review of Andrew's Brain

[Michael]

You write: "It is inevitable that every person who picks up this novel will be pulled into the plot, during the first 25 pages, and not wanna put it down."

I'm not sure how you can make such a pronouncement. Look up your favorite novels on Amazon or Goodreads and you will be sure to discover plenty of one- and two-star reviews.

Personally, I found Andrew's Brain much less compelling that Doctorow's other novels. I read it a couple of months ago and can barely remember what it was about.

As Ron Charles wrote in his Washington Post review:

“Andrew’s Brain” hurt mine. The problem isn’t that the novel requires a significant degree of intellectual effort; it’s that it doesn’t provide sufficient reward for that effort."

I found the last section particularly disappointing.

Here's Ron Charles' full review:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/enterta...

[Dave]

Ditto. The March, an epic. Ragtime, a vivid imagining of a quintessential American period of history. Andrews Brain a departure in form and story, not nearly as satisfying as its' predecessors.

[Aminah]

The plot points were definitely scattered about. But I read the novel in a weekend--which is really quick for me because I usually get a extreme case of ADD after I pick up a book (ooh butterflies, flowers, unicorns, facebook, food.) Perhaps, that is why I liked it, because it's scattered form reminded me of the way I think. Which is quite possibly a bad thing.
Definitely a departure from his other novels though, I've looked up Doctorow's other novels and they definitely did not remind me of "Andrew's Brain." I feel that authors need to write more books with this scattered form (or maybe the books are out there and I just need to find them.) Also, I feel like the scattered form was a bit whimsical. And the whimsy definitely caught my attention.

It is true what Charles says about Andrew's character though. He is quite pompus--but maybe the character's pompus because of everything that's happened. Maybe the "self-aggrandizing; see Ron Charles' review that Andrew does is too distance himself from the fact that he did made all these dumb decisions. It's like saying, "oh I'll make myself sound amazing maybe what I've done won't make me sound like a total dick." He is unhappy with who he is and who he has been so he tries to hide it, (even from his therapist, a fact that I find all the more compelling) which I think is a magical thing to find in a protagonist.

Thanks for the comments!

[[deleted user]]

Hmm. Hmm. I think the structure, the departure from his usual form that Doctorow took, reflects the departure from the traditional narrative form he has so, so ably done in the past. To some extent, he did this in Homer & Langley -- he didn't build a picture of an historical period and then fill it with story and characters, this book centers around the characters, and as much as I loved his older work, I appreciated the departure he was taking, making the external world smaller and the people bigger. It's a risk. I felt the structure of Andrew's Brain, the narrative form, the time-shuffling, the ambiguity of the narrative voice, all contributed to the slippery nature of the intellectual material he was handling. Form followed function, more or less. I thought Doctorow took a lot of risks, and did an extraordinarily wonderful job. I got to know Andrew without judging him, got to understand a mind that had slipped. When presented with that sort of a character, we're often given only something chaotic or impenetrable; I thought Doctorow did a wonderful job at portraying how a mind in revolt constructs its own logic, its own reason. I admired it greatly.

[Dave]

Ellen, IMPRESSIVE! Nicely done!

[Dave]

Aminah, I like your approach especially overcoming the A.D.D. This is usually the best way to appreciate and have a full take away from a good read...kind of like binge viewing Orange is the new Black. Continue to have fun!