The author outdoes Job with this novel. It's very well written, meticulously crafted. I normally don't like novels with a "political" agenda. This is not really political I guess. I would sum it up as "The purpose of freedom is to create it for others," which one of the characters says towards the end of the book.
Which brings up the topic of the ending. There is none. I know the arguments, of course. What happens to the prisoner is not important, what's more important is what we learn from the story. Any ending that the author writes would be disappointing. It's trite to have a happy ending. We all know what happens to the Russians in just a few years after the trial. and so forth and so on. My point though, is that the reader has invested a great deal of time and empathy in the character of the prisoner, and to end with no resolution is cheating the reader. The author owes it to the reader to end the story, regardless of whether it is good or bad. Look at the example of Hemingway - he wasn't afraid to end "For Whom the Bell Tolls". Malamud definitely shows a lack of courage in not writing an ending.
Another thing that bothers me is this novel stretches the criteria for the award. It says "For distinguished fiction by an American author, preferably dealing with American life." No part of this novel deals with American life, or is even set in America. I assume the author is American, so I guess it fits.
No comments:
Post a Comment