Sign in with FacebookRobotkarateman's Reviews > The Book of Lost Things
The Book of Lost Things
by John Connolly (Goodreads Author)
by John Connolly (Goodreads Author)
** spoiler alert **
Connolly's "Book of Lost Things" came highly recommended as a modern take on the fantasy genre. What I found instead was a completely unlikeable main character, an array of interchangeable father figures, and a disappointing rehash of the usual fairy tale parodies.
"Lost Things" centers on David, a boy whose mother dies and whose father remarries and has a second child, leaving David to bicker bitterly with his new stepmother while trying to avoid anxiety attacks that leave him blacked out and feverish. And that groundwork occurs in one of the most poorly paced info-dumps I've had the misfortune to read. The first chapter focuses on David and his mother, leading you to believe this will be the crux of the story - but alas, she dies. The second chapter focuses on the father's remarriage and David's anxiety attacks leading the reader to believe, perhaps, this is the focus of the story - it is not. The third and fourth chapters center on David's mostly absent father whose work is "top secret" and David's fights with his step-mother and we, the audience, raise our index fingers and say, "Ah-ha! Top secret Dad! Conflict with the new parental figure! This, surely, is the story!" But, alas, those are red-herrings as well. In fact, after the sixth chapter, neither of those characters appears again until the (two chapters long!) epilogue.
The real story ends up being David's abduction into the land of fairy tales by the Crooked Man, a Rumpelstiltskin who makes vicious bargains with emotional children to feed his magical slave house. David starts off his true adventure by following the voice of his dead mother - but don't assume that the story somehow involves David's mother's spirit wandering painfully in the fantasy realm awaiting rescue, this too, in Connolly fashion, is completely irrelevant to the story. Instead, David wanders the fantasy realm accompanied by a series of nearly identical substitute fathers who end up betraying David's trust in one way or another - by being gay in one case (Roland), by being fallible in another (the generic Woodsman).
In the end, David finds another potential father figure in Jonathon, and quickly realizes that not only is Jonathon a liar and a murderer, but also that he, David, no longer needs a father figure because he's now become a man of his own right. He then stares down Jonathon, the Crooked Man, and the vicious wolf monsters, who until that point only appeared in the story when Connolly felt the need to remind us that David was in danger because wolf monsters were chasing him; they never catch up to him except at the end and, as I said, David simply stares them down and wins by virtue of his newfound manhood.
In all, "Lost Things" is a plodding, thinly veiled paean to a baby-boomer-era view of "manhood" as stoic resolution and resistance to all hurts, including mental and emotional. Perhaps this story plays better, and I don't wish to be insulting, with a female audience, one that's never had to grapple with questions of "manliness" or had to decide on an appropriate level of attachment to an older male. As for me, I was insulted that David begins the story emotionally wounded by what he views as a betrayal by his father and, instead of finding closure, he learns to just get over it and "be a man" about it.
But a bigger insult, in my eyes, was the closing of the book - Connolly is so in love with his work that he follows up the main story with almost 150 pages of notes and commentary on his story: everything from the origins of the fairy tales he parodies to his woeful recollections of scenes that were cut from the final draft (murder your darlings, Connolly!). It's as jarring as it would be had Stephen King ended Christine with detailed descriptions of a Plymouth Belvedere and ten pages of him crying about the Arnie/Christine tailpipe sex scene that his editors excised from the final publication.
This was my first experience with Connolly, and as it's his most highly recommended book, I'll probably pass on his work in the future.
"Lost Things" centers on David, a boy whose mother dies and whose father remarries and has a second child, leaving David to bicker bitterly with his new stepmother while trying to avoid anxiety attacks that leave him blacked out and feverish. And that groundwork occurs in one of the most poorly paced info-dumps I've had the misfortune to read. The first chapter focuses on David and his mother, leading you to believe this will be the crux of the story - but alas, she dies. The second chapter focuses on the father's remarriage and David's anxiety attacks leading the reader to believe, perhaps, this is the focus of the story - it is not. The third and fourth chapters center on David's mostly absent father whose work is "top secret" and David's fights with his step-mother and we, the audience, raise our index fingers and say, "Ah-ha! Top secret Dad! Conflict with the new parental figure! This, surely, is the story!" But, alas, those are red-herrings as well. In fact, after the sixth chapter, neither of those characters appears again until the (two chapters long!) epilogue.
The real story ends up being David's abduction into the land of fairy tales by the Crooked Man, a Rumpelstiltskin who makes vicious bargains with emotional children to feed his magical slave house. David starts off his true adventure by following the voice of his dead mother - but don't assume that the story somehow involves David's mother's spirit wandering painfully in the fantasy realm awaiting rescue, this too, in Connolly fashion, is completely irrelevant to the story. Instead, David wanders the fantasy realm accompanied by a series of nearly identical substitute fathers who end up betraying David's trust in one way or another - by being gay in one case (Roland), by being fallible in another (the generic Woodsman).
In the end, David finds another potential father figure in Jonathon, and quickly realizes that not only is Jonathon a liar and a murderer, but also that he, David, no longer needs a father figure because he's now become a man of his own right. He then stares down Jonathon, the Crooked Man, and the vicious wolf monsters, who until that point only appeared in the story when Connolly felt the need to remind us that David was in danger because wolf monsters were chasing him; they never catch up to him except at the end and, as I said, David simply stares them down and wins by virtue of his newfound manhood.
In all, "Lost Things" is a plodding, thinly veiled paean to a baby-boomer-era view of "manhood" as stoic resolution and resistance to all hurts, including mental and emotional. Perhaps this story plays better, and I don't wish to be insulting, with a female audience, one that's never had to grapple with questions of "manliness" or had to decide on an appropriate level of attachment to an older male. As for me, I was insulted that David begins the story emotionally wounded by what he views as a betrayal by his father and, instead of finding closure, he learns to just get over it and "be a man" about it.
But a bigger insult, in my eyes, was the closing of the book - Connolly is so in love with his work that he follows up the main story with almost 150 pages of notes and commentary on his story: everything from the origins of the fairy tales he parodies to his woeful recollections of scenes that were cut from the final draft (murder your darlings, Connolly!). It's as jarring as it would be had Stephen King ended Christine with detailed descriptions of a Plymouth Belvedere and ten pages of him crying about the Arnie/Christine tailpipe sex scene that his editors excised from the final publication.
This was my first experience with Connolly, and as it's his most highly recommended book, I'll probably pass on his work in the future.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Book of Lost Things.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-16 of 16) (16 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Diana
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Oct 01, 2008 12:55pm
i just finished reading this and i'm in love with your review.
reply
|
flag
*
I can't believe that anybody had negative thoughts about this book! I couldn't put it down and when I finished I started over again! I wanted more!
I'm not sure I can agree with your statement about Roland betraying David by being gay. I read the Woodsman and Roland as variants on male role models: the Woodsman as a father and Roland as a lover. That the Crooked Man tries to make Roland's sexuality ugly is another trap for David to stumble on that he manages not to fall into. Your comments on the masculinity issues are very interesting! I'm glad you shared them. I do wonder if David's "being a man" about the perceived betrayal wasn't intended as a form of closure. Rather than continue to lash out and avenge, David decides to accept and be a (better) man. Isn't that the best we can ask of ourselves, to forgive others and try to improve on their mistakes when they treat us unjustly? I found it a positive message, rather therapeutic.
I also didn't feel that the "red herrings" were irrelevant to the story. The possibility of David's mother's spirit existing somewhere in the fantasy world is what lures him there and makes him vulnerable to the Crooked Man's manipulation. He has to give up the mommy fantasy and see that Rose is not really the wicked stepmother he tries to make her out to be.
Just some thoughts, love to hear what you think.
Kate wrote: "I'm not sure I can agree with your statement about Roland betraying David by being gay.You raise points I thought I had already addressed well enough, but clearly I hadn't, so I'll start here. Each of the male figures in the book ends up falling short of David's ideal, somehow. Roland fails when the Crooked Man insinuates that Roland wants David sexually and, in that chapter, David recoils from Roland in disgust. Later, he regrets the recoil, but never acknowledges or changes the disgust, and it's left up to Roland to address the matter. Shortly after, Roland dies, indicating the character had failed and left the story.
I read the Woodsman and Roland as variants on male role models: the Woodsman as a father and Roland as a lover
Again, at the risk of being offensive, I think this shows a lack of understanding about what a male role model means to a young boy. Father figures and lovers are two different concepts.
That the Crooked Man tries to make Roland's sexuality ugly is another trap for David to stumble on that he manages not to fall into.
But he does fall into it. And while he regrets hurting Roland, and he regrets believing the Crooked Man, he never regrets feeling that disgust at the possibility that Roland and Raphael were lovers. He never addresses the "dirty" feeling he gets.
I do wonder if David's "being a man" about the perceived betrayal wasn't intended as a form of closure
While this might make for a decent, and realistic, ending to a real-life situation, it makes for terrible gestalt in fiction. In fact, it's a weak attempt at turning the confrontation with the father figure of the Heroes Journey on its ear, for no discernible reason other than to do it. David never overcomes his problems, he never has a climactic showdown, he never overcomes the ultimate hardships, he simply waits until the Crooked Man's magics fall in on themselves and the story resolves itself without David's help at all. That's not being heroic, it's being inactive.
I also didn't feel that the "red herrings" were irrelevant to the story
They're destructive to the narrative. The story falls apart as a whole because multiple conflicts are established as key to the story but that are never again addressed within the framework of the character's journey.
I just finished reading the book, and was trying to think about why exactly I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. It seems you summed all my thoughts up in this review!And I completely agree with you on the finishing notes and commentary, it seemed so vain and unnecessary.
I would only ask that you do not judge Connolly by this book. It is by far his weakest after his first novel. The Charlie Parker's get quite good if willing to give the time.
Robotkarateman - I have not read this book, but your review piques my interest. As Connely is an apparant failure on what a male looks for in his role models, perhaps you can enlighten me on a book that successfully captures what a male is looking for in his role models.
Firstly, the inaccuracy of some points in your review take away much of the credibility of your speculation. Your first complaint is the introduction and setup for the actual story. David is represented as a conflicted youth who finds comfort in fairy tales rather than his father, stepmother, and stepbrother due to his own liking of books and pre-conditioning to find comfort in them from his mother. This leads up to the analogies that are later made within the fairy tale land to his real-life issues. It gives us the idea that fairy tales are an important part of David's life, the part of life that he can relate to and understand. His father's secrecy cannot be seen as distracting from the plot. It is a betrayal of David's trust, at least in David's mind, and can be set parallel to certain scenarios within the fairy tale land.
Also, the reviewer states that David's mother's spirit wandering the land is completely irrelevant to the story. The story is about David coming to terms with his mother's death, himself, the new members of his family, and life not always being fair or black and white but grey. Also, while the figures could be compared to substitute fathers, they are all parallels to stories David has heard and real people outside of the dream world. Certain things adults have told him or done to him have given David different fears and different beliefs. David's recoil from Roland comes from his mother and father's warning of strange men who found pleasure in lying with boys at the beginning of the story. His mother had said that to him. This can be considered a part where he comes to terms with his mother's death as he realizes that Roland is a nice person despite his suspicion that Roland is gay, which in fact is never proven or disproven. It is only implied by the Crooked Man. The whole thing was merely speculation and partial trickery on behalf of the Crooked Man. He wanted David to distrust Roland, so he took the words of David's mother and used them to make David frightened of Roland.
The accusation of the irrelevance of the wolves in the story is spiteful as they are relevant. Everything David faced up until then in the fairy tale land was proven projections of his own fears because of the wolves and Jonathan. They are important to the story. He didn't 'stare them down.' Jonathan died, and because they were only projections of the King's fears, the wolves perished. Not because David 'stared them down.' David does not necessarily 'realize' that he doesn't need a father, but that he deserved to make his own choices and that his resentment of his stepmother and stepbrother brought him no good. He realizes they did not replace his deceased mother.
Saying the book is about manhood is admittance that you do not understand it, though this book is more the type that is left up to interpretation. So I suppose that if that is your interpretation of the book, then all is well and good. Honestly, this review insults me as it says the book appeals to ignorant women who need to grapple and come to terms with some pre-modern definition of manliness, when this is not the story.
Finally, the reviewer states David finds no closure. David finds closure with himself. The only problem from the beginning was how he felt, so the only closure that he could find was in himself. He realizes his father deserves to make his own decisions just as he does.
It's now apparent why Connolly would bother placing such a large explanation in the back of the book, though I myself have never seen said version of the book: It was to explain and convey the message of the book to people who were out to misunderstand it. I feel your review is somewhat critical and unfair, especially in the way it means to slight the intellect and imply narcissism in the part of Connolly. I liked this book, and I fully understood the messages of it. This comment is not necessarily to change your mind but I suppose to defend the meaning of a book that I find very inspiring from ridicule I myself find unreasonable.
Well, I rarely don't finish a book, especially one that I'm nearly halfway through, but I came here to find out if other people were stumbling against the issues I'm having with the story. Turns out, you had the exact issues I'm having. After the woodsman's second story, I felt the entire thing grinding to a halt. Was I prepared to spend the remaining hundred pages or so reading slight variations on standard fairy tales? Many people wrote about this authors unique vision, but I found it terribly derivative. Thanks for your review.
Sadie, you seem to have taken a personal offense to my review, as if I were somehow insulting you directly. You should learn to take other people's opinions of things for what they are - other people's opinions. I'm not going to post a point-by-point rebuttal to what you wrote because I'm afraid you'll come back and post another page-and-a-half screed (really, you should save that stuff for your blog, not other people's reviews), but I did want to address your accusation of "unfairness".
I'm sorry I didn't like a book that you found "very inspiring", but the fact is I didn't like it. Plain as that. It's not "unfair" or "unreasonable" for me not to like a thing and then, on a review site (of all places), to explain why I didn't like it. The fact that you managed to draw some inspiration from Connolly's derivative nonsense is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that everyone who didn't has suddenly developed a vendetta against him or, as you've implied, lacks the reasoning to delve into the deeper meaning in the work.
Vanessa wrote: "As Connely is an apparant failure on what a male looks for in his role models, perhaps you can enlighten me on a book that successfully captures what a male is looking for in his role models."First, let me clarify that I never said Connolly failed to describe "what a male looks for in a his role models". My complaint about the book is that the temporary fathers presented in the book are never even given the chance to be role models, they serve only to accentuate that void in David's life until, ultimately, he realizes he never needed a role model, he just needed to be more stoic.
Second, I don't believe such a book exists because I don't believe kids operate in a vacuum - they take their cues from the adults around them. That's why I find the ending of this book so lacking; David just suddenly stands up and says, "Welp, I'm a man now, not afraid of anything." It completely devalues the emotional baggage David is handed at the start of the book.
Love this review and was spot on to my feelings as well. Not sure if it makes a difference between male vs female audience though. As a female, I came away from it with the same exact feelings. This book was a tedious mess and I was almost insulted by that 150 page "lesson plan" at the end. It was so bizarre and off-putting.
Robotkarateman wrote: "Sadie, you seem to have taken a personal offense to my review, as if I were somehow insulting you directly. You should learn to take other people's opinions of things for what they are - other peop..."It's not that you don't like the book. It's that all of the claims you make about Connolly and the audience you believe this would appeal to are non sequitur, and that annoyed me and offended me.
