I might quibble a little bit with the suggestion that failure is as much a feature of a utopian novel as a marriage in a romance. Perhaps the most popular utopian novel of all time, Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, ends with the utopia succeeding; so does Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland, along with more obscure titles from the turn of the 19th century. The numerical majority of these novels were, in fact, propagandistic! Maybe that excludes them from the category of "great" utopian novels, as "The New Naturals" seems to be.
What is interesting, though, is that those propaganda novels used stock characters in service of demonstrating the validity of the author's ideology, whereas it seems like this novel uses them as an expression of despair. Why bother having an ideology at all if change is impossible? It seems like the ideological ferment of the Gilded Age has given way to simple exhaustion.
Very interesting; I might have to try and read this one. Perhaps the fault lies with thinking of the novel as a novel and not something else? Joseph Bottum claims, in The Decline of the Novel, that we as a society have "failed the novel" and have moved towards things like films and graphic narratives (which frequently feature archetypical characterizations); perhaps our current era is more attuned to stories of archetypes and clichés as a way to make sense of the easily stereotyped patterns we see around us. And: Gogol insisted that Dead Souls was a "poem" and not a novel; his book also seeks to portray a kind of deep underlying rottenness in the culture around him. I would humbly posit that, in regard to utopian / dystopian themes, the novel is played out and it is time for epic poems to take the center stage.
Holy Moly, Tara, your critique crackles like a thick black electric powerline grasped with a gasp by a bare hand, intelligently suave prose insulation notwithstanding. Or the neck of the goose that could have laid a golden egg. Up and at 'em as Substack's prompt keeps urging? Start writing? Down and let 'em alone, I say. More turmeric for my black coffee, I say Sugar makes me too mean. I want to huddle a little longer in my drifting foxhole. Though maybe a little molasses.
It's a fair point Tano. The thing is, we don't know what books are good or bad until somebody reads them. (Everything comes to us with an equally glowing blurb!) As time goes by, we'll try to calibrate ourselves so that we're focusing on work that's really good (or significantly bad). There's something to be said for the elegant pan - like this one - but we do want to be sure that we're reviewing books that are worth everybody's while to consider. - TMR
I might quibble a little bit with the suggestion that failure is as much a feature of a utopian novel as a marriage in a romance. Perhaps the most popular utopian novel of all time, Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, ends with the utopia succeeding; so does Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland, along with more obscure titles from the turn of the 19th century. The numerical majority of these novels were, in fact, propagandistic! Maybe that excludes them from the category of "great" utopian novels, as "The New Naturals" seems to be.
What is interesting, though, is that those propaganda novels used stock characters in service of demonstrating the validity of the author's ideology, whereas it seems like this novel uses them as an expression of despair. Why bother having an ideology at all if change is impossible? It seems like the ideological ferment of the Gilded Age has given way to simple exhaustion.
Very interesting; I might have to try and read this one. Perhaps the fault lies with thinking of the novel as a novel and not something else? Joseph Bottum claims, in The Decline of the Novel, that we as a society have "failed the novel" and have moved towards things like films and graphic narratives (which frequently feature archetypical characterizations); perhaps our current era is more attuned to stories of archetypes and clichés as a way to make sense of the easily stereotyped patterns we see around us. And: Gogol insisted that Dead Souls was a "poem" and not a novel; his book also seeks to portray a kind of deep underlying rottenness in the culture around him. I would humbly posit that, in regard to utopian / dystopian themes, the novel is played out and it is time for epic poems to take the center stage.
Holy Moly, Tara, your critique crackles like a thick black electric powerline grasped with a gasp by a bare hand, intelligently suave prose insulation notwithstanding. Or the neck of the goose that could have laid a golden egg. Up and at 'em as Substack's prompt keeps urging? Start writing? Down and let 'em alone, I say. More turmeric for my black coffee, I say Sugar makes me too mean. I want to huddle a little longer in my drifting foxhole. Though maybe a little molasses.
Love, Grandpa (Trembling like a leaf!)
This review actually makes me really want to read the book. I want more books written in a grand poetic and mythic register!
If this wretched book is so bad, and it sounds very bad, then why single it out for a review? Why not review something worth reading?
It's a fair point Tano. The thing is, we don't know what books are good or bad until somebody reads them. (Everything comes to us with an equally glowing blurb!) As time goes by, we'll try to calibrate ourselves so that we're focusing on work that's really good (or significantly bad). There's something to be said for the elegant pan - like this one - but we do want to be sure that we're reviewing books that are worth everybody's while to consider. - TMR