Comments on: The Stranger’s Child, by Alan Hollinghurst

By: Sazerac

Sazerac — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:46:02 +0000

We must be reading different Prousts. Or Hollinghursts.

By: Shastri

Shastri — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:27:34 +0000

I am so disappointed to see this book not making it to the shortlist of the Booker list. The language is so delicious, Proust-like, as you had rightly pointed out. Oh well.

By: Sazerac

Sazerac — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:15:11 +0000

Yes, I thought you might be trying to do the decent thing and find a reason for the ravings about this book. Perhaps the word ‘ravings’ says it all. Do you think that the leanings towards ‘action’ have anything to do with the MI5/6 connection this year?

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:36:14 +0000

Sazerac: I duly consider myself appropriately whipped with the proverbial wet noodle for comparing Hollinghurst to Proust. It didn’t hurt, but the humiliation is quite painful nonetheless. In my totally unacceptable defence, I’d offer the excuse that I was trying to find a reason why some people have raved about this book. I would suggest that your response has tended to validate my thesis: there are few negative reviews of this novel because those who don’t like it simply abandon it. And there are a lot of people who have done just that.

On the speculation side, I would not be surprised at all to see this one missing from the “real jury” shortlist. The longlist indicates a tilt toward books with a fair bit of “action” — this volume certainly does not fit that model.

By: Sazerac

Sazerac — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:27:54 +0000

OK, that’s it, I’ve given up. Bloodless, irritating characters; wandering and unnecessary descriptive passages. Tedium. Kevin, how can you even mention Proust in the same sentence?! That will take some forgiving.

By: Sazerac

Sazerac — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:36:31 +0000

Have started in on this one without reading any reviews but 40 pages in am already finding it – I don’t even know the word I want – Cecil, Daphne, and Hubertish. I shall persist for the moment, darlings.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:02:56 +0000

Max: “Claustrophobic” is a good way of describing my reaction. Like Mary, I found the first section interesting (even if it has been done by a number of other writers — Hollinghurst is no Waugh as far as I am concerned). After that, for me, it was all downhill and I became more and more frustrated by the prose. In fairness, I should note that those who like the book argue that it is the language which carries the book and they feel it gets better. This would not be the first novel where what I found to be overindulgent writing was viewed by others as soaring prose — from the number of readers whom I know abandoned the book I am sure that I am not alone in my response. It was one of those novels that is not going to show many negative reviews — the commercial press is reluctant to have a go at the author (I suspect there may be a few literary journal reviews that do); bloggers who don’t like it just set it aside.

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:53:46 +0000

I’ve read Hollinghurst’s first two novels. I liked both well enough, but he’s an incredibly dense writer. On the level of the sentence he glitters, but at the level of the novel I can find him claustrophobic.

The Line of Beauty is on my TBR list, but this isn’t. It sounds overlong and overindulgent. Hollinghurst I fear may be becoming too successful for his editors.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:12:02 +0000

Mary: An excellent analysis, and thank you very much. For those who are contemplating reading the book, I think you hit both the high and low points.

By: Mary Gilbert

Mary Gilbert — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:04:58 +0000

It seems to me that Hollinghurst wanted the opportunity to write about several different contrasting moments in 20th century British life and the focus on Cecil Vallance’s life and poems was the device for putting this into operation. Hence we get the Edwardian house party – the most succesful section I think. Next a kind of Gosford Park pastiche complete with an unconvincing Emerald Cunard style character – for me the weakest section. Next England on the cusp of swinging changes with all its implications for gay lifesyles. As someone who was a teenager in the 60′s, Hollinghurst’s portrayal of provincial life in1967 is quite wrongfooted and sounds more typical of life in 1960. However the introduction of Paul is a bonus in this section as his character is the most richly developed. Finally we get the most modern section with a chance to satirise the world of publishing and reviewing and a nod to the changing status of gay relationships. The coda leads us into a denoument redolent of Possession as yet another newly introduced character races to rescue some letters which will reveal the final truth. It’s a very readable novel in parts and I’ve read it almost continuously over the past three days. However whereas the first section is in my opinion brilliantly written, the over ambitious nature of the whole project leads to far too many underwritten characters and a kind of frustrated feeling of disconnection as one `novella’ ends and the next one begins. There are parts of the plot that are convenient but unconvincing. Are we to believe that Dudley a scion of an immensely rich and quasi aristocratic family would really marry Daphne who is ilttle more than a dullish middle class school girl? I think Hollinghurst is a very accomplished writer and I’m pleased that he’s addressing the sweep of British history but I think the delicate writing of his first chapter could have been developed into a story that was less ambitious in scope but ultimately more satisfying for the reader.