Magnificence by Lydia Millet

When I ordered this book, I noticed that it was #3 of a trilogy, but the description assured me that it stood as a read-alone book, as well. I think they were mistaken.

For example, most of the actions of the protagonist seem inexplicable, with no logical motivation. Much of the plot concerns the caretaking and restoration of a vast collection of taxidermy, and this aspect must surely be metaphorical, but for the life of me I cannot imagine what the stuffed animals represent. The climax(?) is either one of the most anti-climactic ever or must depend for resonance on a knowledge of the previous books.

The novel starts with the death of Susan Lindley's husband at the hands of a mugger in a foreign country. She feels guilt because he left his home to look for her disappeared boss (whom he hardly knew) after becoming aware of her adultery with a co-worker (only the last in a long line of sexual indiscretions). As she begins the process of selling their house and starting life as a single woman, she inherits the estate of a great uncle, which includes a many-roomed mansion filled to the brim with taxidermied animals. Rather than clearing them out, she begins organizing and rehabilitating them. Later, she is (rather illogically) joined in her new home by a group of eccentric old women. And then she learns of a possible basement to the mansion.

I first became aware of this novel by reading an internet web site about possible contenders for the Pulitzer. Many people praised it. The Amazon web site included even more praise. My goodness, what I am I missing here? Although it is reasonably well written, the book seems to me to be flat and almost pointless. Perhaps if I read the first two parts of the trilogy? But this one so failed to impress me that I don't believe I will.