Comments on: Communion Town, by Sam Thompson

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:53:54 +0000

Interesting that you should raise Huxley. It has been decades since I read him (and I don’t feel much compulsion to revisit him) but I do remember that he was an author who you had to keep on reading to find an entry into the book. I quite liked him then but obviously my admiration hasn’t continued into my old age.

And I would agree that a book that turns good after the halfway point is the exception that proves the rule. If it is bad by page 100, that’s enough for me. Perhaps that means that I have missed a few gems in my time, but I am pretty sure that positive reactions from others would have led me to go back to them anyway. (And in no way does that mean that I am going to embark on a reading of Bolano — I know I don’t like him, even if others rave.)

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:46:45 +0000

I have one that did it Kevin, an Aldous Huxley (Antic Hay I think, though I may be getting my titles muddled up). I hated the book in question until the last chapter, which recast what had gone before sufficiently that I reappraised the entire novel.

As a rule though if a book looks like it won’t repay my interest I abandon it. One counterexample from the days when I felt obliged to finish books isn’t sufficient cause to disregard the general principle that if a book is bad at page 204 it won’t turn into Tolstoy on page 205.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:38:10 +0000

Max: As to your final point, I can’t remember the last time that a book turned itself around to the positive after the halfway point. At that stage I was mainly reading Communion Town because it wasn’t as “bad” as the commentors on Trevor’s site made it out to be (so…sheer obstinance on my part). And then the “memory city” idea supplied a context that put the previous pages into some notion of sense — I can’t remember the last time that happened. And certainly can’t fault those who had abandoned this book long before they got to that point.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:32:50 +0000

Leroy: You are quite right to introduce Auster as a comparison. There are elements of the New York trilogy in this novel — except that Thompson is writing about a composite city, not Auster’s New York. And if Auster frustrates you, Thompson will frustrate you even more.

I give Thompson nine out of 10 for attempting the flaneur model. He slips to about 6 when it comes to successful execution. I won’t warn you off the novel, just say that if you do pick it up do so with some reservation.

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:28:20 +0000

John has excellent reasons not to press on when a book looks unpromising, my thought was more that there are some books which require a certain investment before they pay out. Most books if they haven’t got going by the time you’re a few chapters in never will get going. Some however are exceptions, and that extra investment does repay.

The trouble is it’s impossible as a rule to tell whether a given book transforms itself once you get past a certain point, or just continues to be mediocre. Given that it’s generally a good idea to cut your losses, time’s winged chariot hurrying near and all. One just has to accept that some books that didn’t deserve it will likely get cut too.

By: leroyhunter

leroyhunter — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:15:09 +0000

While reading the review the comparison that came to mind was Paul Auster, Kevin, especially with mentions of conceits like “memory cities”. I don’t much care for Auster so that didn’t help me much. Am I wide of the mark? The flaneur – you mention Walter Benjamin, my reference would be Robert Walser – is a lovely and often very effective notion for a writer to build around.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:25:03 +0000

Max: I was thinking about you and our joint enthusiasm for Berger as I was reading this. I can’t say at this point how much that reflected curiosity influenced my impression of the novel — I suspect a fair bit. You’ve caught my reservations appropriately — as much as I liked parts of it and the idea overall, Thompson does have some problems along the way. I think if you approached it in the right frame of mind with some limitations on expectations you might find it quite worthwhile.

One of my concerns was not the “pastiche” incidentally. As I said, if you aren’t liking the book I am sure the different voices could be annoying — I thought they were more there to provide a flavor to those particular chapters. The different styles and voices landed with me more as different tones of memory — something that I think as a fair reflection of reality.

John Self has abandoned a lot of books that I thoroughly enjoyed this year so I’m afraid that is no longer a very valuable criterion for me — he has a lot of work and family pressures competing for his time, so he understandably tends to only be finishing books that land in his wheelhouse in the first few chapters (this one is awkward enough that I could see why it didn’t — I probably would never have tried it if it hadn’t made the list).

By: Lee Monks

Lee Monks — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:06:12 +0000

MHG: I have read (or partly read) all. I can respect an element of craft in all of them but, seeing as you ask, I found the Mists one insufferable, the Beauman one annoying and unremarkable and the Andre Brink one decent but whelming and we’re meant to be talking about the Booker Prize. Too much filler/two-for-three type stuff.

Kevin: you’re right, better than last year. And I agree entirely with you and Max on ambition.

By: Max Cairnduff

Max Cairnduff — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:05:31 +0000

Fascinating review. I must admit at one point I was rather thinking “not very good pastiche, I think not” but the Berger reference is interesting and the concept of the flaneur is one that has long intrigued me.

At the same time, even with that your praise is not unstinting. If you do reread it I’ll be interested to hear what you think.

John Self as I recall abandoned it part way. I wonder if he reached chapter seven, where it turned around for you.

On a final note, like you I have a soft spot for ambition. Better a writer doesn’t quite pull something off, than that they don’t try.

By: MHG

MHG — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:46:56 +0000

Hi Lee. I am sure the Prize jury as a whole doesn’t think it has picked weaklings and my reading so far – 10.5/12 – is making me think that this is a particularly strong longlist. I notice on the Booker forum that you have only ranked Umbrella and The Yips and said forget the rest. Have you actually read the rest or is this just based on others’ comments? And if you have read the rest, which entries do you see as the real weaklings?