A DOUBTER'S ALMANAC by ETHAN CANIN (2016)

I hated this book. However,I don't quarrel with the glowing reviews which praise Canin's writing. If A Doubter's Almanac had been poorly written I would not have hated it as much, because it would not have become real to me. But I did believe it and I did become so involved that I wanted to step into the book and drown the central character in his pond or, at the very least, to spit on him and call him nasty names.

This is the generation-spanning story of an intellectually gifted family. Central to the plot is Milo Andret--a mathematical genius (perhaps), a narcissist (most certainly), an alcoholic (always), a remote father (except when he is teaching his son math), and a horrible husband (until he just walks out on his wife and children). And yet, as he is dying a lingering death from liver failure, his ex-girlfriend (who is married to someone else), his ex-wife (the one he walked out on), his son (who had followed his father's example into addiction), and his daughter (whom he had continually denigrated) all gather worshipfully around him. It seems that all wrongs should be forgiven of someone who has a beautiful mind.

I think I'll go throw up now.

I don't believe that being smarter than most gives a person permission to be a bigger a**hole than most. I don't believe that a superior intellect is an excuse for alcohol or drug addiction. I do believe that someone who has lived an egocentric life without regard for others deserves to die alone. I view Milo's family's forgiveness as no more than further enabling him to maintain his grandiose ideas of himself. Perhaps that was what the author intended me to feel, but I don't believe so. It seems to me that Canin is implying that allowances should be made for those whose minds move on an elevated plane.

To be fair to Canin, he does portray Milo's son Hans as someone who eventually learns from his father's mistakes, to an extent.

This is a very personal review influenced by my life experience. It should not be understood as an impartial review of the book.