Laura Miller of Salon, a few in the New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books and the Guardian. Not to mention the amazing interviews by Michael Silverblatt on the "Bookworm" podcast. An array of opinions is always better than just one. :)
"

I have taken note. Thanks for the suggestions, Melanie!

Melanie wrote: "I completely agree! The thing that bothered me the most was not that James Wood didn't like the book, that is his right entirely, but the fact that he indirectly implied that elements of "fantasy" in a novel meant an absence of meaning or any deep thinking. :) .."

Did he imply that? I didn't read that into his words although admittedly, I skim read his teview since it was very long. I'm almost tempted to see if he's ever reviewed Ursula Le Guin - I don't think anyone could argue that there's an absence of deep meaning in her fantasy writing.

Fionnuala wrote: "Melanie wrote: "I completely agree! The thing that bothered me the most was not that James Wood didn't like the book, that is his right entirely, but the fact that he indirectly implied that elemen..."

That's definitely what I understand from the opening of his review, the blatant opposition between "storytelling" and "deep meaning":

"As the novel’s cultural centrality dims, so storytelling—J. K. Rowling’s magical Owl of Minerva, equipped for a thousand tricks and turns—flies up and fills the air. Meaning is a bit of a bore, but storytelling is alive. The novel form can be difficult, cumbrously serious; storytelling is all pleasure, fantastical in its fertility, its ceaseless inventiveness. Easy to consume, too, because it excites hunger while simultaneously satisfying it: we continuously want more. The novel now aspires to the regality of the boxed DVD set: the throne is a game of them. And the purer the storytelling the better—where purity is the embrace of sheer occurrence, unburdened by deeper meaning. Publishers, readers, booksellers, even critics, acclaim the novel that one can deliciously sink into, forget oneself in, the novel that returns us to the innocence of childhood or the dream of the cartoon, the novel of a thousand confections and no unwanted significance. What becomes harder to find, and lonelier to defend, is the idea of the novel as—in Ford Madox Ford’s words—a “medium of profoundly serious investigation into the human case.”

Yes, ok, but that is only a general introduction, and it is also quite a fine piece of writing, I think, which makes some good points about fantasy fiction in general.
I was curious how he segued from that to Mitchell so I looked at his piece again and saw that farther on, after he has lavished a lot of praise on Mitchell's previous work, he does say:
But pure storytelling seems to have triumphed here; the human case has disappeared.
So I guess you are right. But I still can't see what is so bad about him saying that. He is praising the story telling, he's just not finding any deep meaning in it.
Thanks in any case for bothering to continue this conversation, Melanie. I don't even know why I'm arguing for James Wood since I rarely read him!
I'm impressed by the reviews though...both yours and his ;-)

Fionnuala wrote: "Yes, ok, but that is only a general introduction, and it is also quite a fine piece of writing, I think, which makes some good points about fantasy fiction in general.
I was curious how he segued ..."

:) Thank you for your comments Fionnuala! The conversation around this particular review of mine has been most enlightening!

Now I have to read this !

I think you'll love it Angela. :)

Thank you, Melanie... I am only about 50 pages in, then I read James Wood's review a little while ago. I wondered what I'd gotten myself into. I like your view. Sounds like mine, in general, so I'll keep going! thanks!

James Wood's review is very insightful, but I got the impression he was trying too hard to fit David Mitchell into a preconceived idea of what his novel should be. Best just to sit back and enjoy the ride!

Melanie wrote: "Ted wrote: "The JW review quite convinced me that I need not spend time reading the book, too many other books that I would enjoy more. The whole thing just sounded bizarre to me."

I can completel..."

I just stumbled back here after signing off previously. There were various comments that I found interesting, about Woods. I generally read just about everything in the NYer, and they have no writers I simply skip because I don't care for their views or reviews.

That said, the reason Woods' review turned me off on this book was not an opinion of his at all (the only one I can remember his expressing is that he thought Cloud Atlas (which I read and enjoyed a lot) was better than Bone Clocks). Such a statement by a reviewer would not keep me from reading a book by any means.

The thing about the review which turned me off to this book was Woods' (I must assume) quite straightforward description of the "super-being" line in the story, which reminded me of nothing so much as L. Ron Hubbarb's absolutely crazy "non-fictional" mythology of Scientology. Ugh. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientol...)

So my reaction was, if I want this sort of weird SF, I'll look to an SF writer for it. But it's not something I want anyway, so I felt a pass was in order.

James Wood would have to be the worst prism through which to preconceive whether you would like The Bone Clocks. For what it's worth, he refers to the supernatural, not superbeings. I don't think Scientology has a monopoly on the supernatural. Where I think Wood faltered is his suggestion that the sublunary world was relatively unimportant compared with the supernatural in the novel. The supernatural world in the novel is the fun, comic, B-movie aspect. Wood got so hung up on his thesis that the novel failed to comply with his own concept of belief in literature generally that he failed to see or appreciate the human in the novel.

Ian wrote: "James Wood would have to be the worst prism through which to preconceive whether you would like The Bone Clocks. For what it's worth, he refers to the supernatural, not superbeings. I don't think S..."

You've obviously read the piece more recently than I, Ian. But it makes no difference to me. Sorry.

Nor me ;)