Missing You (Mystery) by Harlan Coben, 2014
Harlan Coben is a genius at creating stories that combine mystery, surprise, complicated connections among characters and
insights into the strange business of being human.
Here we have Kat Donovan, a NYPD detective, unmarried and in her early forties. To her dismay, Kat finds out that her best
friend, Stacy, has signed her up on a dating website. But, what the hell, Kat decides to log in anyway. What does she find
but a posting for her ex-fiancé, a guy whom she loved dearly but who left her with no
explanation and whom she hasn’t seen for nearly twenty years! Should she reach out to him now?
Meanwhile, Kat finds out about the impending death, from cancer, of the hitman who confessed to killing her dad, also an
NYPD detective. Kat’s never been satisfied with this guy’s taking the rap for the killing; there’s always
been something fishy about it to her. Should she try to get the truth from him on his deathbed?
The other main element of the book first comes to us from the viewpoint of a guy who wakes up and finds that he’s
locked in a box in the earth, his hands and feet bound. He’d been on his way to propose to the most wonderful woman
in the world but something happened – he doesn’t know what – and here he is, imprisoned in utter darkness.
As you might suspect, his plight eventually ties into Kat’s investigations.
In weaving together these stories, Mr. Coben elaborates them with intricate detail and intriguing questions. He also offers
passages that are more thought-provoking than what you get in the typical mystery. Here, for instance, is Kat’s reaction
to the parade of humanity on the dating website:
It was easy to be cynical and poke fun, but when she stepped back, Kat realized something that pierced her straight through
the heart: Every profile was a life. Simple, yep, but behind every cliché-ridden, please-like-me
profile was a fellow human being with dreams and aspirations and desires. These people hadn’t signed up, paid their
fee, or filled out this information idly. Think about it: Every one of these lonely people came to this website – signed
in and clicked on profiles – hoping it would be different this time, hoping against hope that finally they would meet
the one person who, in the end, would be the most important person in their lives.
And here’s a bit of wisdom from Kat’s friend, Stacy, who owns an investigative firm that specializes in catching
You learn a lot about relationships when your job, in some ways, is to break them up. But the truth is, almost every relationship
has breaking points. Every relationship has fissures and cracks. That doesn’t mean it’s meaningless or bad or
even wrong. We know that everything in our lives is complex and gray. Yet we somehow expect our relationships to never be
anything but simple and pure.
If the book has any defects, I would cite the fact that Mr. Coben seems to have a grudge against single guys hitting on
women. Nearly every guy Kat encounters is a jerk. One of them, though, does eventually prove himself to be a decent human
being. By way of other possible flaws in the book, one man on a dating website is described as a "widow." This made me wonder
if the word that I always assumed to be correct in this situation – "widower" – was now considered old fashioned.
Could it have something to do with gender equality in language, with levelling the playing field, in the way that you can’t
speak of "actresses" any more, that all practitioners of the art, regardless of sex, are now called "actors?" On the other
hand, maybe the use of "widow" in this instance was just an oversight or a typo, given that I did find "widower" appropriately
used elsewhere in the text.
Of course, Missing You includes the violence that you find in any Harlan Coben book. He seems determined to
keep reminding us that there are some really bad guys out there who will do things to other people that are hard to read
about. So hard, in fact, that I skipped a few pages. But that didn’t interfere with my enjoyment of the rest of
the book. Mr. Coben’s handling of dialogue reaches heights of artistry in a tricky scene where Kat has an encounter
with a crime boss; the two of them tip-toe around each other, neither yielding anything, but each getting what they need,
with a finesse that is believable and as intricate as choreographed ballet. Bringing the book to a bravura climax, Mr. Coben
packs the last eighty pages with fear, suspense, romance, tenderness, sadness, joy, cleverness and amazement.
The Silkworm (Mystery) by Robert Galbraith, 2014
Sometimes a person can feel a bit remiss about never having read any of the works of one of the most successful and celebrated
writers of our time. However, nothing I heard about the Harry Potter series gave me the feeling that those books sounded like
my kind of thing. This mystery, written by J.K. Rowling under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith, sounded more appealing to me.
Especially given the rapturous response to it from the media. My name went on the library’s waiting list at somewhere
around the 800 number. In the meantime, I was strongly tempted to buy a discounted copy of the book at the neighbourhood pharmacy.
However, my sense of thrift prevailed and I hung on for the library copy. The wait didn’t turn out to be too long, as
the library has about 50 copies.
I’m glad that I didn’t succumb to the temptation to fork out money for this book.
The story is about the disappearance of a British writer, Owen Quine His wife, Leonora, has asked Cormoran Strike, a private
detective, to help find her hubby. We soon find out that Quine had written a scurrilous, satirical novel about people
in the London literary scene. The book he wrote has mythological, symbolic overtones, leading to unimaginable grotesqueries.
But it’s very clear who the real-life models for the characters in his book are. The book hasn’t been published
yet but the manuscript has been circulating among the people depicted. Naturally, everyone who has been hugely insulted in
the book is seen as a suspect in Quine’s disappearance.
Silkworm could be said to succeed – just barely – in terms of a mystery. There are enough clues and red
herrings to keep you reading, and there’s a nice surprise in the discovery of the identity of the culprit. But
much of the material covered in the process of getting to that point is of little interest. There are too many disparate characters,
none of them interesting enough to care about. Perhaps, if you know the London literary scene, you can enjoy the satire; maybe
that’s what has the critics cheering. For me, though, the flurry of sparks never ignites any lift-off.
Granted, the character of Strike is well done. He’s a rough-hewn, moody vet who lost part of a leg in the Afghan
war. It feels like an encounter with a real person as we follow him through his life and find out how he is going to cope
with what each new day throws at him. And Leonora, the wife of the disappeared writer, is a sympathetic character, if in a
somewhat unusual way. She’s very straight forward and blunt, almost to the point of rudeness, but with no malevolent
intentions. The fact that she has no airs about her and that she’s not showing the expected remorse about her hubby’s
disappearance makes her the prime suspect in the eyes of the cops. Of course, Strike believes they’re wrong about that
and the main point of his quest is to try to prove that Leonora isn’t the witch they take her for. Another character,
Robin Ellacott, Strike’s assistant, isn’t a particularly remarkable person but at least there’s some ambiguity
about her as she struggles to make Strike see her as a potential detective.
Unfortunately, ambiguity and three-dimensional believability are completely lacking in all the other characters. Most
of them are ridiculously shallow and one-dimensional. About one editor, we’re constantly told that he reeks of alcohol.
Strike has recently separated from a former fiancée who is one of the worst termagants
you can possibly imagine: deceitful, bad tempered, calculating, scheming, jealous, controlling and abusive. And yet we’re
supposed to believe that Strike, a reasonably sane and intelligent man, is still mooning about her. Further in the unbelievable
character department, Robin, Strike’s assistant, has a fiancé who is jealous, over-bearing,
unreasonable and controlling. We never hear from him except in a spiteful, disagreeable mode.
Is this broad characterization – the very obvious categorizing of characters as good or bad – an occupational
hazzard for someone who writes novels for young people? Perhaps the same question could be asked about Ms. Rowling’s
tendency to sound –again and again – the same note about a person or a setting. About Leonora, the wife of the
disappeared writer, we never hear any mention of her without emphasis on the fact that her wardrobe is shabby, or her house
is drab, her look is unkempt, etc. At one point, Strike visits two women who may be suspects. Much is made of the fact that
their apartment is a shambles and, when they offer tea, wouldn’t you know they bring out "cheap" biscuits! It seems
to me that this writing is showing the remnants of the class system that still sometimes haunts British writing. Either things
are fine and excellent and to our liking – or they are beneath us and we look down our noses on them.
Still, Ms Rowling can offer up the occasional tasty morsels. Here, Robin's weighing the consequences of her expressing
her concern about Strike's hurt knee:
An observant childhood spent in the company of three brothers had given Robin an unusual and accurate insight into the
frequently contrary reaction of males to female concern....
Women, in his experience, often expected you to understand that it was a measure of how much they loved you that they tried
their damnedest to change you.
...the women fell silent with the instinctive courtesy women often show to incapacitated males
Here’s Strike reflecting on Leonora’s asking him for help in finding her husband:
It had been a simple wish born of wariness and of love, if not for the errant Quine then for the daughter who missed him.
For the purity of her desire, Strike felt he owed her the best he could give.
And yet, Ms Rowling’s sentence structure can be awkward at times: "She knew she must have changed color from the
book on the two men’s faces, and to her fear that she might pass out was added embarrassment that she was being a liability
to Strike." Ms Rowling also can’t resist falling back on purple prose now and then:
- Fancourt let out a strangled moan of horror....
- The malignity of what had been done there had been almost orgiastic, a carefully calibrated display of sadistic showmanship.
- Was Anstis capable of comprehending the mind that had nurtured a plan of murder in the fetid soil of Quine’s own
And then there are the clichés that, despite her great acclaim as a writer, Ms. Rowling
doesn’t seem to see any reason for avoiding
- ...grinned ruefully
- His knuckles were whitening
- Kathryn snarled through clenched teeth
- Strike saw the editor’s eyes widen behind his horn-rimmed glasses
- "Ropes and a burqa!" ejaculated Kathryn Kent.
- His square jaw tightened.
In the author’s note at the end of the book. Ms. Rowling thanks the many people who helped to make the writing of
this book so enjoyable. I’m reminded of Wallace Stegner’s observation that hard writing makes easy reading. The
inevitable corollary would be that easy writing makes for hard reading. I can’t escape the conclusion that Ms. Rowling
had too much fun here.
The Trauma of Everyday Life (Psychology) by Mark Epstein, 2013
Life sucks. Deal with it!
That’s pretty much the message of The Trauma of Everyday Life, by Mark Epstein. As you might expect, however,
Dr. Epstein, a psychiatrist who practises in New York City, draws out the theme with considerable subtlety and nuance. What
might be considered a summary of his thinking on the subject is found on page 57:
Trauma is unavoidable, despite our strong wishes to the contrary. Facing this truth, this disillusioning attack on our
omnipotence, with an attitude of honesty and caring strips it of much of its threat. When we are constantly telling ourselves
that things shouldn’t be this way, we reinforce the very dread we are trying to get away from. But feeling our way into
the ruptures of our lives lets us become more real. We begin to appreciate the fragile web in which we are all enmeshed, and
we may even reach out to offer a helping hand to those who are struggling more than we are.
Not surprisingly, psychotherapy has a lot to do with Dr. Epstein’s recommended approach to "facing this truth" and
"feeling our way into the ruptures of our lives." In his case, though, it’s a psychotherapy that’s very much immersed
in Buddhist teaching and practice. (Dr. Epstein is a Buddhist teacher who gives lectures on the subject and leads meditations.)
The key point in Dr. Epstein’s Buddhist approach to trauma has much to do with the recognition of the primal trauma
in the life of the Buddha himself: the death of his mother when he was only seven days old.
In focusing on this aspect of the Buddha’s life, Dr. Epstein's approach diverges from that of many Buddhist scholars
and practitioners. Few of them pay any attention to this fundamental trauma in the Buddha’s life, he says; most of them
feel that Buddhism is all about rising above such traumas or distancing themselves from the difficult emotions that such upheavals
can cause. For Dr. Epstein, though, a true understanding of the Buddha’s teaching and his way of life depends on an
appreciation of the way that his insights arose from his acknowledgment of this huge tragedy in the very beginning of his
The many ramifications of that, as explored by Dr. Epstein, are too diverse and multi-faceted to explore here. Suffice
it to say that his book contains a lot of material for the reader who likes to reflect on these ways of coping with the complexities
of our lives. Dr. Epstein offers many quotes from colleagues and other experts. He makes frequent references to his cases
and his patients. He generously gives lots of feedback from his own experiences, such as his personal struggles with understanding
Buddhism, as well as his breakthroughs.
One of Dr. Epstein’s oft-repeated observations is that the shocks of trauma break through the "absolutisms"
of our lives. In other words, a big upheaval, forces us to look at our lives in a new way, to see that what we thought was
all-important may not be so. And what is it that causes us to be so shocked and upset? It’s the intimation of the flimsy
nature of our own existence. On this point, Dr. Epstein refers to a Dutch psychologist named Johan Barendregt, who wrote a
paper on the origin of phobias: "Barendregt’s conclusion was that most obsessive anxieties and fears are reactions to
the terrifying intimation of one’s own insubstantiality."
Fascinating as the many such insights are, this may not be the book you want if you’re looking for a casual, friendly
read that will help you make it through the night. There are times when Dr. Epstein leans too much on what seem to me to be
the esoterica of Buddhism. I have some knowledge of the subject from studying and practising Zen but Dr. Epstein takes his
reader into rarefied realms of the teachings where a person can feel a lack of oxygen. For instance, there’s frequent
reference to the explanation for the death of Buddha’s mother seven days after his birth: when she glimpsed the enormity
of her son’s splendour, supposedly, her body could not bear the bliss, so she had to go to heaven. And then there’s
the talk about the time when, in a moment of exhilaration and discovery, the Buddha joyfully threw his rice bowl into a river.
It floated upstream, signifying the change in direction the Buddha now embraced, and then sank to the bottom of the river,
nestling on top of the bowls of the three previous Buddhas from different eras, all of whom had had similar awakenings at
the same spot. The clinking of one bowl striking the others was said to awaken the naga, or serpent, king dwelling
there, alerting him to the proximity of yet another Buddha.
Perhaps readers who are more familiar with the teachings, more comfortable with these symbolic or figurative details, would
get more out of such references than I can. I often had the feeling, when reading this book, that Dr. Epstein is repeating
the same things over and over in just slightly altered ways that are perfectly intelligible to the person who is deeply immersed
in the culture but, perhaps, less accessible to those of us who aren’t. Sometimes Dr. Epstein makes big leaps of thought,
jumps through a lot of hurdles to make connections, in ways that I can’t follow, that aren’t clear to me. For
instance, he talks at length about how the Buddha’s awakening meant that he discovered the importance of kindness. Supposedly,
this was a result of some dreams he had. How Dr. Epstein reaches this conclusion isn’t clear to me. Maybe people who
are more familiar with the tradition see the connections that I’m missing. (Perhaps I could, on reading a book about
Christian spirituality, draw valid inferences that wouldn’t be obvious to readers who were unfamiliar with the
Another recurring problem with the book is that often Dr. Epstein refers to the work of D. W. Winnicott, a British pediatrician
and child psychologist. In some passages, great attention is given to Dr. Winnicott’s theories about what is happening,
in psychological terms, when a baby is feeding at a mother’s breast. There are distinctions made between what this
baby is feeling with this mother and what that baby is feeling with that mother. How does Dr. Winnicott
know what the babies are feeling? Did he interview the babies after each feeding? I’m bothered by the fact that so much
attention is given to the doctor’s spouting of what might be, after all, just a lot of hot air. Maybe this reaction
of mine is just a kind of agnosticism or skepticism towards psychobabble, similar to my problem with some of the Buddhist
Since it’s our mandate here at Dilettante’s Diary to keep an eye on the state of writing in the English-speaking
world, I have to point out some difficulties with Dr. Epstein’s prose.
- This sentence struck me as representative of the awkwardness that occurs now and then in the book: "Some might say she
was regressed, but there is an inherent prejudice in this word that connotes an almost universal fear of the emergence of
such strong feelings of dread."
- It took me several readings to get the sense of this one: "My mind was more concentrated, as the Buddha wished it to be,
but my thoughts were still there, as I did not."
- This one, I can still barely decipher: "In later years, in the Buddhist cultures that grew up in India and then in Tibet,
the word that was used to describe the world we inhabit translated as ‘tolerable,’ in the sense of being barely
- Here we have the grammatical error known as the dangling participle (more than one actually): "Abandoning his wife and
child, debasing himself in the forest striving to liberate himself from his mind and body, his spiritual journey can be read,
from one perspective at least, as an expression of primitive agony."
The problem with the following sentence is that careless writing fails to convey the intended meaning accurately: "In losing
his mother at such an early age, the Buddha affirmed the underlying and inescapable anguish at the heart of existence." I
don’t think so. He didn’t affirm anything through the loss. How could he have? The loss wasn’t something
he hadn’t any control over. I think what Dr. Epstein means to say is that Buddha affirmed "the underlying and inescapable
anguish at the heart of existence" by his attitude to the loss. This isn’t just a case of nit-picking, on my
part. When writers aren’t careful enough to express their meaning precisely, there’s the risk of their distorting
the teaching that they’re trying to convey.
But none of this is to deny that the book, as a whole, was well worth reading. One of my favourite passages is the one
where Dr. Epstein is talking about a visit to a Buddhist master, Ajahn Chah, in his monastery on the Lao border of Thailand.
Dr. Epstein asked what he had learned from his years of contemplation and study. Ajahn Chah pointed to a crystal water glass,
saying how much he loved it: it held water perfectly, it reflected light beautifully, it made a nice ring when he tapped it.
The master followed up with this:
"Yet for me, this glass is already broken. When the wind knocks it over or my elbow knocks it off the shelf and it falls
to the ground and shatters, I say, ‘Of course.’ But when I understand that this glass is already broken, every
minute with it is precious."
For me that little lesson would almost have justified the cost of the book (if I hadn’t borrowed it from the library).
Mission to Paris (Spy/Thriller) by Alan Furst, 2012
A New York Times review of Alan Furst’s more recent novel said that it didn’t quite measure up to his
"dazzling" Mission to Paris. That sent me scurrying to the local library, where I found not just this much-touted book,
but another by the same author.
In Mission to Paris, Mr. Furst tells the story of Fredric Stahl, a Hollywood star of Austrian origins, who has been
sent by his studio to Paris to make a movie in the late summer of 1938. Stahl soon falls into the clutches of Nazi propagandists
who are swarming Paris. They want him to come to Germany to judge a film festival so that they can show that this famous American
actor is friendly to their regime. Stahl, not being by any means stupid, is wary of these pressures, but his bosses back in
Hollywood think it’s a good idea for him to go ahead with the p.r. The officials at the American embassy in Paris think
so too. After all, Stahl could be a helpful source of info about what’s going on in Germany.
One thing that the novel does well is that it shows you how it was possible in those times, if you didn’t know anything
about what Hitler was doing to the Jews and other minorities – or if you shut your mind to any hints of it – to
actually look favourably on his plans. Stahl encounters several people in Paris who, although undeniably right-wing and Fascist
in their outlooks, make a good case for the kind of order and discipline that they think Hitler will bring to society.
The book also gives you a good idea – in case you didn’t have one – of what it’s like to be involved
in the making of a movie. When we see finished movies on the screen, we tend to think they’re all about glamour and
glory. We don’t often think of all the hassles behind the scenes, the complications which lead to the fact that many
movies never get finished. In the case of the one Stahl’s starring in, things are always going wrong with the financing,
the locations, the actors’ health, and various arrangements.
However, I found this book as a whole vastly disappointing, especially given the glowing mention in the NYT. I first
began to feel that things were going south on reading the following, on page12:
Prideaux collapsed very slowly; the hauteur in his expression drained away, his shoulders slumped, and finally his head
lowered so that he stared at the floor.
Among other problems with the writing, there’s too much physical description of characters, including their clothes.
Their back story is sometimes given when it’s not germane. Historical research is worked into dialogue in an obtrusive
way. Sometimes we get tourist-guide history about certain locations. We also get characters telling each other things that
they both know – as in the case of Stahl’s chat with a costume designer about movie making. It’s implausible
that these characters would have any reason to impart the info to each other. The only reason it’s there is so that
the author can impress us with his knowledge of the biz. And when it comes to Mr. Furst’s presentation of a scene
from the movie that’s being shot, the dialogue is as leaden and lifeless as anything you’ll ever see on the printed
What bothers me even more is that sometimes Mr. Furst steps outside the conventions of the third-person narrator in ways
that are jarring. For instance, he’ll say that Stahl encountered a certain official who was wearing a corset under his
uniform. Given that the scene is being presented from Stahl’s point of view, we have to wonder how in the world he’d
know about the other man’s corset. A new character who meets Stahl is, we are told, wearing a suit by a London tailor.
How would Stahl know that? Was the label on the outside of the jacket? We get Mr. Furst’s sly comment that "the hotel
clerks of Paris were pleased when a guest enjoyed the delights of their city." This observation doesn’t have anything
to do with Stahl’s state of mind; it’s only meant to show us what a worldly, knowing guy the author is. In a description
of Stahl’s trip with some colleagues to the scene of an attempted abduction, we get this: "Nobody said much –
a compulsion to chatter when facing action was considered to be bad form." Who says? How would Stahl know that? He’s
a movie actor, not a secret agent. These strike me as instances of an author’s lazily throwing in information that he
wants to pass on without taking care to fit such observations into the point of view that prevails in the scene.
As for excitement and intrigue, the one scene that could have been quite gripping – an attempted abduction –
is one that our hero doesn’t even witness. Somebody tells him about it; he has been kept in the background because the
situation was considered too dangerous for him. That’s consistent with the rather leisurely unspooling of the whole
story. The setting and the era often made me think of Francine Matthews' novel about John F. Kennedy’s derring-do
in Europe: Jack 1939. (Reviewed on DD page dated June 16/14.) Far-fetched as that novel was, it at least provided
lots of very entertaining adventure. Mission to Paris, by contrast, is a thriller for readers who might not have their
heart pills close at hand.
The other novel by Mr. Furst that I picked up is Dark Voyage (2004). After my reading about 20 pages of turgid exposition,
it went back to the library.
Too Far From Home (Space travel) by Chris Jones, 2007
The Globe and Mail’s glowing review of this book popped up in my clipping file when I was looking for something
vaguely scientific. I’ve always wondered what life was like for astronauts up there in outer space: you know, the nitty-gritty,
like going to the bathroom, washing, eating and all that. (I didn’t happen to catch any of the Chris Hatfield stuff.)
This looked like the book that would satisfy my curiosity on the subject.
Writer Chris Jones tells the story of Expedition Six, the three-man trip to the International Space Station. The team members,
consisting of Americans Ken Bowersox and Don Pettit, along with Nikolai Budarin, from Russia, left earth on their journey
to the space station in November 2002. Their arrival went smoothly but, in February of 2003, the Columbia, which was
supposed to provide their ride home, exploded on return to earth. How would the three astronauts stranded on the space station
Mr. Jones plays up the drama and the danger of the Expedition Six’s situation for all it’s worth. And he does
provide details on the mundane subjects that I was wondering about. One passage that I found particularly interesting was
the explanation of eating routines: not just the menus, but the methods of handling the foods and pieces of equipment, keeping
them from flying around and making a mess in a setting without gravity.
Promising as this story might be, however, I was only able to read ninety-five pages of the book.. In page after page,
sentences and word choices that struck me as inappropriate, if not risible, kept interfering with my attempt to continue reading.
Sometimes, the problem was a lack of clarity. As in this sentence: "He carried a sense of detachment with him almost always:
a pilot’s life, if he wants to see the end of it, doesn’t hold a lot of room for romance...." What could be the
meaning of that clause "...if he wants to see the end of it..."? Doesn’t everybody see the end of his or her life, more
or less? And if anything – visual impairment or a coma – does cause you to miss the end of your life, how would
an astronaut’s rejection of romance, his bottling up of his feelings, prevent that?
Mr. Jones tells us that the phonebook of China Lake, a California town near the venue where future astronauts did test
flights, lists some eighty-nine churches or houses of worship. "That’s because for test pilots, touching the face of
God is a full-time gig." On the next page, though, Mr. Jones is talking about the exhilaration that Bowersox, one of the pilots,
feels when he’s flying high enough to get a glimpse of the curvature of the earth: "For Bowersox, moments like those
were holier than he could have ever found in any one of those eighty-nine churches...." So what was it? Did the churches help
the astronauts to touch the face of God or didn’t they???
Mr. Jones says that when some other astronauts had opened their pouches of food packed for their journeys into space, they
sometimes found "something inside that tasted like puke." Has anybody ever tasted puke? Granted, most of us have had it in
our mouths at some time. But I suspect that most of us eject it too quickly to taste it.
As for this sentence, in which Mr. Jones is telling about how one of Pettit’s teachers challenged him – "He
stretched him, too, and groomed him for big dreaming – engineers had picked up from God in building the world" –
one can only charitably assume that a typo or an inadvertent omission has caused the incomprehensibility.
Mr. Jones is also inclined to make fatuous statements. Take this comment on the fact that most astronauts come from lonely,
empty-seeming places: "City kids don’t have the room nor any need to dream. The lights and chaos burn away their imaginations."
Go tell that to Tennessee Williams, Robert LePage, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Emily Carr, Julie Taymor and lots of other
people whose citified origins didn’t stifle their imaginations.
Here, Mr. Jones is talking about how the astronauts, while in space, valued the memory of the everyday actions back home.
"And they had come to understand the true order of things, because they had learned how the universe works." Only astronauts
were privy to such information? Do non-astronauts know nothing about how the universe works?
In another passage, Mr. Jones is saying that the astronauts on the space station would have to learn how to brush their
teeth and wash clothes in space, with a view to much longer trips to Mars. "And if they managed to do each of those boring
things well enough, simply enough, Bowersox, Budarin and Pettit would have found an astronaut’s nirvana. They would
have learned how to push through to the other side of the envelope." Nirvana? Really?? What envelope???
Here, Mr. Jones is contemplating the huge crater left by a meteor near Flagstaff, Arizona:
Every time something like that happens, a string is tied between us and the stars. When something the magnitude of the
meteor that tore a hole into Arizona comes down, that string is more like a corridor, as if a portal has been opened, or a
beam of light has been left to track across the night sky the way the glow from Las Vegas banks against clouds, luring gamblers
from hundreds of miles around. Whatever it is, it’s a magnet, helping the desert draw out not just the peculiars but
the downright alien.
String? Portal? Magnet? Alien? Isn’t somebody getting a little carried away?
Writing like this gets so irritating that a reader – this one, at any rate – becomes hypersensitive, to the extent
that the slightest quirk or flaw becomes exasperating. As in this passage describing a section of the space station that contains
a lot of important equipment: "But like the insides of a watch, most of its complex mechanics were hidden away behind a more
attractive face...." Why the comparison to a watch? Everybody knows what it’s like to have equipment hidden behind closed
doors. The reference to the watch only shows that the writer is trying too hard to make the writing seem colourful and vivid.
As in this bit about the desert venue for test flights: "...we’ve always made this place our proving grounds, blowing
the almighty crap out of sound barriers and land-speed records and chunks of New Mexico." And this, about an outing that
ends "....at the barn of a store with the neon sign that cuts to the chase like 90 proof: LIQUOR is all that it reads,
red lights on green."
It sounds as if the writer is trying to create the impression of testosterone-fuelled prose. He seems to feel that any
real man – presumably his ideal reader – wouldn’t be bothered with a book that presented the facts in a
simple, non-demonstrative way. Mr. Jones’s reader can only be drawn in by writing that’s muscular, powerful and
high-octane. It’s not surprising, then, to learn that Mr. Jones was formerly a sportswriter. He is a contributing editor
to Esquire and he won a national magazine award for the article that became the basis for this book. Clearly, he has
his admirers. I’m guessing it wouldn’t bother him much to hear that I’m not one of them.
Kennedy’s Brain (Mystery) by Henning Mankell, 2005; translation by Laurie Thompson, 2007
This book happened to catch my attention while I was looking for some easy, escape reading. From what I could remember
of Mr. Mankell’s books, his writing didn’t thrill me as much as it did a lot of people. It seemed to me that his
approach to a mystery was too complicated. Still, he’s regarded by many as one of the greatest mystery writers of our
times. So why not give this one a try?
It opens on Louise Cantor, a middle-aged archaeologist who has been working on site in Greece. She’s looking forward
to returning to Sweden but she’s worried that she can’t get an answer when she keeps trying to phone her son Henrik’s
flat in Stockholm. On arrival home, she encounters disaster: Henrik, a healthy twenty-something, is dead in his bed. An autopsy
eventually concludes that it’s a case of suicide by barbiturates. That seems impossible to Louise and to anybody who
knew Henrik. Besides, why was his body clad in pyjamas when Henrik never wore them? Louise’s attempts to find answers
launch her on something of a globe-trotting quest, necessitating an extended leave of absence from her academic work.
For the first half of this book, I enjoyed it very much, not least because of the quality of the prose: spare, clean, thoughtful
and utterly averse to cliché and claptrap. Louise’s interactions with the police
are engaging, as are her thoughts about Henrik’s father, a former lover of hers, who has long since disappeared from
her life. The only significant man for her, now that her son is dead, is her father, Artur, a woodsy, solitary man who provides
a strong shoulder to cry on.
After a certain point, though, the book began to get tiresome. That’s partly because it’s strictly linear:
Louise’s search keeps pushing her from one location to another, from one possible informant to the next one. To me,
that’s never as effective as when a mystery circles around and around a few key characters. The peripatetic approach
here sometimes leads to a flat-footed narrative style of she-did-this-and-then-she-did-that. This book also suffers from the
fact that there’s no "Watson" character. Louise has no one with whom she can mull over possible explanations and solutions
to the mystery – other than her father, Artur, who isn’t sufficiently present to fulfill that role adequately.
Also, Mr. Henning has a tendency to include too many notes of foreshadowing that are meant to be ominous but, by repetition,
start to look corny.
What really kills the book for me, though, is the fact that Louise’s attempt to trace her son’s footsteps over
the past few years propels her into a hellish world of ghastly, Machiavellian scheming on an international scale. Mr. Mankell
apparently wants to make some provocative statements about the dire state of the world as he sees it but it’s all too
nightmarish and grisly for me. And yet, the explanation of the puzzle about Henrik’s pyjamas turns out to be a complete
Private Myths (Psychology) by Anthony Stevens, 1995
You could say that I’m something of an agnostic when it comes to the meaning of dreams. Do they reveal anything significant?
Are they just random firings of the brain? Do they serve some biological or evolutionary purpose? Do they warn us of potential
dangers we might otherwise not be aware of? I dunno. So I figured it might be a good idea to see what an expert had to say
on the subject. Anthony Stevens, as described on the fly leaf of this book, is a "distinguished analyst, psychiatrist and
author of many books."
As a former seminarian trained in the scholastic method, I was pleased to see Dr. Stevens putting in a good word for Aristotle.
After showing that Hippocrates believed that some dreams were divinely inspired, Dr. Stevens writes:
Aristotle, on the other hand, denied both astrological and divine origins to dreams, because the observation of sleeping
animals showed that they dreamed as well. This is a crucial observation, for it makes nonsense of many dream theories, including
Freud’s idea that dreams result from censored sexual wishes. The theories which Aristotle outlined in three books, On
Dreams, On Sleep and Waking, and On Prophecy in Sleep, come closer to modern views than any writers before him
and than most who have come since.
Going on to show that Aristotle believed that dream images are carried over into the waking state and act as starting points
for our conscious thought, Dr. Stevens says "People made the mistake of believing such dreams to be prophetic of subsequent
events when in fact they were directly responsible for bringing them about."
Dr. Stevens notes that Plato’s "strikingly modern" ideas on dreams anticipate Freud's. Plato said
that, since we no longer exercise rational control over our passions when asleep, "we find ourselves doing things in dreams
that we would be ashamed to do in reality." St. Augustine found himself caught on that hook, says Dr. Stevens: "This worried
him, for he feared that God might hold him responsible for the contents of his dreams, and he knew these to be beyond his
Artemidorus was, as far as written history can tell, the world’s first dream researcher. In the second century AD,
he spent years visiting libraries and centres of healing throughout Italy, Greece and the Near East, interviewing people who
interpreted dreams, and buying any writing he could find on the subject. He drew up an approach to dream interpretation, based
on essential pieces of info: whether the events in the dream were natural, lawful, and customary for the dreamer, what was
happening at the time of the dream, and the dreamer’s occupation and name.
Gregory of Nissa (4th century AD), another ancient whose views were very close to modern ones, held that dreams
were natural phenomena susceptible to a purely psychological explanation. He allowed that God could and might inspire dreams
but that such occurrences were not dreams in the usual sense. In On the Making of Man (380 AD), he said that the reason
dreams are absurd is that the senses and the intellect are at rest. The content of dreams, he said, is determined
by memories of one’s daily activities and one’s physical state at the time of the dream.
Dr. Stevens makes many loyal references to Jung, nearly always finding connections to the master’s thinking in contemporary
theories that are considered worthwhile. Sigmund Freud fares not so well in Dr. Stevens’s estimation. He includes one
tidbit that goes some distance towards demonstrating Freud’s megalomania: When Freud’s patients had dreams that
blatantly contradicted his theory that dreams are wish fulfillments, he wasn’t perturbed; he blandly allowed that people
"will be quite ready to have one of their wishes frustrated in a dream if only their wish that I may be wrong can be fulfilled."
After his review of the ancients, Dr. Stevens spends twelve pages reviewing the conflicting views of dreams among such
recent theorists as: Alfred Adler, Wilhelm Stekel, Samuel Lowy, Thomas French, Erica Fromm, Montague Ullman, Fritz Perls,
Medard Boss, Charles Rycroft, and James Hillman. In commenting on the diversity of opinion among them all, Dr. Stevens manages
a nice joke at Freud’s expense:
The trouble is that researchers become so attached to their own orientation, and so hostile to those who adopt another,
that they forget that they are all partially sighted observers examining different aspects of the same elephant in the dark,
each believing that the particular bit of trunk, foot, or tail they are grasping represents the whole beast. Freud was evidently
grasping its private parts.
Given all these contradictory theories, I began to have sneaking doubts about this material. If all these people disagree
about what dreams are and what they mean, or don’t mean, then why should I pay any special attention to what Dr. Stevens
has to say on the subject? Can any of these people actually prove that their theories are right? However, I decided to stick
with Dr. Stevens for a while, to see if I could get some benefit from his ideas on the subject of dreams. But I soon started
to run into trouble.
Take this passage: "Non-REM sleep evolved about 180 million years ago, when warm-blooded animals evolved from their cold-blooded
reptilian ancestors, whereas REM sleep evolved about 50 million years later." The author goes on to say that REM sleep "appeared
on the evolutionary scene when mammals began to reproduce vipariously (their offspring were born directly from the
womb, not hatched out of eggs)." How does he know? Has he interviewed some of those cold-blooded ancestors – or their
descendants, like ghekkos – to ask whether or not they have dreamed? Maybe Dr. Stevens is assuming some scientific background
that I don’t have. Maybe some basic facts unknown to me would answer my questions.
But mostly it was the quality of Dr. Stevens’s prose that tripped me up. As he moved from the accessible writing
style in his examination of the ancients, his writing became academically contorted when it came to expounding on his own
First there were instances of weird diction such as the following:
This is a good example of the superior wisdom that dreams can access to the dreamer as well as the therapeutic influence
they can exert by correcting potentially self-destructive attitudes of ego-consciousness.
Has anyone ever used the word ‘access’ in this way?
Then gob-stoppers like this:
That the mid-brain should be so intimately implicated in all the basic behavioural patterns which serve survival and adaptation
points to this region as being the locus of those neuronal complexes most critically involved in archetypal functioning.
This is one of the passages that finished me:
The findings that EEG theta rhythm, originating from a specific part of the paleomammalian brain, namely the hippocampus,
is associated with the performance of crucial survival behaviours and with memory storage as well as REM sleep, lends weight
to the additional hypothesis that in dreaming sleep an animal, including the human animal, is updating strategies for survival
in the light of its own experience and in the light of all the potential for experience specific to the species.
Clearly, Dr. Stevens is an intelligent man who has lots of fascinating information at his finger tips. However, after 115
pages, from the book’s total of 353, the inescapable conclusion for me was that this was not my dream book.
The Children Act (Novel) by Ian McEwan, 2014
Lodged somewhere in the back of my mind there’s a scrap of memory having to do with a strongly negative review of
this novel. Can’t remember now what the complaint was. Something to do with the main character, I think. Possibly from
a feminist point of view. But Ian McEwan is such a good writer; hardly anybody tells a story better than he does. Why not
give this one a try?
Our central character is Fiona Maye, a British judge. (Not being very familiar with the British legal system, I’m
not qualified to identify the exact level of her position but it sounds like she’s fairly high up.) We’re following
two main stories in her life. First, there’s the fact that her husband, now sixty years old, announces that, after some
thirty years of faithful married life, he’d like to have an affair with a younger woman, while remaining married to
The other plot line concerns a difficult case that Fiona has to decide. A boy of seventeen, almost eighteen, has leukemia
and he needs a blood transfusion. He and his parents, being committed Jehovah’s Witnesses, are refusing that treatment.
The presiding medical authorities have sought the permission of the court to proceed with the transfusion. It is acknowledged
by everyone that the boy will soon be eighteen and thus will be viewed in the eyes of the law as being competent to make his
own decision about whether or not to accept or reject treatment. But the transfusion must take place within 24 hours if there’s
to be any hope of saving the young man. Since he is not at the moment considered an adult by the law, he is subject
to the decisions of his parents or the court, should it overrule them. In what is apparently an unprecedented move for a judge,
Fiona goes to the hospital that very afternoon to visit with the boy and to see what she thinks about his state of mind.
Through my reading of the book, I kept trying to spot what it was that annoyed that critic. But I couldn’t find it.
Maybe that’s because I was enjoying the reading so much. One of the first things that struck me was Mr. McEwan’s
subtlety with dialogue, his keen ear for nuance and for the things that are not being said. Take the episode that opens the
book, where Fiona is remembering the conversation, just a few minutes earlier, when her husband, Jack, dropped the bomb about
wanting to have an affair. If you simply heard what was said in that exchange, as if you were overhearing it through a closed
door, or even if you were watching the scene enacted on stage, it might seem commonplace, even trite: a lot of huffing and
puffing, posturing, spluttering – nothing much said of any significance. What gives the scene great impact is the way
Mr. McEwan fills in the spaces between the speeches to show the emotional skirmishing that’s going on.
The writing is so good that I sped through the book in virtually one sitting (about four hours). At times, I thought that
perhaps there was too much reminiscing about court cases. Did the author need this material to fill out a book that, at just
221 short pages, is barely more than a novella? But then I decided that this legal stuff is Fiona’s world and, since
the novel’s told almost exclusively from her point of view, it makes sense for us to know what’s going on in her
mind; after all, these are cases that have been important to her for various reasons. There was only one instance in which
I felt the legal musings were, perhaps, not relevant to the main story. A barrister was venting to Fiona (in a private encounter
not in court!) about his frustration with the unfairness of the legal system and his intention, therefore, to leave his legal
practice. It seemed that here Mr. McEwan was trying to introduce a new theme: the question of whether or not the law is able
to deliver anything like justice. You could say that some such idea may be running through the whole book in a subterranean
way, but its blatant emergence here seems obtrusive.
As for the case that’s central to the book, Mr. McEwan’s rendering of the legal battle is right up there with
the best of courtroom dramas. All sides get a fair say; the opposing arguments are presented convincingly. The quandary facing
Fiona becomes excruciatingly real. A genuine sense of suspense is created. Another example of the quality of Mr. McEwan’s
writing is that, although the book is told from Fiona’s point of view, he does introduce a bit of variety by having
Fiona imagine how what is happening might look to someone else. A further instance of Mr. McEwan’s fine perception of
human response comes at a moment when Fiona has suddenly been confronted by a young man who has followed her through the rain:
In those first moments it was easier to conceal a confusion of feeling behind a motherly tone. ‘You look frozen.
We’d better have them bring that heater in here.’
In another line, Mr. McEwan’s analysis captures the narcissism that might escape most of us:
Even when he was trying to be apologetic, he appeared too vivid, too hungry for the minutiae of his own explanation.
And the text frequently delivers thought-provoking nuggets, such as this reflection of Fiona’s:
Religions, moral systems, her own included, were like peaks in a dense mountain range seen from a great distance, none
obviously higher, more important, truer than another. What was to judge? [sic]
Given its overall excellence, does it need to be said that there isn’t anything revolutionary or radical about this
book? What you’re getting is a classic British novel, written with great finesse, centered mainly on some upper class
types – somewhat the Iris Murdoch sort of thing where you get drinks by the fire while the rain patters endlessly on
the windows behind the heavy drapes. So yes, the class system that enters into nearly all British novels is palpable here.
But it doesn’t have the detrimental effect that it often does in other novels. I think that’s because Mr. McEwan
acknowledges it for what it is. When Fiona goes to a hospital on the south side of London to visit the sick teen, she admits
that she is entering what is foreign territory for her, that she has no experience of the less comfortable, less privileged
life that prevails here. You could say that Mr. McEwan even strikes a blow against the class system in that the sick boy’s
father, when he appears on the stand to defend his religious opposition to the blood transfusion, is intelligent and well-spoken.
A man of the working class, he gives a creditable defense of a position that, one supposes, would not likely be congenial
to Fiona, to Mr. McEwan or to his readers.
Other reviewers will probably tell you more about what happens in the novel but here at Dilettante’s Diary
we like to leave such things for the reader to discover. That’s because we feel that one of the main pleasures of reading
is finding out how a writer can hook your attention with his or her narrative skill. I will say this about the rest of the
book, though: I’m not sure that the denouement isn’t sentimental, possibly even tending towards the melodramatic.
I find myself thinking that yes, what happens here, could happen in real life, even if it does seem a bit improbable.
But that slight element of doubt barely matters when the reading is so good.
The Burning Room (Mystery) by Michael Connelly, 2014
As is often the case in Michael Connelly’s books, Harry Bosch, his detective, is working on solving two crimes. Sometimes
that sort of multi-tasking seems like a device for filling up a book when a writer doesn’t have enough grist in one
story; in this case, though, the two stories fit together well and they seem like integral components of Harry Bosch’s
life at a given time.
The story that kicks off the book is one of those cold cases that has suddenly got warm. Years ago in a Los Angeles plaza,
a mariachi musician had been crippled in what appeared to be a stray bullet from a gangland shooting. But now the musician
has died and an autopsy has retrieved the bullet that struck his spine. Given certain specifics (don’t ask me to explain
the ballistics!), the shooting now appears to have been an attempt at a targeted killing. But why would anybody have wanted
to kill this pleasant, likeable musician? The other story is about a fire, long ago, that killed several small children in
a daycare in the basement of an apartment building. Bosch discovers that the young, inexperienced female detective assigned
to be his partner in the investigation of the other case, the one about the shooting, has personal reasons for wanting to
find out exactly who or what caused the fire that killed the kids.
After all the twists and turns of the roller-coaster ride that constitutes a Harlan Coben thriller (see my review of Just
One Look on this page), it comes as something of a relief to read this straight-forward, diligent mystery from Michael
Connelly. I do find a few flaws in the writing, though. . For instance, this cliché :
the pressure – almost inevitable in cop fiction now – from the higher ups, for political reasons, to find quick
solutions to mysteries. And, at times, Mr. Connelly gives in to an oddly prosaic habit: he lathers on words and sentences
that aren’t necessary. Here’s a passage where Bosch is meeting up with his partner:
She got in the car but Bosch did not pull out. They needed to set a plan for the rest of the day and he also wanted to
know what she had told Crowder with regard to both of their current cases.
"Okay, so where are we at?" he asked.
The second sentence isn’t necessary, given that what comes after tells us what we need to know. The passage would
be crisper, then, the reading would be brisker as:
She got in the car but Bosch did not pull out. "Okay, so where are we at?" he asked.
Although the suspicion of padding for bulk didn’t come up with regard to the use of two stories in the book, the
fact that it didn’t get tighter editing raises the issue after all.
Still, there’s lots to enjoy here. Such as Bosch’s thoughts about detectives:
The good ones all had that hollow space inside. The empty place where the fire always burns. For something. Call it justice.
Call it the need to know. Call it the need to believe that those who are evil will not remain hidden in the darkness forever.
Among other virtues of the book, the lengthy video analysis of the shooting of the mariachi musician, as caught on security
cameras, is detailed and fascinating. Bosch’s relationship with his teenage daughter is realistic and life-like. As
is his mentoring of his young partner: showing her the ropes and pointing out her mistakes where necessary. The ultimate explanation
about the fire is surprising but not far-fetched or outlandish. And, fittingly for a book about a detective who claims to
find detective fiction too neat and tidy, this one ends with what might be called a partial or a mitigated victory for its
Satisfying as this book is, I have to pick a quarrel with Mr. Connelly on one point. Late in the investigation, he has
Bosch visit a convent of nuns in a California town near the border with Mexico. He depicts the nuns as women for whom, apart
from the fact that they use their original family names, the Second Vatican Council might never have happened. They’re
in full habits in the traditional style and they fall back on pious mannerisms (e.g. making the Sign of the Cross spontaneously).
I’m willing to grant that there might be groups of nuns like that somewhere in America but you’d think a writer
with a name like Connelly would know that they’d be rare. Since there’s no reason in terms of plot for picturing
the women this way, you get the impression that he did it just for the sake of adding piquant detail to his story. That, to
some slight degree, shakes my trust in him as a reliable truth-teller.
One Day (Novel) by David Nicholls, 2009
The publicity for David Nicholls’ more recent novel, Us (reviewed below) makes a big deal about the success
of this earlier one: "Now a Major Motion Picture" and all that palaver. Since I liked Us so much, it seemed that this
one might be worth looking into.
It opens in 1988 with Dexter and Emma in bed together, the morning after their graduation from Edinburgh University. They’d
spotted each other on campus previously but this is the first time they’ve had any intimate contact. It looks, however,
like nothing much is going to come of it. Their university experience finished, each is heading back home to a different life:
his in Oxfordshire, hers in Yorkshire. In the next chapter, however, we catch up with them exactly one year later and we find
that a strong friendship has developed between them.
And so it goes, for 19 years. The book checks in on them on exactly the same day each year: July 15th
(St. Swithin’s Day, as it happens). Each chapter deals with that one day of each year. Some years they happen to meet
on that day; some years not. This clever structuring isn’t exactly unprecedented. (I’m thinking of Neil Simon’s
Same Time Next Year, in which a man and a woman meet in the same hotel room on the same date over a number of years.)
However, it does make for certain striking effects. A lot happens offstage. In one chapter, you’ll have someone mention
that she has some news; she may not get a chance to tell the news in that chapter, i.e. on that day, but you’ll find
out the following year what the news was. Also, given the time span of the book, there are notable observations about cultural
changes: the introduction of cell phones, the switch from VHS to DVD technology, trends in weddings, parenting fads, the upsurge
in the popularity of texting.
In one respect, this book is the opposite of Mr. Nicholls’ more recent one. In Us, the admirable, likeable
character of the man holds the book together; the irritable, moody woman is a constant aggravation. In One Day, however,
the relative merits of the man and the woman are reversed. Emma is intelligent, conscientious and considerate, beautiful enough
to be seen that way by others but not beautiful enough to be convinced of it herself. It’s Dexter who is annoying: shallow,
something of a playboy, very good looking, flashy, more keen on fun than on responsibility. The only redeeming quality of
Dexter, in my eyes, would be that he seems to admire and appreciate Emma so much. He often remarks that she is the person
that he wants most to talk to in any crisis, the only person with whom he feels he can share anything of importance. Later
in life, though, the inevitable setbacks in his starry existence bring him hard up against some truths about himself and he
does express genuine anguish about his failings.
As the vicissitudes of their lives keep pushing the two people apart and pulling them together, you wonder if this is one
of those Jane Austen romances where the man and woman are taking forever to see what’s obvious to everybody else, including
us readers: that they were meant for each other. You may be assured that we, at Dilettante’s Diary, will not
tell you how it’s going to work out – or not – for these two, but the possibility of an eventual merger
is what keeps us reading. And that does take a certain commitment. The book is too long (435 pages) and, while none of it
is dull exactly, it’s a bit of a slog to get through all that living, year by year. When Emma and Dexter get together
their comments don’t always rise above the banal. We get silliness, carping, teasing, bickering. Some of the witticisms
– usually from Emma – are entertaining, but there’s not much of what might be called profound insight. A
scene wherein Dexter tries to take care of a young baby is probably intended as hilarious slapstick but I find it tiresome;
there’s nothing particularly imaginative or original about the fiasco. Because of elements like this, the book seems
to me to be notably inferior to Mr. Nicholls’s subsequent Us. It’s almost as if, by comparing the two books,
you can see that the writer is becoming more mature and wiser. It’s nice to be able to see that in a writer, rather
than a slide in the other direction.
And there is a fault in this earlier book that, to my mind, often mars British writing of a certain type. The author seems
to be looking down his or her nose at so much of the world. For instance, the Mexican restaurant where Emma has to work when
she’s down on her luck is necessarily sleazy and greasy; the staff there are low class dummies. When Emma acquires a
boyfriend from among them, he has to be a pathetic would-be comedian. The apartment that Emma buys with this goof of a boyfriend
has to be crummy. Same for a car that Emma eventually buys. The staff room of a school were she teaches is grubby. When she’s
treated to a meal at a swanky restaurant, the food, of course, is awful.
I’m not saying that unpleasant situations and people don’t exist and that writers shouldn’t write about
them. My point is that a writer who has a breadth of vision and a big heart can show conditions and people that make the main
characters uncomfortable without giving the impression that such matters are intolerable for any decent human being. After
all, these settings are real life for a lot of people; their lives shouldn’t be written off as contemptible. I can’t
help thinking that this is yet another example of a British writer’s abhorring anything that isn’t "our sort of
thing," i.e. anything that’s infra dig. And yet, even in this book, there’s some hint that Mr. Nicholls
might be moving towards a more generous kind of writing. Near the end of the book, Emma’s erstwhile boyfriend, the would-be
comedian, turns up again and we find now that he’s a decent, compassionate human being.
But there’s no denying that Mr. Nicholls is more comfortable with people like Dexter and Emma. How is it, though,
that they’re so comfortable with each other? That question was never fully resolved for me. If Emma’s so intelligent
and sensitive, why is she so taken with this frivolous Dexter? And if he’s so shallow, why is it that he so admires
a sterling person like Emma? In one of his clever structural moves, Mr. Nicholls takes us back, at the end of the book, to
that first meeting between Emma and Dexter. He fills out his description of the encounter with detail that helps to convey
a little more of the excitement at the beginning of their relationship. Still, I never could fully believe in whatever it
was that bound them together for so long. But I did want to believe that there was something. Maybe that’s
US (Novel) by David Nicholls, 2014
This novel got me on the first page.
A guy’s wife wakes him up in the middle of the night. He figures it’s the usual thing – she’s going
to tell him that she thinks she hears burglars. He’s prepared to swing into his familiar routine: that what she’s
hearing must be the radiators, or the joists expanding or foxes in the garden. But no. What she wants to tell him is that
she thinks their marriage is over; she wants to leave him. "Well, at least it’s not burglars," he says.
As I continued reading, soon reaching the 50-page mark, it seemed as though this book was providing proof of an unlikely
premise: that you could actually pick up a book at random, by an author you’d never heard of, and that the book would
turn out to be very good. Well, not completely at random in this case. The book had been displayed on the library’s
"Best Bets" shelf. Still, it was a complete unknown for me.
The narrator is Douglas, a fifty-ish biochemist living in the countryside not far from London, England. He and his wife,
Connie, have a teenage son, Albie. In spite of Connie’s dramatic announcement on the first page, the family goes ahead
with a summer trip to Europe. It’s supposed to be one last family fling before Albie heads off to college in the fall,
somewhat in the spirit of the Grand Tour that marked a turning point for young men of a certain class in centuries past. Given
that such excursions, usually involving prodigious debauchery, were not customarily undertaken in the company of one’s
parents, Albie’s aware of a certain weirdness about this jaunt with his parents. And therein lies a source of considerable
conflict throughout the novel.
The main issue, though, is the question about what’s going to happen to the parents’ marriage. Douglas loves
Connie devotedly, as he always has. He could never quite believe that he, a boring scientist, had won over such a witty, stylish
and very beautiful woman. Connie, although grateful to Douglas for his devotion and for all the good times in their marriage,
is now feeling that she’d like to break away and find a new life for herself, perhaps to pursue the existence of an
artist that had once been her dream.
As the trek through Europe proceeded from one touristic highlight to another, I was beginning to be afraid that this was
going to turn into a "road movie" – a genre that I don’t particularly like, whether in the book or the film version.
It’s true, we do get a few pages of pure travelogue, but, for the most part, the story focusses on the problems in the
relationships among the three main characters. Fascinating as those dynamics are, I did find myself wondering why these people
had so much trouble getting along with each other. Why is the teenage son so prickly, so difficult to approach, particularly
when it comes to his relationship with his father? The kid does eventually have it out with his dad in a confrontation, lasting
a few pages, that helps to explain why things are the way they are and why the son acts the way he does towards his dad.
But I could never really get a fix on Connie’s attitude to Douglas. She’s constantly wrong-footing him. Her
opinions are always the right ones; her choices are always the decisive ones. He claims to find her very intelligent but there
are times when you wonder if she’s incapable of following a train of thought or whether she’s being wilfully obtuse.
Take the time when he was talking about how evolution has conditioned all parents to love their own kids more than any other
kids. Does Connie respond with an appreciative acknowledgment of her husband’s insight? Not at all! She objects. His
comment, she says, seems to suggest that he doesn’t truly love their son, that it’s only an evolutionary thing.
Doug continually puts up with her obfuscations and flare-ups, presumably because he loves her so much. I know there are
relationships where one person, the one who seems to love less, has total control over the other, the one who loves more.
From the outside, it’s a horrible situation to view; you wonder why people put up with it. But you have to accept that
it happens in real life, inexplicable as it is. However, I expect a novelist to make a relationship somewhat more comprehensible.
Isn’t that, after all, the purpose of literature – to give us a better understanding of human life? Near the very
end of the book, Connie does get a few pages where she presents a more reasonable interpretation of herself. But I couldn’t
buy this version of her for the simple reason that it’s so at odds with the way she’s been behaving throughout
The reason the book makes for such good reading, in spite of such a major flaw, is Doug. He’s very good company as
he guides us through the events of his daily life. One of his ways of creating a sense of intimacy with us is to address us
directly now and then: "I love my son, I hope that is abundantly clear, but.....;" and "I don’t wish to sound defensive
about the fact, but...." He’ll even admit to some of the difficulties he’s having with the writing: "Here, I wish
I could transcribe some speech I made to bring her out of this awful state...."
Mind you, Doug’s not so cozy with us that he regales us with sexual details. Here’s all he has to say about
his "first time" with Connie: "Sexual nostalgia is a vice best indulged in private, but suffice to say that our first weekend
together was quite an eye-opener." You don’t often find such reticence about sex in novels these days but it seems just
right for Doug.
He’s very candid, though, about the qualities that probably made him attractive to Connie. He talks about how he’s
practical, as good at handywork as he is at managing the family’s finances and planning their holidays. "While there
was breath in my body," he says, "she would never lack sufficient AA batteries. Perhaps these achievements sound drab and
pedestrian, but they were in stark contrast to the flaky, self-absorbed aesthetes she had known before. There was a sort of
mild masculinity to it all that, for Connie, was both new and comforting."
On the other hand, Doug shows a knack for sociology that you might not expect in a man of the hard sciences. Here, Doug’s
talking about the cultural context within which his own dad operated:
My father was exactly as I expected dads to be: a professional man, able and confident and somewhat withdrawn, but serious
about his obligations to provide materially for his family. Dads had favourite armchairs in which they sat like starship captains,
issuing orders and receiving cups of tea and shouting at the news without fear of contradiction. Dads controlled the television,
the telephone and thermostat, they decided mealtimes, bedtimes, holidays.
And here’s Doug’s take on young parents today:
Oh, the smugness and complacency of the new parent! See how good we are. Let us show you how it should be done!
I’m sure my parents had wanted to teach their own parents similar lessons, and so on back into history and forward,
too; I’m sure that some day Albie will be keen to settle some scores and give me some pointers as to where we –
I – went wrong. But perhaps it’s a delusion for each generation to think that they know better than their parents.
If this were true, then parental wisdom would increase with time, like the processing power of computer chips, refining over
generations, and we’d now be living in some utopia of openness and understanding.
Yes, it’s true that Doug is not living in any utopia of openness and understanding, certainly not from his son’s
and his wife’s points of view. In fact, he’s downright stodgy in his refusal to accompany them on a visit to a
marihuana café in Amsterdam. It seemed to me, as a guy who likes to think of himself as
being free-spirited, that I should side with the boy and his mom. And yet I found myself quite respectful of Doug’s
response to their proposal:
Because it was all very jolly, wasn’t it, all very cool, sitting around and getting stoned all afternoon with your
mum? What a lark, what memories to share! But I wanted my son to have ambition, I wanted him to have drive and energy and
a fine, fierce mind. I wanted him to look out into the world with curiosity and intelligence, not with the awful solipsism
and silliness of the stoned. Irrespective of the medical risks, the memory loss and apathy and psychosis, the possibility
of addiction or exposure to hard drugs, what was this idiotic obsession with chilling out? I wasn’t aware of having
been relaxed at any time in my entire life; that was just the way things were, and was it really so bad? To be taut as a wire,
on the ball, conscious of the dangers around you – wasn’t that to be admired?
If Doug is a bit of a stick-in-the-mud, flashes of humour help to redeem him in my eyes. Here, he’s describing his
meeting with his son after a long separation:
....it took me a moment to sense a presence, look up and see my son standing right in front of me, saying those words that
every father longs to hear.
‘Jesus Christ, Dad, why can’t you just leave me alone?’
And this is Doug’s reaction to an attack by a jellyfish: "Absurdly, I punched it because nothing hurts a jellyfish
more, nothing affronts their sense of dignity [more], than an underwater punch in the face."
At times, slapstick mars the finesse of Mr. Nicholl’s writing, as in an episode in which Doug comes to grief over
some very spicy Thai food. Since the incident doesn’t have any repercussions, you get the impression Mr. Nicholls included
it just to provide a bit of levity. Not that I’m against comic relief, but I think the best novels don’t include
any events that don’t have consequences in terms of plot.
Which is not to say that the level of writing isn’t very high here. One very clever thing that Mr. Nicholls does
is to fill one page with a list of the likes and dislikes – in food, entertainment and so on – that Connie and
Doug don’t share. This summary tells you a lot more about their life together – and in a more effective way –
than pages of prolix verbiage would. Prior to one very important meeting near the end of the book, Mr. Nicholls has Doug give
us a prolonged description of a tour through an art gallery; at first, that struck me as too obvious a stalling tactic, but
it did help to build suspense very effectively Close to the end of the book, Doug takes a turn that I’ve never seen
from a first-person narrator in a novel: he gives a short summary of his story, the one he has just told, as it might look
to the other main characters in it. It strikes me as very magnanimous on Doug’s part to allow us a glimpse into how
Connie and Albie may have seen their relationships to him and his role in their own stories.
Just One Look (Mystery) by Harlan Coben, 2004
Harlan Coben being a recent – and very welcome – discovery for me, I’m always pleased to find another
of his books that I haven’t read.
One of the main characters in this one is Grace, a youngish mother of two kids, living somewhere near New York. One day,
she picks up some photos of her kids from the developer and discovers something completely anomalous in the package: an older
photo that seems to show her husband, Jack, as a young man, some fifteen years ago, in a group of four or five young people.
Before Grace has a chance to ask Jack about it, he spots the photo on the kitchen counter. That, apparently, causes him suddenly
to leave the house with no explanation. Grace’s life turns to a nightmare as the days go by and she hears nothing from
him. The cops claim they can’t do anything much to help her, since there’s no evidence of a crime having been
committed. But, it turns out, Grace has quite a knack for investigating on her own. As she finds out the identities of other
people in the mysterious photo and tries to track them down, it seems that they have virtually dropped off the face of the
This attempt to solve some riddle about the past reminds me very much of the kind of book that Ruth Rendell used to write
under the pen name "Barbara Vine." As in those books, there’s some very good writing on offer. In the following passage,
Grace is thinking about the aftermath of a riot at a rock concert when she was a young woman. She had been badly injured in
the melee and, during her recovery in hospital, she was visited by some parents of kids who had been killed in the stampede
ensuing from the riot.
They wanted to be around her. That was all. They found comfort in it. Their child had died in Grace’s presence and
it was as if maybe a small part of their souls, their forever-lost son or daughter, somehow still lived inside of her. It
made no sense and yet Grace thought that maybe she understood.
And here’s Grace at the door of her little daughter’s classroom, fighting back tears as she watches the child
poring over her work, chewing on a pencil:
Why, Grace wondered, do we find such poignancy in watching our children when they don’t know we’re there? What
exactly are we trying to see?
Not that Mr. Coben’s novels are all about sensitivity and poignancy. He seems to feel that he needs to include a
certain amount of ugly, gratuitous violence in all of them. If you can get past that, the story is always rewarding. This
one becomes so complicated, with so many characters to keep track of, that I imagined author Coben poring over a schematic
outline of the plot that looked something like a map of London’s underground transportation system. Eventually, it was
sheer curiosity that was pushing me to the end of the book. The interest in the characters as real people had waned; what
mattered now was the craving to find out just how all these individuals and these fragments of plot were connected. In the
end, I think I grasped pretty nearly all the details of the convoluted solution.
Clever and ingenious as the writing is, I do find one aspect of the story somewhat implausible: the idea that someone’s
past could be completely hidden from that person’s spouse. Maybe there are situations in real life where this happens.
In a work of fiction, though, it looks like too obvious a narrative device, a sort of crutch, without which the story wouldn’t
work. And there are a few minor blemishes in the writing. On page 41, Mr. Coben says that a guy "dropped to the ground like
a puppet with his strings cut"; then, on page 129, we’re told that another character "dropped like a marionette with
its strings cut." You’d think a vigilant editor would have steered a writer away from that kind of repetition. And any
decent editor would also have caught a confusion in the name of a character. In a passage that’s clearly talking about
a character named Charlaine, Mr. Coben inadvertently refers to her as Grace, the main character, who is nowhere in sight at
the time. On the next page, he makes a partial recovery, referring to Charlaine as Charlotte, a name that appears nowhere
else in the book.
Do I mention these peccadilloes in a spirit of persnickety one-upmanship? To show how clever I am? To chip away at the
stature of a successful writer? Far be it for me to claim to be free of any such motives. However, it’s possible that
these observations help to assure readers of Dilettante’s Diary that their reviewer does read books closely.
Moab Is My Washpot (Memoir) by Stephen Fry, 1997
From various sources, I’d been picking up the buzz to the effect that this memoir by Stephen Fry, the well known
British actor and writer, was one of the best ever. As we all know, it can often be impossible for any book – or any
work of art – to live up to that sort of hype.
This book, I’m happy to say, is one of the exceptions.
It may not be the most profound example of the genre, or the most literary, or artistic – although it does have claims
to those qualities. The main thing about it is that it’s so enjoyable. On the recent Victoria Day holiday, it gave me
a full day of pure reading pleasure. Think of it as spending several hours in the company of a fabulous talker, a wonderful
spinner of words, someone who has delicious tales to tell and who tells them with great elan.
Not that the outlines of Mr. Fry’s story are unusual. Here we have a sensitive boy from a well-educated, upper middle
class family who is finding his way through the turbulence of boarding school, meanwhile coming to grips with his gay identity.
What is unique about the narrative is this boy’s cheeky nature, his penchant for flouting authority, for invoking the
wrath of the gods – a tendency that leads to some dramatic consequences at the end of the book. Along the way, you encounter
some high comedy. While there’s no denying a decidedly mean streak underlying Mr. Fry’s tendency to pull pranks
on unsuspecting victims, there’s also no resisting the laughter that many of the incidents bring on. Nor could this
reader fight back tears at some of the poignant moments of the story.
One of the most touching episodes is Mr. Fry’s account of his falling hopelessly in love, at the age of fourteen,
with a beautiful, blonde thirteen-year-old boy. By dint of great persistence, young Stephen managed to establish a close friendship
with his idol. After telling us about the other boy’s extraordinary merits as an athlete and a scholar, Mr. Fry goes
on to say:
Verbally however, he was ordinary. He had no rhetoric, no style, no wit nor any easy companionship with words. Since I
seemed to him to have all these things, he looked on me as extraordinary and would roll and roll about with laughter whenever
I wanted him to, which was often, a kitten on the end of my verbal balls of wool.
Beautiful as such writing is, Mr. Fry’s prose can take getting used to. Sometimes, you have to pick your way carefully
through the thicket of his verbiage. Also, many British references – names of celebrities, famous places and so on –
could prove stumbling blocks for the reader not totally immersed in that culture. But the benefit of Mr. Fry’s chatty
style is that it allows him freedom for hopping around chronologically and for making lengthy digressions on subjects such
Perhaps the most important criterion for rating a memoir on a scale of greatness is not so much the entertainment it provides
but the wisdom inherent in it, the sense of what life is about and how each of us might negotiate our way through it. You
come away from Mr. Fry’s book with some hints about all that: something to do with the shame and regret about the ways
you have hurt people and about the things you’ve done wrong, combined with a tremendous sense of gratitude for your
many gifts and advantages, not least of them being your good luck, and an enthusiasm for making the best of the opportunities
remaining to you.
Personal (Mystery/Thriller) by Lee Child, 2014
In this outing, Jack Reacher, Lee Child’s hero to millions of fans, is persuaded to investigate a plot that is apparently
aimed at assassinating some world leaders at an upcoming G8 meeting in London. It seems that a recent sniper attack on the
President of France was a sort of rehearsal or audition for the big show. (The President was saved by protective glass around
his podium.) Given the extraordinary skill demonstrated in that shot, Reacher and his military consultants have narrowed the
likely perpetrators down to a short list of the world’s best snipers. One of them is an American soldier, just released
from prison for murder. And guess what? It was Reacher who nailed him for that one.
I prefer the Reacher books in which he arrives in some seemingly tranquil locale, subsequently finding himself immersed
in the nefarious goings-on there, rather than the books that involve him in international conspiracies like this, with lots
of globe hopping. There’s a bit of James Bond flavour in this book, but without the glamour. However, the Reacher character
is strong and engaging, the writing is snappy and brisk, as always. In the end, Mr. Child, true to form, provides an ingenious
explanation of what the assassination plot’s really all about.
Reacher has never been lacking in quick wit and laconic humour but here he shows a knack for creative comedy that I’ve
never noticed before. As in this description of a truck that one of his associates is offering for their mutual use:
....the engine started, eventually, after a bunch of popping and churning and then it idled, wet and lumpy. The transmission
was slower than the postal service. She [his colleague] rattled the selector into reverse, and all the mechanical parts inside
called the roll and counted a quorum and set about deciding what to do. Which required a lengthy debate, apparently, because
it was whole seconds before the truck lurched backward. She turned the wheel, which looked like hard work, and then she jammed
the selector into a forward gear, and first of all the reversing committee wound up its business and approved its minutes
and exited the room, and then the forward crew signed on and got comfortable, and a motion was tabled and seconded and discussed.
More whole seconds passed, and then the truck slouched forward, slow and stuttering at first, before picking up its pace and
rolling implacably toward the exit gate.
One of Reacher’s most notable characteristics is in full evidence: his phenomenal ability to make instant and almost
intuitive calculations of things like distance, speed and timing. This, after all, is what explains, to a large extent, Reacher’s
mastery over many situations in which the rest of us would remain with our mouths hanging open in stupefaction. But another
of Reacher’s trademark skills is overdone here: his physical prowess. A reader is always ready to grant a hero resources
of strength and courage that go a little beyond the probable. In the case of Reacher, Mr. Child helps us along by emphasizing
the guy’s brawn and his height (six-foot-five-inches). But here we’re being asked to put too much faith in the
extraordinary powers of Reacher’s body, especially when it comes to a crucial encounter with a seven-foot behemoth of
a villain. And yet, the fact that there isn’t any sex in the book could lead to the inference that Reacher’s getting
too old for that sort of thing. If so, how come he can still whale on bad guys with undiminished fury?