Dept. of Speculation - General (no spoilers) (July 2017)

[Marc]

This thread is for general discussion about the book (no spoilers). Feel free to share resources, comments about Offill, initial reactions that don't give away the plot or ending, etc.

A few links for those interested (reviews most likely contain spoilers):
- Books that Influenced Dept. of Speculation
- Mother Courage (James Wood review)
- Voyager Golden Record
- How Much Could Be Left Unsaid: [Paris Review] Interview with Jenny Offill
- Rohen Maitzen's review
- Marginalia's review
- Roxanne Gay's review

[Clarke]

The book is composed of taut, arresting sentences. I've seen comments from Don DeLillo and James Baldwin to the effect that sentences are the key to novels, and Offill definitely gets that. Vonnegut wrote in an essay for would-be writers that "readers love information." Offill gets that, too, because a large part of the novel is devoted to encyclopedic snippets of information interspersed amid the forward action. This structure is very au courant, mimicking the pattern of 21st C. thought as reflected in the virtual environment, i.e., we are in "tree" mode, jumping from one subject to another almost at random, and gone are the days of Gutenberg era, which reached its peak of linearity and conceptual continuity in the 19th C. novel (Victorians and Russians, especially). A third structural aspect of interest is the shift in mid-book (is it somewhere around Chapter 22?) from first to third person. This I thought was a calculated move intended to take us from (1) close interest in the protagonist's feelings, thoughts, etc. to (2) ironic distance. All of this worked for me. I found the novel engaging and readable, very clever, competent. I trust this author. The scope of the novel was limited, and one is left with, in my view, a short story idea: woman suffers from unfaithful husband. I think this narrowness of scope is what causes some of the readers on Goodreads to find little to praise in the novel. They are focused on the idea of novel as a big story, with sweep and large scope. There are some very good, or even classic novels, which do not have the big scope, e.g., The Scarlet Letter, which also seems to me essentially a short story stretched out, although there is a slightly bigger story line there than here.
All in all, I would give this novel 4 stars, and wait for an even better one in the future from this novelist.

[Hugh]

I have a copy and will probably start it some time next week...

[LindaJ^]

I gave it 4* when I read it at the end of June but now think that was too many, as when this thread opened, I had not a clue what the book was about and had to go read my review (view spoiler)[(https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) (hide spoiler)] to refresh my memory!

[LindaJ^]

Marc wrote: "This thread is for general discussion about the book (no spoilers). Feel free to share resources, comments about Offill, initial reactions that don't give away the plot or ending, etc.

A few links..."

Marc, thanks for the links. I loved Roxanne Gay's review.

[Kathleen]

I just finished this, and am not sure yet what I think. I did enjoy it more as it went on. At first it seemed twitter-like, a little too much like texts from friends. But then it started to deepen when I saw recurrences of some of her phrases and images, and actually when she changed to third person.

Clarke, I really appreciate your analysis above. Especially your explanation of "tree" mode. That style might have been a turn off for me, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I learned a lot from your post, so thanks!

I'll be pondering for a while ... :-)

[Clarke]

A couple of other structural points to add: I saw a comment on Goodreads somewhere saying that one might write this novel using the internet (i.e., for the interspersed encyclopedic entries). One of the passages referred to an index entry in Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents." I checked my copy of Freud, and the index entry was accurately quoted. This is the sort of thing one takes from one's library more easily and quickly than from the internet. This stuff, and the narrative, could also be compared to "cut-up", the technique alleged to be used by Burroughs back in the 1950s (see Paris Review interviews). Second point, glancing at the Paris Review interview with Offill cited in the link above, she is asked about plot, and she says, quoting another source and with tongue in cheek, "Fuck plot." That's consistent with the general impression coming from the reviews of an anecdotal rather than a plot driven technique. BTW, thanks for your comment, Kathleen.

[Casceil]

I read the first six chapters last night. This is only about a quarter of the book, so I am still feeling my way. So far, it reminds me of several other books, including one this group read about five years ago, Vanishing Point by David Markson. When reading that book, we had a serious discussion about whether it should be called a novel at all. But Dept. of Speculation also reminds me of Speedboat by Renata Adler. And, to some extent, it reminds me of Virginia Woolf. Other writers have experimented with using apparently random or disjointed thoughts or ideas that seem to relate, and Dept. of Speculation is a new variation on that. Now, we look at this and we're reminded of twitter. I think it is actually a much older idea about how brains work.

[Marc]

Casceil, I think a fair number of reviewers have compared it to Speedboat and I believe Offill cites that one as an influence.

Clarke, thanks for the astute observations! R.S.W. just posted in the spoiler thread about the change in perspective not working for him, so it's interesting to see how Offill's choices affect readers differently. In that same interview you mention above the interviewer paraphrases Enrique Vila-Matas as believing the 21st century will be the triumph of style over plot. Offill rides off this notion by saying she might not care so much about plot, but that she cares about momentum "that has the same quality of urgency and forward motion"--do we think these qualities work well enough to stand in for plot in general?

LindaJ^, I tried to mix it up with some positive and negative/more critical reviews. This was my second reading, as well (with a long break in between). I wondered if I'd be as taken with it. I was surprised that I was.

Feel free to work our your thoughts with us, Kathleen. I find these discussions often help me clarify my own thoughts.

[Hugh]

I have just started and I'm finding myself having to slow down and re-read quite a few paragraphs. Enjoying it so far.

[Clarke]

On plot and momentum. I don't think these terms are equivocal. Plot includes the number of "factual" turns the momentum takes. I think the real issue is scope, which is also distinct. A larger scope implies a greater sweep, and in most cases that means more plot, unless you're Henry Miller (writing a long, long rant). Plot is connected, related events leading to meaning. Scope includes meaning and extension of novel elements, one of which, traditionally, is plot. So here, when you ask, "What's the story about?" you can answer in one sentence, as above in my first entry, and that usually means, to me, a short story. That's not to say it's not good, and of course short stories also may have plots.

[Marc]

I agree that plot and momentum are not equivocal terms. The danger in a story without a plot is that nothing happens, or, perhaps, no linkage exists between what happens. But if the quality of the writing in a plotless or plot-lite novel makes a reader feel a sense of urgency or motion, than the story seems to be moving (plus, it's less calories!). I do think her style gives the story momentum, but I wouldn't say it's a story devoid of plot entirely.

[Sarah]

Yes, Speedboat is what came to mind when I read this.

I loved Speculation. It came at the right time for me, but I'm wondering also if, as a woman, I read this differently than a man might. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my distinction...I just think women are more prone to the kind of emotional investigation that's going on here. Also, the occasional loneliness that comes from being a stay at home parent (esp. a mom) cannot be overestimated.

Finally, Offill's wry, sardonic tone offsets the sadness beautifully, as does the novel's structure. I kind of liken the series of short passages to the way my own mind worked when I was at home with my children. Brief flickers of insight, despair, joy, deep love for my kids and deep pissed-offness about the fact that I was at a playground pushing a swing and not writing for myself or earning money for my family. These insights are like lightning strikes. Your day is consumed with the chores of parenting and the constant need to respond to your kids' needs. There's no time for a fluent narrative, even in your own, sleep-deprived brain. I was with this narrator from the get-go and ended up wishing I'd written this book myself.

[Hugh]

I have never read Speedboat, but it sounds like one to add to the wishlist. The style reminded me a little of Satin Island, but for me this book worked much better.

[James E.]

I think the episodic structure is really powerful and the "plot" becomes implied. Some of the events stand out in my memory (I read it a few months ago)--I'm thinking of her string of vignettes about her child at different ages. It almost seems like she's puzzled by some of the normal kid behaviour or speech that seems somehow bizarre as she tells it. I remember one point, when the child was playing doctor and the mother said something like 'oh do you want to be a doctor when you grow up?" and the child answered "I'm already a doctor". Somehow, it highlighted a kind of distracted and alienated tone that pervades the book.

[Casceil]

James, I didn't read the tone as "distracted and alienated." More as wistful, like life was going by too fast.

[Beverly]

I was curious to read the comments and discussion on this book.
I was looking for some insight to see what I missed about
I had read before it was picked because it seemed like a book I would enjoy but alas - it was just not my cup of tea.

There were parts where I perked up and some of the phrasing got me to thinking - so with that in mind I would consider reading the author's future work.

[Jessica]

I was also curious about what everyone thought here. Very interesting points.
I enjoyed the writing and the pacing of this book, not so much the change to third person, but the plot was not interesting to me at all, I was waiting for something less predictable to happened, and was left short. It felt like an indie romance movie, and those are always hit or miss.

[Marc]

Beverly's and Jessica's comments make me think a lot of the success of this book for individual readers has to do with whether you appreciate the narrative voice and the sort of introspective journey it takes. The plot is little more than a box or maybe a window into domestic life looked at through a sort of artistic lens.

[Peter]

Some novels concentrate on plot, others character, yet others place or ideas. This novel seemed to be most interested in voice (and to some less extent character). That's a mildly unusual choice, but not, I think, an illegitimate one.