G's Reviews > The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake
The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake
by Aimee Bender (Goodreads Author)
by Aimee Bender (Goodreads Author)
****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS****
Every so often a book comes along that creates a divisive turmoil in me. Sometimes these books make me angry; sometimes they make me shake my head in wonder as to why exactly I read it; sometimes it takes months for me to really understand just how impactful the book was to me, which helps clear some of the fog or guilt or happiness or sadness or whatever I felt while reading it. THE PARTICULAR SADNESS OF LEMON CAKE is such a book. Let me first say that this is my first Aimee Bender experience, and though I will rant and rave about certain issues I had with the book, I will more than likely seek out other works by her.
Ultimately, this novel is about family, and the peccadilloes and quirky aspects of being a part of a family. Normally, I love books like these. In some way they make me feel as if my family was “normal.”
Rose Edelstein receives on her ninth birthday a gift that is more akin to a curse: she is given the ability to taste what people feel through whatever food they have created. Loneliness. Despair. Happiness. Sadness. Guilt. Hate. Anger. Embarrassment. Preoccupation. Whatever the person was feeling comes alive on her taste buds. At first, Rose finds this newly found talent as a burdensome weight, who wouldn’t at nine years old? She tries to tell her brother, Joseph, a neurotic science obsessed teenager, but gets nowhere in the process. (We’ll discuss Joseph in a few minutes.) What she does find in telling Joseph is a refuge in Joseph’s best friend George, an equally neurotic science obsessed teenager, but one that is routed firmly in reality. Together, Rose and George, begin to test her abilities by tasting different cookies made at a bakery. This part of the book was fun. I was eager to know just how Rose’s tasting abilities were taking shape and what she would do with her powers.
Ms. Bender had different ideas for me. About this time in the narrative, different details about Rose’s mother and father begin to take shape. Her father has an overpowering fear of hospitals. Her mother begins an affair with a guy named Larry. These aspects are touched upon routinely within the narrative, but they are never fully given the pages needed (in my opinion) to fully blossom. Simple one-line explanations are tacked on as if in an afterthought, which detracts from what the real storyline seems to be: Why exactly does Rose feel that her family is crumbling like one of the dry chocolate-chip cookies she ate at the bakery? (Again, we’ll come back to this in a moment.)
Life continues for Rose and her family. Her power continues to grow. During this time I found the writing to be beautiful, full of descriptive language that could not only be seen, but could be touched and smelled and, yes, even tasted. Through these vivid descriptions, I was able to really empathize with Rose and the others…then the wheels came off. Chaos ensued. Confusion reigned. Absurdity elevated its position of court jester to king.
I read other reviews that stated this novel was a version of magical realism. I cannot disagree enough about this assertion. Magical realism is something more than the absurd mixing with reality. It is a powerful style that helps illuminate or criticize certain aspects of society. Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes magical realism. Salman Rushdie writes magical realism. Isabel Allende writes magical realism. Jorge Borges wrote magical realism. Even Toni Morrison writes in magical realism. Having a character turn into a chair, one that can taste people’s feelings, and another that can smell what a person is like IS NOT MAGICAL REALISM. This is merely a great example of surrealism. Or, better yet, science fiction. Yes, I said science fiction. If science fiction doesn’t float your boat, then choose the word fantasy. But I am getting off track here. My real problem is this: A chair? That is all that Aimee Bender could come up with? Joseph is so depressed, so isolated because of his faux-romantic relationship with science that he manipulates his body into a piece of furniture? This device, to me, seemed too contrived because of Rose’s mother’s new hobby of woodworking. And the fact that we, the readers, are never given any insight as to why Joseph felt the overpowering need to turn into a piece of furniture gives his “power” a silly cartoonish quality.
But the vagueness of Aimee Bender doesn’t stop there. Why does the affair take place? There is nothing to suggest as to why this happens. Rose’s father seems to be a typical, hard-working father. He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t beat his family. He might be labeled as emotionally distant, but that would only be conjecture on the part of the reader. If anything, he seems to be defeated by his wife. She is the one that seems to have all the issues. She has problems with committing to a career. She seems to be constantly living in a world of daydreams and nostalgia. Still, these assumptions on my part, do not qualify the affair. I think an action of this kind needs to be explained, dissected, poured over within pages, not single sentence add-ons that satisfy the objective of not having any loose ends.
What it comes down to for me is: This book seemed unfinished. Thought about, but never fully realized. Rushed. Perhaps I am wrong about all this. Perhaps I missed the point. I’m willing to concede that. But I am not willing to concede the fact that there was a very interesting story within these pages that was given a very abrupt, almost casual execution.
But as I said, time will tell for this novel. Perhaps I’ll amend my thoughts once time has given me the chance to ruminate, order, or even change them.
RECOMMENDED (with reservations)
Every so often a book comes along that creates a divisive turmoil in me. Sometimes these books make me angry; sometimes they make me shake my head in wonder as to why exactly I read it; sometimes it takes months for me to really understand just how impactful the book was to me, which helps clear some of the fog or guilt or happiness or sadness or whatever I felt while reading it. THE PARTICULAR SADNESS OF LEMON CAKE is such a book. Let me first say that this is my first Aimee Bender experience, and though I will rant and rave about certain issues I had with the book, I will more than likely seek out other works by her.
Ultimately, this novel is about family, and the peccadilloes and quirky aspects of being a part of a family. Normally, I love books like these. In some way they make me feel as if my family was “normal.”
Rose Edelstein receives on her ninth birthday a gift that is more akin to a curse: she is given the ability to taste what people feel through whatever food they have created. Loneliness. Despair. Happiness. Sadness. Guilt. Hate. Anger. Embarrassment. Preoccupation. Whatever the person was feeling comes alive on her taste buds. At first, Rose finds this newly found talent as a burdensome weight, who wouldn’t at nine years old? She tries to tell her brother, Joseph, a neurotic science obsessed teenager, but gets nowhere in the process. (We’ll discuss Joseph in a few minutes.) What she does find in telling Joseph is a refuge in Joseph’s best friend George, an equally neurotic science obsessed teenager, but one that is routed firmly in reality. Together, Rose and George, begin to test her abilities by tasting different cookies made at a bakery. This part of the book was fun. I was eager to know just how Rose’s tasting abilities were taking shape and what she would do with her powers.
Ms. Bender had different ideas for me. About this time in the narrative, different details about Rose’s mother and father begin to take shape. Her father has an overpowering fear of hospitals. Her mother begins an affair with a guy named Larry. These aspects are touched upon routinely within the narrative, but they are never fully given the pages needed (in my opinion) to fully blossom. Simple one-line explanations are tacked on as if in an afterthought, which detracts from what the real storyline seems to be: Why exactly does Rose feel that her family is crumbling like one of the dry chocolate-chip cookies she ate at the bakery? (Again, we’ll come back to this in a moment.)
Life continues for Rose and her family. Her power continues to grow. During this time I found the writing to be beautiful, full of descriptive language that could not only be seen, but could be touched and smelled and, yes, even tasted. Through these vivid descriptions, I was able to really empathize with Rose and the others…then the wheels came off. Chaos ensued. Confusion reigned. Absurdity elevated its position of court jester to king.
I read other reviews that stated this novel was a version of magical realism. I cannot disagree enough about this assertion. Magical realism is something more than the absurd mixing with reality. It is a powerful style that helps illuminate or criticize certain aspects of society. Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes magical realism. Salman Rushdie writes magical realism. Isabel Allende writes magical realism. Jorge Borges wrote magical realism. Even Toni Morrison writes in magical realism. Having a character turn into a chair, one that can taste people’s feelings, and another that can smell what a person is like IS NOT MAGICAL REALISM. This is merely a great example of surrealism. Or, better yet, science fiction. Yes, I said science fiction. If science fiction doesn’t float your boat, then choose the word fantasy. But I am getting off track here. My real problem is this: A chair? That is all that Aimee Bender could come up with? Joseph is so depressed, so isolated because of his faux-romantic relationship with science that he manipulates his body into a piece of furniture? This device, to me, seemed too contrived because of Rose’s mother’s new hobby of woodworking. And the fact that we, the readers, are never given any insight as to why Joseph felt the overpowering need to turn into a piece of furniture gives his “power” a silly cartoonish quality.
But the vagueness of Aimee Bender doesn’t stop there. Why does the affair take place? There is nothing to suggest as to why this happens. Rose’s father seems to be a typical, hard-working father. He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t beat his family. He might be labeled as emotionally distant, but that would only be conjecture on the part of the reader. If anything, he seems to be defeated by his wife. She is the one that seems to have all the issues. She has problems with committing to a career. She seems to be constantly living in a world of daydreams and nostalgia. Still, these assumptions on my part, do not qualify the affair. I think an action of this kind needs to be explained, dissected, poured over within pages, not single sentence add-ons that satisfy the objective of not having any loose ends.
What it comes down to for me is: This book seemed unfinished. Thought about, but never fully realized. Rushed. Perhaps I am wrong about all this. Perhaps I missed the point. I’m willing to concede that. But I am not willing to concede the fact that there was a very interesting story within these pages that was given a very abrupt, almost casual execution.
But as I said, time will tell for this novel. Perhaps I’ll amend my thoughts once time has given me the chance to ruminate, order, or even change them.
RECOMMENDED (with reservations)
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake.
sign in »
Reading Progress
| 04/11/2011 | page 114 |
|
40.0% | "My first Bender experience; I'm liking it so far. I think were I'm at in the book can go two drastically different ways: one, to being one of the best books I've read this year, or, two, to a repetitive, droll, unsatisfying conclusion that leaves too many things unexplained." |
| 04/12/2011 | page 200 |
|
70.0% | "Huh? I'm really not sure what I think about this one." |
| 04/12/2011 | page 210 |
|
73.0% | "For the love of God, Lemon Cake, don't go there...oh crap, you're going there aren't you?" |
Comments (showing 1-40 of 40) (40 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Flannery
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Apr 13, 2011 01:13am
In total Goodreads creep fashion, I've been waiting for you to get to this part. I was on board for a large portion of this book and it all went to shit. I'm interested to hear what you'll have to say when you're done. *lurks back into the shadows*
reply
|
flag
*
4 stars? Yikes, well you know I disagree. This book was lacking in so many areas but the most frustrating was that it never really explored any one character or subplot in any real depth. I was just left wanting to know more about everything and who wants that feeling about a book?
Flannery wrote: "4 stars? Yikes, well you know I disagree. This book was lacking in so many areas but the most frustrating was that it never really explored any one character or subplot in any real depth. I was jus..."You'll have to take a look at my rating system to get a fuller appreciation. I guess what it comes down to for me is the fact that this book made me feel something so strongly. I loved the premise, but, as I said, I think the execution was lacking. Listening to Bender speak today on GR, I realize that my discomforts with the book are my own...meaning she wrote it the way she wanted to tell the story. I can't say that I agree with her on this, but I have to admire her loyalty to the story. I can say that I will never revisit this one again.
Flannery wrote: "4 stars? Yikes, well you know I disagree. This book was lacking in so many areas but the most frustrating was that it never really explored any one character or subplot in any real depth. I was jus..."Dang you. Rereading what I just wrote made me take a star away. Perhaps I tried liking this one a bit too much. Three stars, final answer.
I hear you--definitely an engaging premise. I did like her writing style, I just felt that it should've been longer with more explanation. I'm willing to go the extra mile to guess some motivations but certainly not all of them.As to your rating system, I am willing to bet a small sum that after a year, all you will remember is that this book is about a woman who can taste feelings through food and that her brother does...well, you know what he does. It's been less than a year for me and I remember few other aspects of the work. (Excuse me, while I go and rate a chick-lit romance 4 stars)
I agree with all your disappointments in this book, Gavin -- it was a huge letdown for me. But I hope this won't put you off Aimee altogether! When she's good, she really is fantastic; she just isn't good here.
I'm more than halfway through this book and I keep wondering why I am reading it. I agree with your criticism. But I will try to finish and see it through. I did not expect the chair-turning-into portion of this book.
I think I liked the book. I've been selfishly pushing friends to read it so I can see what they think of it.Are you familiar with Asperger Syndrome? I've taught many autistic children over the years & thought Joseph was definitely on the top end of the spectrum. At first his character was realistic to me, but then the chair thing really threw me, and realism went right out the window! The descriptions were beautifully poetic, & I enjoyed the book for the most part, but I was confused by the "chair."
Sandra wrote: "I think I liked the book. I've been selfishly pushing friends to read it so I can see what they think of it.Are you familiar with Asperger Syndrome? I've taught many autistic children over the yea..."
I am not familiar with Asperger, and I can't say with any certainty if Joeseph suffered from this. What I can say, and I mentioned it in the review, is this: if this was an attempt at magical realism it failed; if it wasn't, then the story lacks from the mere fact of not being fully realized. Either way, Bender needed to do more with the story, IMO.
I agree with you. I liked the book. I did. There were lots of parts where I was in a "Why??" moment where I didn't understand what was left out, but there was a left out. I kinda took him turning into a chair as a symbol of turning into something his mother made, she loved. I don't know. It was an odd book, but I enjoyed it.
Tyggereye wrote: "I agree with you. I liked the book. I did. There were lots of parts where I was in a "Why??" moment where I didn't understand what was left out, but there was a left out. I kinda took him turning i..."I can see what you are saying, and I even like that insight, but having him turn into a chair just felt...lazy. I don't know, perhaps I am looking too deeply at one specific aspect of the novel and not at the whole picture Bender tried to paint. I agree with you, it was an odd book.
spot on...I felt angry and depressed when it ended....maybe that was the point....who frigging knows..
Thanks, Aimee. And, you're right, who knows why Bender ended her story the way she did. I guess it comes to this: the story has garnered many emotions and discussions; isn't that what a "good" story should do?
Your review has convinced me to give this a try. And a special thumbs-up to the evocative description of books that create "divisive turmoil" - I know *exactly* what you're talking about and appreciate the way you've put it.
i went to undergrad college with Bender, both Writing majors i think. we weren't friends or anything, but her stories were awesome enough - even way back then - for me to always remember her.
mark wrote: "i went to undergrad college with Bender, both Writing majors i think. we weren't friends or anything, but her stories were awesome enough - even way back then - for me to always remember her."I remember reading that you went to school with her; I think perhaps in your review. Lemon cake just didn't do it for me. I'll read her again, in time.
I agree with what you're saying, that the whole thing felt somewhat incomplete, especially at the end where Bender had Rose jump from little vignettes with each of her family members. But all the incompleteness and the unknown factors are what really made an impact on me. It felt less like a novel in that respect, and more like real life: you never, or rarely, get more than a brief glimpse into the lives and pains and others. But you can find ways to cope with your own "factoryness," if you're willing. I'm not sure why I'm signalling out your review, since we have a one-star difference of opinion, but I think this is a book that's going to stay with me for a while.
Mjhancock wrote: "I agree with what you're saying, that the whole thing felt somewhat incomplete, especially at the end where Bender had Rose jump from little vignettes with each of her family members. But all the ..."No need to be worried if you singled me out, I'm a big boy. ;) But to the matter at hand. I agree with what you said, but, for me, the book didn't work. Perhaps my expectations have kept me from seeing the true wonder of this book? What I can say is: Bender's novel has created a great discourse, and for that I applaud her. I hold firmly that one characterisitc of a "great" book is to get people talking about it. Her book has done that in spades. (TRIVIAL POINT: My ratiing system is skewed; I know that. But I rate to how the book impacted me.)
As to the spatial limitations one has in seeing the daily life/pain/tedium of a person I have to disagree. A novelist has an obligation to give the reader the colors of the painting. They don't need to give the numbers of where the colors go, but they should at least give a suitable insight as to how the colors are arranged. For me, Bender didn't so this. Plus, as I spoke with Bender here on goodreads a few months back, her response to why she decided have Rose's borther turn into a chair were never clearly given. Again, to me, this seemed as if her idea was there but never quite clear to even her.
Thoughts?
I like the review. I finished the look an hour ago and really enjoyed it even though I thought that some ideas were not quiet formed. I feel like I missed a lot of key points but that may be because I missed something as a reader.
Oh, I forgot to answer this. Thanks for the reminder, Barbara. To be brief, I have to admit, it really does fall apart with the chair thing. I can accept the metaphoric, dreamy nature of much of the rest of the book, but the decision to turn the brother into a chair does seem a little too specific to not have a plain, evident reason behind it.
I read this book last summer, and I think you put what I felt into words perfectly. I really enjoyed the aspect exploring the family dynamic, and I liked the perspective it was from through Rose's life, but after I finished it I was mostly left saying, "what? A chair?! Why??" It was moving toward something really interesting in the middle, but it fell totally flat at the end for me and left me feeling unsatisfied.
So I just finished this book and I really really did not like it whatsoever. Almost hated it, to be honest. But I'm not going to get into my whole review because I already did that but I do have a question:The whole scene with the chair was just confusing and not explained well. I was like "Okay, did he cut off his legs. Did he try to stick a chair legs where his human legs should be? Why didn't anybody realize this when he was in the hospital." But now, reading the comments, I'm thinking that he can literally just become objects, like the chair or bed or whatever. And thats even more stupid than I thought. Is that what you all mean by him turning into the chair?
Ashley wrote: "So I just finished this book and I really really did not like it whatsoever. Almost hated it, to be honest. But I'm not going to get into my whole review because I already did that but I do have a ..."You nailed it. That was my biggest gripe...a chair, really? The danger apparently is in the transformation...sometimes it works, sometimes there are side-effects.
Ashley wrote: "So I just finished this book and I really really did not like it whatsoever. Almost hated it, to be honest. But I'm not going to get into my whole review because I already did that but I do have a ..."I completely understand your confusion. I didn't understand what was happening with his legs until he actually became the chair at the end. That part was just written really, really vaguely. I don't know why no one pointed that out to her before publishing it...
Overall, I liked the book. I did think the part with the chair was beyond strange. But I think the open-endedness was there to make it feel a little more real. How many of us really know the what and the why of our parents' relationships? Of course she never fully understood it, its her MOTHER. I think the thing that was bugging me the most was the sadness I felt at the end of the book. I mean, he's a fricking chair and only she knows this. But considering the title, maybe that's what the author wanted us to feel. There are some of us who have special abilities; maybe she was trying to get us to feel some of their pain. Just a guess, of course.
Jenny wrote: "Overall, I liked the book. I did think the part with the chair was beyond strange. But I think the open-endedness was there to make it feel a little more real. How many of us really know the wha..."I think you may be right. We all have our own abilities, and some of them might be painful. But I still feel as if Bender wrote an incomplete novel. Perhaps I just wanted more. The mere fact that her story still creates buzz is great -- too few books have such a lasting effect on so many readers.
Im not half as well read as you are. But I was left completely mind-boggled by the ending. It seemed so out of sorts and bizarre I had to read the passages over and over to make sure what was happening. I felt that the narrative wasnt well bonded either. She'd randomly insert some sentences and it didnt even make a poetic flow. As you so rightly said, her mother's affair wasnt even justified. But what boggled me the most was how she ended it. The second last chapter when they were talking about how Joe was in the hospital didnt even make sense because it was harking back to another time that wasn't part of the narrative that was ongoing. I found it confusing to know what time Aimee was talking about. She could have made it flow better. The worst of it all was the ending where she was like, in a world that I could live and he couldnt. I was just shocked because wait, has he committed suicide? Maybe Aimee's intended effect was to make it linger. Kudos on your review though, said everything I wanted to say.
What ties it all together is Rose's discussion with her dad about his father's special skill, Dad's refusal to accept his special skill, her own ways of coping with her special skill, and Joseph's inability to cope with his special skill without becoming an inanimate object. The reason the last chapter is chronologically out of order is that it is explanatory. The conversation with dad would not have had the same impact if the last chapter had been previous to the conversation with Dad. I was left wondering what exactly Joseph's special skill was. It was NOT being able to turn into a chair, though. That was how he escaped from his special ability. The special ability would have been something like knowing about people from hearing them, or being near them, or looking in their eyes. I think just being near them is the most likely. The point of the book is wrapped up in the differing ways in which the people in the book find to cope with their own particular special skill -- and that the particularities of the skill itself limit the available options for coping. Grandfather could use his "strap", Rose could eat factory food and was free of it when it was not meal time, Dad never even accepted his at all (because that was possible). Rose realized that Joseph could NEVER escape from his. It was constant. That's why he had to turn into a chair. To get relief from knowing too much about everyone he came into contact with.
There's a little blurb about trees on an island -- the ones closest to the shore don't survive, the ones a little farther inland are ravaged but find a way to survive, the ones yet further from the shore are normal. The people in the story who have special skills are like the trees near the shore. Depending exactly where fate sets you down, your options for adapting are limited.


