We’ll Slide ‘Cross the Surface of Things

Posted 16 March, 2008 in Book Reviewing |

Book reviewers for major Canadian newspapers and magazines are largely stymied by the space restrictions placed on them; there’s rarely enough room to present a nuanced or measured account of how one reacted to a given book. As a result, many book reviews devolve into little more than glorified plot summaries, or cheers and jeers on the order of “I loved it!” or “I thought it was trash.”

In some cases, however, reviewers get caught up short by a too-limited reading of the book under review, which provides a skewed or faulty perspective on the work under consideration. Case in point: Aritha van Herk’s review of Paul Quarrington’s new novel The Ravine, from Saturday’s Globe and Mail.

In her penultimate paragraph, van Herk writes: “The Ravine ends on a hopeful note, with Phil making at least a stab at reconciliation with his wife and his life.”

The scene to which she is referring is a passage of unattributed dialogue presented as a telephone conversation between the book’s protagonist, Phil McQuigge, and a female interlocutor. In other, similar passages throughout the novel, the speaker on the other end of the phone is identifiable through the details of the conversation or by name. In the final passage, however, there is no indication whatsoever that the person McQuigge is speaking to is his wife. Indeed, he could plausibly be speaking to any one of three different women. For those who have read the book — and not wanting to give too much away — it is possible to argue persuasively that the reference to Anthony Trollope in the scene strongly suggests that it isn’t McQuigge’s wife on the other end of the phone.

By assuming that the other speaker is the protagonist’s wife, van Herk reveals more about herself than she does about the ending of Quarrington’s novel. Van Herk wants it to be McQuigge’s wife, because that would provide the story with the kind of happy ending, involving a return to domestic tranquillity, that she feels most comfortable with. But there is no evidence in the novel that this is the correct reading.

The ambiguity in the finale is central to Quarrington’s approach in the book; by applying a more explicit reading than the text encourages, van Herk diminishes the force and effect of the novel.

3 comments to “We’ll Slide ‘Cross the Surface of Things”

Kerry, March 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm:

• But it’s *her* reading, which is the point of the review, no? (And I thought it was Veronica too…)

Kerry, March 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm:

• Though upon consideration, I do see that the following is true: “by applying a more explicit reading than the text encourages, van Herk diminishes the force and effect of the novel.”

Corey Redekop, March 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm:

• My main problem with the review (having not read the book yet) is the giving away of plot points right up to the end. Why do reviewers feel the need to spoil the ending? I don’t WANT to know there’s a possibility of reconciliation until I READ IT. I’ve noticed that a lot with Globe and Mail reviews, alongside the ridiculous idea that outlining the entire plot somehow constitutes a critical evaluation. You’ve got between 500-1000 words, make them count.

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code