Sometimes when I am writing my reviews, I realize that I sound like an arrogant, elitist literary snob. (I don't think I am, but I could be wrong.) Here is my excuse--I tend to point out negatives in the books I review because I mentally compare each book to the masterpieces. Of course, that is not really fair; not every novel can be a masterpiece. Still, I feel that every author should aim for that goal.
All of this brings me to a consideration of Goodnight, Nebraska. This is primarily the story of Randall Hunsacker, who at 17 is sent to the small town of Goodnight to try to reclaim his life after his tumble-down upbringing and impulsive actions land him in trouble with the law. The plot then follows him until he is in his 30s, as the town and its people shape his life.
Plus, the novel also tells the extensive story of the marriage of Dorothy and Lewis Lockhardt. And, it contains a bit of a murder mystery as a brief side plot. In addition, it attempts to depict the types of people common to small town life through brief sketches and set pieces.
Does that sound a bit of a jumble? It is, indeed. The main problem with this promising book is that it lacks focus. It tries to do too much. The Randall Hunsacker plot could have (and, I believe, should have) carried the whole novel, without the side stories, especially if the author had taken the reader into the young man's mind so that his motivations would have been clearer.
A secondary problem with this book is the too-frequent occurrence of melodramatic violent events, giving the novel a distinctly Young Adult flavor.
After all of that, I know it sounds like faint praise to say that Goodnight, Nebraska is enjoyable to read and that most would like it
Do you think it is true that those who can write do and those who can't write fancy themselves critics? Probably.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment