My first time reading Crevel. I may have gotten a little over-hyped by the blurbs on the cover, which may have led me to hope for too much from the poor book. All in all, I have to say I found it kinda too heavy on the -realism and a bit weak in the Surr- category for my taste. Granted the 1920s were another time--hey, a whole century ago--I can only read this novel now through my own postmodern condition, appreciating what remains of a glorious moment of exploration and transition in Occidental literature, but also a tad disappointed in the novel's not transcending so many tired conventions of the bourgeois novel.
First of all, I very much liked Crevel's prose, as least as much of it as I got from Kay Boyle's translation. The beauty of the descriptions, metaphors and similes, the frequent digressions into straight-up prose reverie were beautiful and the best thing about the novel imho. Also, for a novel that is, I think, trying to use sex, sexual passion, and sensual abandon as strategies against bourgeois complacency and bland, soul-assassinating Christian moral conformity, the text was a whole lot less sexist than such texts tend to be. Perhaps this is partially due to Crevel's bisexuality, or perhaps he's just a man who respected women before it became hip to do so, or maybe it's only accidental. Still, it's a fairy tale world he creates in which sex breaks social taboos but is never realistically portrayed nor its real guts examined. (Let's face it, as much as we love love, the physical details of sex are often disconcerting, troubling, filled with personal predilections and moral judgements, often soothing and lovely but also frequently verging on violence and ugliness, so I have to say that here it's pretty much whitewashed, even if I wholly agree that sensual abandon beats an uptight and awkward family thanksgiving dinner every time.)
The novel isn't too long but it began to feel long because its lovely digressions into reverie were just that, digressions, and the ostensible realistic plot wasn't very satisfying as such since the characters were cardboard and the plot mundane. Obviously these things were meant to be so, but there wasn't enough linguistic or literary transcendence to counteract the vague adherence to the tired literary conventions of a realistic family drama or the new poetic approach to prose and storytelling. The latter never gave me enough to make up for the lack of effort and acumen of the former.
Also, it's difficult and maybe unfair to judge a text for what it doesn't do, but this novel begins in the mind of the youngest character in the family and then goes further and further away from her and her POV as it goes on until she's an indifferent observer at the end equated with the city surrounding the characters. In retrospect, this is a lovely and interesting image, but in practice--perhaps because of the realist tradition the novel is at least partially attacking--her vanishing is disappointing. Since we begin with her POV, we readers I think identified with her and then it's like the novel abandons us both as it meanders on to nothing very much more interesting than where it began.
Also the introduction of the African governess and the subsequent praise of "native" passion felt rather in the orientalist vein. I know Crevel meant well, and I'm sure Occidental stuffiness could learn a lot from many other less technological cultures' sexual freedoms, but, well, he just couldn't get far enough outside of Occidental rhetoric here to convince me.
I have another Crevel on the shelf. I'm still interested enough to try it, but maybe not for a while.