Pessl's Picks

Just about this time last year, Marisha Pessl's Special Topics in Calamity Physics made its way out into the reading world.  While the book was reviewed favorably by many, there remains, in my view, a gap in the wider discussion about this book.  There were the "this book is outstanding" reviews (always suspect when there are few dissenting voices; although I'm with The Times on this one) and then the gossipy guesses as to how much Marisha's looks played a factor in her success (just plain ugly and unfair).  These two factors conspired together to obliterate all proper talk of the book itself.  When it was on the NYT Top 10 0f 2006 list, the sea of voices again worried aloud -- not over the quality of the book (which begs discussion) but over her beauty and how that beauty has played into the book publishing world's desire to "market" a face, a name, a brand alongside (some would argue in lieu of) the book. (Here I would like to point out that it isn't Pessl's fault that she looks the way she does. She also, to my recollection, didn't invent the publishing machine as it is today.)

When I mention Pessl to various friends and colleagues, they react strongly. Viscerally. There is a dislike there that I don't quite understand. It seems personal. Which is not okay.  Many, in fact, haven't even read her book. They just don't like her on spec. Might be her beauty. Might be the fact that her book is so successful. Might be the book deal itself and the subsequent film rights. Might be the fact that she has a hedge fund husband and an Italian espresso maker (which does sound quite nice.)  Yet, none of that, in my view, has anything to do with the book.

I read it. Twice. There are bits I love, love, love. Yet, there are larger issues that left me wondering where the real meaning in all of it is. I hope, in the next few weeks, to spend some time talking about the merits/or no of her book, not of her jean selection or hair products. Not of the press she's received and even if she courts it. None of that should matter and it bothers me that it has. My plans to revisit this book may upset my friends and colleagues whom, I suspect, had hoped this book would quietly go away.

The paperback of Special Topics (I feel okay to refer to it in such abbreviated lingo because Marisha did so herself at the LA Times' First Fiction panel) is now out.  I'd like to tip a toe in the waters of this book by first looking at her "best book" picks in an issue of The Week that I've saved for almost a year with the express intention of someday reproducing it here for your pleasure (or complete irritation):

• Blindness by Jose Saramago -- "This book is a parable, a thriller, a dissection of human nature, but whether he's detailing human kindness or cruelty, Saramago displays a compassion that is devastating."
• The Dead Fish Museum by Charles D'Ambrosio -- "D'Ambrosio displays a talent and versatility of language that is jaw-dropping. I"m crossing my fingers that he's working on an 800-page novel so I can spend weeks with his work, rather than a cherished afternoon."
• The Known World by Edward P. Jones -- "Biblical in scale but nimble in execution."
• The Virgin Suicides by Jeffery Eugenides -- "This book got under my skin when it first appeared in 1993, and it's stayed there."
• Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen -- "Part parody of Gothic fiction, part social satire, the book probes how the books we read shape our reality, help us fabricate illusions -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Austen so delicately, and humorously, points out.
• The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen -- "This masterpiece -- about family, adulthood, suburbia, the American middle class -- is everything a great social novel should be: big, human, sincere, moving."

Update: Or is it simply impossible to separate the writer from the work?

Comments

[Darby]

I'm curious to see what you'll have to say about the book. I sort of had a love/hate relationship with it--I thought there was good meaty stuff in there, but it was caught up in a thin stew of poor pacing. I think my opinion has dropped steadily since I finished the book though, so it might be nice to be reminded of why it's not worth totally dismissing in retrospect. (If that makes sense.)

[amcorrea]

Ditto that. I enjoyed reading it, but felt that the end rang hollow. If it was ambiguity she was going for, there isn't nearly enough. And if there *is* a "solution" to be worked out by clues embedded in the text or citations (or even the drawings, which I also examined), I felt it was beyond me to puzzle out. I probably read too many reviews... I was led to believe the "Final Exam" was a sort of Encyclopedia Brown-type revelation end section. It's not. (At least not that I'm aware of.)

That said, it'd be good to read further discussion of it, as there were many great aspects to it as well. Perhaps my disappointment is mainly due to unfair expectations?

Oh, and the website's pretty interesting, too. (Unfortunately, I didn't find much in the way of extra info.)

[callie]

Yes! I'd like to simply open up a discussion on her book and just the book, separate from all the positive hype and gossipy bits.

What are the merits of the book? What is good about it? Where does it fall down (because it does in my opinion)? What does it mean, etc.? It seems this hasn't been done because it was either deemed "genius" or all talk of the book seemed to get tangled up with talk of her author photo on the book jacket and so on. There is a LOT in between genius and how to you curl your hair that's not been discussed! :-)

I'm looking forward to it...should kick-off next week sometime.

[Jeff]

Most frustrating book I didn't finish reading in 06. Could not get beyond page 150 or so no matter how hard I tried.

[Brandon]

I enjoyed the book immensely when I first finished it, but my opinion of it went down over time. It's sort of like a pop song--it gets stuck in your head, then after a few days, you're hard-pressed to remember anything about it. Don't get me wrong, I still liked the book, but I don't think Pessl is a genius. She shows potential. My biggest gripe with "Special Topics" is that the characters, except for Blue and her father, were so uninteresting, to say the least. Blue was a strong enough character to get me to finish the book, but every time Hannah entered the picture, I'd suddenly lose interest and decide that I'd read enough. The book could've been better, especially when it comes to characterization, but I'm more forgiving of first-time authors.

[Edan]

I tried to read Pessl's book, and I couldn't get through it. That said, I find the discussion about Pessl herself to be immature and often offensive. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts about the book itself.

[Steven Augustine]

When a book comes out with a splash, I like to read a few reviews rather than buying it on the strength of hype alone. I prefer reviews that include substantial excerpts of the work in question, and if the luxury of a peek at the book's first chapter is available (on Amazon, say), I'm able to gather enough about the book to risk buying it (or not).

Sometimes I end up "burned" anyway...even a good writer won't always have written a book I really care to finish; won't always have finished the book in a way that pleases me.

The only thing about which I can be certain after reading a few reviews of a book (plus a chapter) is whether the writer can *really* write...or can merely write well enough to satisfy the marketplace.

I believe that in some cases, the focus on Marisha Pessl's looks and "privelege" are sexist and envy-driven; *everyone* bitching about her can't really be a word-mad aesthete defending an invisible border between fragile truth and clumsy-assed mammon.

On the other hand, I think it's absurd (callow; hysterical; knee-jerk gender-sensitive) to dismiss *all* discussions about the supra-literary aspects of Pessl's astounding career arc, given the fact that she has made an awfully big splash for a writer of such limited (or as yet unformed?) gifts.

Never once, for example, after reading a mere two or three pages of Zadie Smith's writing, did I think to include her eye-popping good looks in a critique of the material. It's immediately clear, after a paragraph or two, that Zadie Smith is the "real thing", no special effects necessary.

I didn't love *all* of White Teeth, and the Autograph Man let me down somewhat, and I haven't had the time to get around to On Beauty, but Smith is a serious talent and I fully expect her to write a novel so humblingly great that I'll become a retroactive Smith completist as a result (as happened with DeLillo, who I resisted somewhat until Underworld: the Saul-to-Paul thing then happened).

When a talented writer like Zadie Smith strings words in a sentence and blocks sentences into paragraphs and stacks paragraphs on a page, the writing is as different from the merely adequate as sunshine is from a tanning bed's thin, tacky light.

Anyone incapable of appreciating this distinction as it applies to the Pessl "controversy" is more than welcome, of course, to believe that anything written or spoken against her is the result of brute, unthinking misogyny.

[callie]

Steven - I think the comparison with Zadie Smith is an interesting one, as they both began with a great splash. I also agree what while I didn't love every bit of White Teeth, it was clear from page one that Smith had the goods. I would argue that the goods haven't been on quite the same display in her two more recent books, but that is another matter altogether.

From page one of Pessl, I also thought she might have the goods. Might. As you state perfectly "she has made an awfully big splash for a writer of such limited (or as yet unformed?) gifts" -- I agree in large part because I don't believe Special Topics delivers, other than some interesting tricks, on an emotional level the Smith does. I hope to cover this at length during the upcoming roundtable.

I will say, though, that while you may not have immediately thought of Smith's beauty when reading her work (presumably because it was of such high quality), she HAS received considerable attention for her beauty as well. A few years ago, in an interview, she was asked about this focus on her beauty and she got very frustrated, very defensive -- said it was about the work, not how she looked and that it was rather base that's what things had come to.

I agree with that. I only mean to point out that Smith has also had to contend with the "how she looks" vs. "how she writes" conundrum.

I'd rather deal with the books as books - separate from who the authors are - and discuss their merits/failures just as we would any other book. That is the hope for the upcoming roundtable and I hope you'll jump in with your thoughts.

[Steven Augustine]

I look forward to the roundtable, Callie!

[J.S. Peyton]

I just bought this book a few days ago and, until very recently, I had no idea of the hype (both negative and possitive) surrounding this it. I did notice that she's an attractive woman (the picutre on the back makes it pretty hard to miss) but I'm very glad I missed the idiotic and pointless chatter surrounding that fact. That said, I too look forward to this round-table; I'm not a particularly fast reader but I'll try to keep up as much as I can! Let the discussion begin!