Last night, our town library book group discussed _The Plague of Doves A Novel_ by Louise Erdrich.

Both the book and the author are highly acclaimed. I found that I had to plow through this book. It is non-linear and seems disjointed. Also, there are too many characters to keep track of. The lyricism got on my nerves. It has several narrators and, at times, I didn't know which narrator was speaking. The book was a difficult read for me.

All in all, I did not enjoy this book and I only read it because the group was reading it and because I wanted to find out what the hoop-la is all about.

At our group discussion, I learned that the modern novel often tends to be non-linear and does not provide the exposition which helps to orient the reader. Instead, the reader is supposed to figure out the exposition (i.e., the background and the setting, etc.) by reading the events in the story.

If I remember correctly, the book, The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje is written in this modern style. I found that book difficult to read as well.

In the next message in this topic, I am going to post a long list of comments about the book which I found here at Goodreads. That is my way of complaining about this highly acclaimed book and writer. Any other opinions are welcome.

Below are some comments about _THE PLAGUE OF DOVES_ by Louise Erdrich. I found the comments at Goodreads at the following webpage:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22275...

Some of the following readers had good things to say about the book, as well as negative comments. However, I've copied and pasted the negative excerpts below in order to feel that I'm not alone in my feelings about the book. There are many more comments at the above webpage. Most of the comments at the web page are positive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jo wrote:
...many of these chapters were published separately and the book has a disjointed feel... for the record, i'm not even trying to keep the characters straight. i'm sure erdrich doesn't expect me to and seriously, who cares who's married to whom and who's the cousin of whom? they are all interrelated...

Sonja wrote:
Other reviewers have said that the book is too confusing, too many characters, too many storylines.
Since everyone's truth varies, the stories, memories, perceptions and understandings of an event varies... Erdrich captures this perfectly in her use of multiple characters, story threads and sometimes ambiguity.

Elise wrote: ... I was finding myself having a hard time keeping all of the different threads and families straight...
Several of the storylines are incredible, but some of the others weren't compelling enough for me to really love the book as a whole.

Ingrid wrote:
...nothing grabbed my attention ... at all. And I became bored. Soon I realized I was 20-something pages in, had been introduced to a dozen characters, and felt completely unattached.

Will wrote: The writing in this story didn't grab me (at all!), and the story itself didn't grab me...
Multiple narrators, multiple generations, much overlap between Native Americans and European settlers. This is apparently typical of her work.
There are many characters and I often had trouble keeping them straight.
This book needs a family tree illustration to help the reader keep track of the characters.
Once one has a sense of the whole, it becomes easier to pick out the elements, the relationships, the literary elements when traveling the path a second time...

Erica wrote: There were too many narrators that were too unrelated. The central "mystery" of the book wasn't played up enough. [underlining by Joy H.:]

Annieb wrote: I thought it was just me...but I see from some reviews that others found this story frustrating and hard to follow. ...
Finished this the other day and continued to find it confusing. It seemed to me that the various plot lines were never satisfactorily connected, though some questions were answered by the end. It was hard to keep the characters straight, and some of them seemed rather flat or unfinished. I didn't really know them or care much about them all the way through.

Kimberly wrote: I did, however, find this book a bit difficult to follow, due to the many different narrators and the fact that it was frequently not sequential.

Phillip wrote: I'm having kind of a hard time getting into this. Her writing is so trying to be poetic and expansive, but it feels like she's stumbling over quite a few words...the prose is a bit awkward, but not in a good way.

Lynzee wrote: I really didnt like it. I tried to give it hope, but could not connect with the bland characters. It wasnt for me thats for sure. Took all I had to finish it.

Chris wrote: This has its moments, but I was at page 200 and still not really caring very much, so decided to just pack it in. I give it an "o brother" and a "gahhhh"

Abby wrote: I hit a wall about 100 pages in and am setting this book aside to pick up after I read a couple new books that arrived and I must get to and then pass on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END OF EXCERPTS

That being said, I have to state that the book contained some parts that were riveting and compelling. They seemed more like separate small, interesting anecdotes in the middle of a sea of ambiguity. The ambiguity was not compelling at all. In my opinion, this style of writing is too disorienting to be pleasurable.

Perhaps other readers don't mind feeling disoriented.
I find such ambiguity almost intolerable.

P.S. See message #21 below. It provides a great link which clarifies the story.

By way of preface, I haven't read any of Erdrich's work, so can't comment on it specifically. That said, a lot of self-consciously "modern" fiction reminds me of G. Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame), who reportedly once stuck his hand in a candle flame just to prove he was tough enough to do it. Reading pretentious avant-garde fiction often seems to be a similar exercise for snobs to do, showing others (and themselves) that their taste is so superior to that of the Great Unwashed --"most people couldn't stand to suffer through this, but I can!" But genuinely great literature has never been something readers have to suffer through!

I'd already read the book-blurb on GoodReads when I saw it was popular there. I concluded it was chic-lit so didn't put it on my too-reads. Thanks for the reinforcing my snap-opinion.

Werner wrote: "By way of preface, I haven't read any of Erdrich's work, so can't comment on it specifically. That said, a lot of self-consciously "modern" fiction reminds me of G. Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame), who reportedly once stuck his hand in a candle flame just to prove he was tough enough to do it..."

I see your point, Werner. Unfortunately, I get the impression that Erdrich's work is highly regarded in literary circles and there's no way to fight that high evaluation. If one doesn't go along with it, one gets the feeling that he/she is considered "not worthy" in literary circles.

It's similar to the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Most folks want to be considered "worthy", i.e., one of the sophisticated thinkers and appreciators.

At my age, I've passed the stage where I need to hide my opinions in order to hide my shortcomings (if indeed they are shortcomings). To me that's the glory of being older. Somehow, some of us come to accept ourselves just as we are.

As for genuine great literature never causing readers to suffer through the reading of it, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. IMO, some of Shakespeare's writing is difficult to read. Indeed, that fact causes me to suffer, either in the reading of it or in the realization that I can't grasp its meaning without the help of Cliffs Notes. (g)

I'm afraid this particular issue, that of difficult literature being considered great or not great, is a controversy which will always be with us, just as the issue of the value of modern art vs representational art is always with us.

IMO, the question is: Is something to be considered great just because it's difficult to read? We know the answer is no, but how do we prove it?

I remember some advice I once read: "We should try to separate our personal taste from our evaluation of a work of art."

I suppose that means that we should leave the evaluating to more knowledgeable people. Hmmmm...

That brings us to another question: Whose opinion can we trust?

Round and round we go... :)

Earl wrote: "I'd already read the book-blurb on GoodReads when I saw it was popular there. I concluded it was chic-lit so didn't put it on my too-reads. Thanks for the reinforcing my snap-opinion."

Earl, I wouldn't consider _The Plague of Doves_ chic-lit at all. As was discussed at our town library group's meeting, it's a many-layered story involving many characters and many themes. Some of the themes are: American Indians, Religion, Relationships, Crime, etc. In fact, there's even a mystery to be solved in this book. So there's a lot to it, even I have to admit that. :)

I think I have mentioned that "Plague of Doves" is our book club's selection for April and I was most interested in reading the comments and intend to save them and take them to our meeting. it will be interesting to see who agrees and who doesn't. I predice I will agree with the majority of you. nina

Joy, I also often think of the story of the Emperor's new clothes when I think of modern literary criticism! I guess I've always had the sort of personality that's readily inclined to point out that the Emperor is buck naked, and has an ugly physique to boot. :-) You and I are just as intelligent, and just as able to judge whether or not a work of literature speaks to the human mind and spirit, as the typical academic --probably more able, because we try to do it honestly as we see it rather than trying to curry favor in the world of academic politics. And speaking to the mind and spirit of human beings --ALL human beings, plain old garden-variety, eating and drinking, average human beings, if you will, not a supposedly super-intelligent clerisy--is what literature is about; what it came into being for, and continues to exist for.

When I say that reading great literature isn't about suffering through it, that presupposes that you're reading something written in your own language --I'd be suffering if I had to read Jules Verne in French, or Dostoevsky in Russian! For many people, Middle or early modern English is as much a foreign language as French or Russian. But that isn't the same issue as "literature" written in a way that's deliberately incoherent and opaque in its own language. (Chaucer and Shakespeare wrote for the everyday speakers of their language --the kind of people who paid a penny to stand in the pit of the Globe Theater, not just for the professors at Oxford and Cambridge. Their original audiences certainly did NOT suffer through their works --and the writers certainly didn't intend or expect them to!)) No matter how great a writer is, he/she communicates in a particular language and within a particular setting, because that's the only way humans can communicate. But we can learn a foreign language, if we want to (or read its literature in translation), or learn the diction and historical/ social background of a past century; and when we do, we find that great literature from that milieu speaks to us, too. But when the language of a novel or story is your own language and you live in its social setting, and you still can't understand what the writer is supposedly saying or find enough rewards in the writing to enjoy it, then I think you're justified in suspecting that the problem is with the writer, not with you! (Does all of that make any sense?) :-)

Nina - I look forward to hearing your comments about _The Plague of Doves_ after you read it.

I read the book without any prior knowledge of what to expect. I hadn't even read the flap of the book. I purposely went into the book without knowing what it was about because I wanted to judge it for myself without any outside influence. Your opinion may differ because you are going into it with prior knowledge. That always helps.

Werner wrote: "Does all of that make any sense?"

Werner, yes, what you say makes a great deal of sense. What puzzles me is how so many people have been able to enjoy reading _The Plague of Doves_. At our town library book group I could see that some of the readers genuinely enjoyed the book. They got so much more out of it than I did.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that a lot of what the author said didn't interest me. At one point, toward the end, she goes on and on about stamp collecting. I knew from the discussion at the group that the solution to the main mystery was at the end of the book. I kept looking for that solution while all Erdrich did was talk about stamp collecting. A-a-argh! It was not only boring but it was frustrating as well.

The book has so many characters that you can't keep them straight. One industrious soul said that he read the book twice and took notes so that he could figure out all the ambiguities. I wish I had that kind of motivation.

I must say that when I read _The Hours_ by Michael Cunningham, I gave it that kind of intense analysis. But that was because I loved Cunningham's style of writing. I guess it's all in the motivation whether we enjoy a book or not. If we're motivated, we will put more effort into things. After a while, with _The Plague..._, I just didn't care anymore because I wasn't enjoying it.

What comes first... the enjoyment or the motivation? The chicken or the egg?

Funny how we all enjoy different things. I'll never understand why. I guess it's in our genes... or a combination of nature and nurture.

The articles at the following links may interest you regarding criticism of modern literature:

FROM THE NY TIMES: ====>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE: ====>
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/my...

Do you find some of your opinions echoed in those articles?

Joy,

In another message you mentioned Marlo Thomas's book The Right Words at the Right Time, when we were discussing the words your father said to you about college and my father and mother said to me about my upcoming marriage. I bring this up because my good friend and neighbor was published in Marlo Thomas's The Right Words at the Right Time, Book II/It was only published in hard back. In case you read it her name is DeMar Regier. She has been published frequently in Childrens' magazines for years. And I so advire Marlo Thomas! nina

Nina wrote: "...my good friend and neighbor was published in Marlo Thomas's The Right Words at the Right Time, Book II ... her name is DeMar Regier."

That's great, Nina. What were the words your friend, DeMar Regier found valuable? I don't have Marlo Thomas' book. I borrow my books from the library. I have read only the first book, not the second.

I found the following page with a bit about your friend's inclusion in the book: ====>
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0743497430?...

It gives the beginning of her section, but not the ending. Guess we'll have to read the book! LOL

Below are cover-links to the books:
[bc:The Right Words at the Right Time|310205|The Right Words at the Right Time|Marlo Thomas|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173626650s/310205.jpg|1252791]The Right Words at the Right Time

The Right Words at the Right Time Volume 2 Your Turn!

Fascinating reading of the NY Times article and The Atlantic. I have something I will write later about Annie Proulx. I need to get my facts straight. nina

Joy, thank you so much for the links to those two articles in your comment above! Yes, both of those echo my opinions --but the writers express them so much more brilliantly and eloquently than I ever could. WOW! I would never have expected to read such sentiments in pillars of Establishment critical dogma such as the New York Times and Atlantic. Maybe, in this dark age, there's some light breaking in the east after all. :-)

I'm going to make copies of both of these articles for my own reference, and send the links to two of the English faculty at the college where I work.

Hi Werner. Glad you appreciated those articles.

When you get some spare time, you might be interested in other people's comments about those articles. See the discussion which I started at the following link back in January: ====>
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9348...

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. :)

There are 57 replies. So brace yourself. LOL

Thanks, Joy! I'll definitely give that discussion a look-see when I have some time to devote to it (soon, I hope!). :-)

Werner, believe it or not, I met the core of that group back in 1995 when it was part of the Prodigy Bulletin Boards, before the days when the Internet opened up to everyone. There are a lot of fine, well-read folks there and only one troll that I've noticed. :)

When I go to that group, I often feel that I'm out of my depth. But I've learned a lot from them and I've done some good reading with them too. However, the group has gotten so huge that it's lost the personal atmosphere it once had.

For more discussion of this book, go to our group's topic at:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1149...
See Messages #5, 6, 7, and 8...

Perhaps more will be added there in the future.

For a good review of this book ( The Plague of Doves A Novel ), see:
http://www.barcelonareview.com/rev/63.ht...

This review clarifies things quite a bit.
It's well written and includes understandable details.

I will save this web site for after I finish the book..It is our April selection for my book club. nina

Good luck, Nina. I'll be interested in what you think of the book. I think one must have the memory of an elephant to keep track of all the characters in that book and all their convoluted inter-connections over the long time span of the story.

One fellow I know was so challenged by the book that he read it twice and took notes in order to be able to figure it all out. Now that's what I call ambition!