Clunk whirr.

[threemonkeys]

I'll just get this off my chest. I didn't enjoy Magic for Beginners, Kelly Link's collection of stories. I feel like I'm making a confession saying that. The reason is that so many people are giving Link astonishingly high praise - in print and in personal recommendation. I feel like I'm thumbing my nose at all those people. So what is it about these stories?

They are inventive. There is all sorts of clever structural devices - nested stories, backward stories, stories which just fade out and the like - very admirable. The images in them are unsettled and chaotic in a clever and admirable fashion. The behaviour of the characters is odd and non linear too. The settings are admirably strange too. There are lots of quips in the text - not funny but clever. The same goes for the pop culture references. The prose style is quite distinct - short stabbing sentences like an angry fairy tale that keeps prodding at you. You have got to admire all the clever stuff.

Well, maybe I'm overdoing the "admirable" and "clever" but that is what I feel about this work. There is lots of unique artistic merit here but it goes too far for my taste. As a result, the adjectives missing from the description are "engaging" and "enjoyable". I'm reminded of a Paul Klee painting - important, influential and well regarded, but I wouldn't want one on my wall.

Comments

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

The more I read, the less I feel able to contribute a single person who is best. I think I enjoy people's differences too much.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. John Peel could have a favourite song from all the hundreds of thousands he must have heard, but I can't even keep a consistent favourite author from one day to the next. There are too many variables.