Hot off the press....conspiracy theories abounded at tonight's discussion of 'If This is Home.' Caroline introduced us (well, me at least) to the literary tool of the 'unreliable narrator.' After 20 minutes of attempting to defend the book against Anna & I's accusations that it was a load of old tripe, she advanced the interesting theory that the entire thing was a figment of Mark's imagination and that he is in fact the murderer. This made her like it a lot more than when she had read it to start with! Jill and Judith both professed love/hate relationships with it, enjoying the descriptions of frustrated teenagers in a small town near Manchester, but finding some of the characters either under-developed or very unlikeable. The American locations were generally felt to be unconvincing, although Caroline thought that the men's behaviour at Valhalla was depressingly realistic. Anna & I remained entrenched in our positions that the plot was full of holes, the characters were horrible and the relationships made little sense. Unresolved questions include: why did Mark need to change his identity? Why did he change from fairly normal to undiagnosed psychopath? (unreliable narrator theory helps here...) Why did Bethany's father react to his return so angrily (if he was just the innocent boyfriend) or so evenly (if he was his daughter's killer)? What was the deal with Ferne getting all over intimate after 1 chat in the bar? Why did he keep going on about O'Neill as if he was in love with him, or at least suffering from an extended teenage crush? why did Mark's mum leave? do his parents seriously think his resentment at the prospect of another baby caused a miscarriage & ended the marriage? Jill, Judith & Caroline, feel free to balance out my very negative spin on it all!
2 other contributions by e-mail....
Was a bit underwhelmed by the book. Felt the jumping about only masked a not very gripping story. Who was o'neill and what exactly was their relationship? Did I miss how they got together? Why would she have gone with daniel other than to set up the red herring and, not wishing to stereotype, would anyone but a saint, which he wasn't portrayed as, really have walked away that calmly? Otherwise I did think her voice in his head was well done and the relationship with Ferne perhaps better drawn than that with O'neill and realistic. After all the agonising the end was a bit rushed with the actual murder very sketchy. Would like to know what everyone thought of the episode in Vegas considering they were offering 'anything you desire' what did they expect? None of this is very coherent or grammatical when I'm criticising other writing so I'll give him 5.5 for being able to string a sentence together!
I am afraid I did not like it at all. The main problem I had was that it just did not hang together for me. What was the big mystery he was trying to find out? If this was that she was not going to New York after all it was all very poorly executed, as her own narrative clearly states that she was. Did she let him find out she wasn't going to go so that he could move on with his life - if so why did the friend think she wasn't. Also, to follow this line you have to believe it ghosts and i don't.
Other questions I had -
Why did he change his identity? Was the author tried to kid us into thinking that he had more to hide? (there is also some hint, never explained, that the police officer thinks more than he is saying)
What on earth was all that rubbish about the blind eating?
Has any stranger rapist ever just laid down beside the victim and waited for the police?
I thought the description of his relationship with Oneil was unconvincing and I am not sure I ever really understood what they were doing in Las Vegas. In fact I thought that section was just tacky and over complicated. The idea that someone with a PHD in group behaviour would be interested in how men behave when in the company of women dressed in bunny suits is just nonsense - I think we already know that one.
On the plus side I thought the description of his relationship with his father and the couple of scenes between the two of them were poignant and nicely written as were some of the early descriptions between Mark and Bethany and between Bethany and her father. Also some nice descriptions of the town.
So for me - not well written, poor plot, unconvincing characters and interplay between them, and elements that were not believable.
I am afraid I am going to give it a paltry 4. Be interested to hear what others think - perhaps I would have been talked up?
Our scores
Jill - 5
Anna - 5
Caroline - 7.5
Annie - 3
Judith - 6
Carole - 4
Chris 5.5
Annie
ReplyDeleteI thought 'unreliable narrators' are usually used as a definite device and it only really works if all or enough is revealed in the end or where the reader gradually starts to doubt the version of events given. It's quite common in books where characters have mental health problems actually (though this in itself sparks quite a bit of controversy in mental health circles). The usual example given is American Psycho (by Bret Easton Ellis) but I think Engleby (by Sebastian Faulks) is a far better example. Also used where the narrator is a child I thought.
Anyway, I don't this is an unreliable narrator - I think it's a book full of holes!
Carole