Emily May's Reviews > Bewilderment
Bewilderment
by
I was not nearly as enamoured by this super-hyped book as I thought I might be, and I think I can pin it down to three main reasons.
1) A novel-length Neruda poem is not really my thing.
Don't get me wrong, I've gotten tingles like everyone else when I see a quote like:
I have no idea what that means but I like it.
The narrator mentions and quotes Neruda in the book, and I got the impression he inspired quite a bit of the style. There are a lot of sentences that straddle the line between poetic and cringy, and maybe it's my mood, but I found them falling more often into the latter category. It's a very introspective novel that gets way too dreamy and star-gazey (add it to the dictionary for me) for my liking.
2) I read Migrations last year and liked it a LOT more.
This is a personal thing that obviously won't apply to a lot of people. I picked this book up because the mysterious synopsis and the reviews made me think this could be on the same level as the other near-future ecological novel I read last year.
In fact, there are a number of similarities. Both are set in a future that may very well be just around the corner, both deal with grief and loss, and both are rooted in nature and wildlife. But where I found Migrations taut, compelling and moving, I found this one overwritten and a bit boring, honestly. I thought the obvious stand-ins for Trump (unnamed American president who denies election results and fuels bigotry) and Greta Thunberg (Inga Alder-- teen girl on the autism spectrum who stands up to world leaders about climate issues) were a bit silly, and the parroting of rudimentary philosophy from Robin was uninteresting.
Also, Migrations never felt preachy; this one did.
3) I really disliked the uncriticised anti-medicine, anti-diagnosis and, frankly, anti-science approach this book seems to take.
The narrator-- and, seemingly, the book itself --seems to push Big Pharma conspiracy theories. Theo repeatedly ignores the medical advice of doctors regarding his son, is horrified at the notion of "psychoactive drugs" which he sneers at in the same sanctimonious way that some parents gasp Give my child vaccines with mercury in them? (view spoiler), and makes the following statement:
Oh, boy. I don't have a sigh big enough.
Now, look. I know that a character saying or doing something is not necessarily the author condoning it, and I would love to be wrong about this, but I really felt the whole book was selling these ideas. And it's... well, a bit concerning.
And on the subject of diagnosis and drugs, I personally think the former is extremely important and the latter sometimes necessary. It's not an easy decision to start psychoactive drugs, especially when the recipient is a young child, but I know from experience that they can be the difference between getting up and sleeping your life away, the difference between being able to look after yourself and sitting in your own filth, and, sometimes, the difference between keeping going and giving up on life. It's not always the right answer, for sure, but sometimes it is, and the way the narrator sneers at drugs and doctors irritated me. And as someone who went a long time without a diagnosis, I know that getting one can be a wonderful key to understanding yourself and others.
If anyone thinks I interpreted this wrong, then I would genuinely like to hear from you in the comments. I feel quite blindsided that a book about science, space and nature would contain this narrative, so I'd be very happy to be wrong.
by
I wanted to tell the man that life itself is a spectrum disorder, where each of us vibrated at some unique frequency in the continuous rainbow.
I was not nearly as enamoured by this super-hyped book as I thought I might be, and I think I can pin it down to three main reasons.
1) A novel-length Neruda poem is not really my thing.
Don't get me wrong, I've gotten tingles like everyone else when I see a quote like:
I love you as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul.
I have no idea what that means but I like it.
The narrator mentions and quotes Neruda in the book, and I got the impression he inspired quite a bit of the style. There are a lot of sentences that straddle the line between poetic and cringy, and maybe it's my mood, but I found them falling more often into the latter category. It's a very introspective novel that gets way too dreamy and star-gazey (add it to the dictionary for me) for my liking.
2) I read Migrations last year and liked it a LOT more.
This is a personal thing that obviously won't apply to a lot of people. I picked this book up because the mysterious synopsis and the reviews made me think this could be on the same level as the other near-future ecological novel I read last year.
In fact, there are a number of similarities. Both are set in a future that may very well be just around the corner, both deal with grief and loss, and both are rooted in nature and wildlife. But where I found Migrations taut, compelling and moving, I found this one overwritten and a bit boring, honestly. I thought the obvious stand-ins for Trump (unnamed American president who denies election results and fuels bigotry) and Greta Thunberg (Inga Alder-- teen girl on the autism spectrum who stands up to world leaders about climate issues) were a bit silly, and the parroting of rudimentary philosophy from Robin was uninteresting.
Also, Migrations never felt preachy; this one did.
3) I really disliked the uncriticised anti-medicine, anti-diagnosis and, frankly, anti-science approach this book seems to take.
The narrator-- and, seemingly, the book itself --seems to push Big Pharma conspiracy theories. Theo repeatedly ignores the medical advice of doctors regarding his son, is horrified at the notion of "psychoactive drugs" which he sneers at in the same sanctimonious way that some parents gasp Give my child vaccines with mercury in them? (view spoiler), and makes the following statement:
"No doctor can diagnose my son better than I can."
Oh, boy. I don't have a sigh big enough.
Now, look. I know that a character saying or doing something is not necessarily the author condoning it, and I would love to be wrong about this, but I really felt the whole book was selling these ideas. And it's... well, a bit concerning.
And on the subject of diagnosis and drugs, I personally think the former is extremely important and the latter sometimes necessary. It's not an easy decision to start psychoactive drugs, especially when the recipient is a young child, but I know from experience that they can be the difference between getting up and sleeping your life away, the difference between being able to look after yourself and sitting in your own filth, and, sometimes, the difference between keeping going and giving up on life. It's not always the right answer, for sure, but sometimes it is, and the way the narrator sneers at drugs and doctors irritated me. And as someone who went a long time without a diagnosis, I know that getting one can be a wonderful key to understanding yourself and others.
If anyone thinks I interpreted this wrong, then I would genuinely like to hear from you in the comments. I feel quite blindsided that a book about science, space and nature would contain this narrative, so I'd be very happy to be wrong.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Bewilderment.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 29, 2021
– Shelved
September 3, 2021
–
Started Reading
September 7, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 166 (166 new)
message 1:
by
Karyssa
(new)
Sep 08, 2021 02:49AM
reply
|
flag
It really bothered me too! I would quite like someone else to read the same things so we can discuss how the author handled it. I kept hoping there was going to be some criticism of it... but if there was it was too subtle for me :(
So this was one of my first theories... but I read through the whole last part twice and I just couldn't frame it as a criticism of Theo and his methods. It didn't read to me like the author was saying it happened because of Theo's beliefs. I thought it read like a (view spoiler) And just in the context of the whole book, it seemed like it took a very anti-establishment, anti-pharma position.
Again, I do actually hope I've got it wrong. I would really like to hear from the author on this.
You are always entitled to express subjective thoughts - but does that mean the work is bad or that you simply did not agree with it? Huge difference. I prefer to remain personally objective about these things look to the merit of quality vs what I felt about it.
Couple of things. One, I did not find the writing good. I thought it was overwritten and the characters did not make much impact on me. The character's stance was only one of the three points I made as to why I didn't like the book.
We obviously differ on this, but I am someone who strongly believes there is no such thing as objective criticism when it comes to books and any work of art. I do not believe anyone is in a position to objectively declare a book "good" or "bad". A boring book for one person can be a life-changing one for another. So all I can say is what I felt and people may relate to that or not.
Many of us can be objective. It's a matter of discipline more than anything else. And a desire to approach things from an intellectual perspective as opposed to an emotional one.
And yes I did see your comment about it being over-written. There are those who do like that sort of thing but it doesn't change the fact of it.
I just don't agree with that. It would require there to be a universal standard which we could measure books and art against, and no such thing exists.
Trying to create an objective standard in art against which all art must be measured is one of the key steps towards censorship and exclusionism, and while I'm in no way accusing you of this, that line of reasoning is a dangerous one that opens doors to dangerous people to do bad things. For far too long the "objective standard" in art has been used to silence voices that are different than the status quo. This could easily evolve into a discussion about the eurocentric colonialist approach to art in the West which is still so prevalent. There is no such thing as an objective standard in art. To say that there is is to tell millions of artists who live outside of that standard that they aren't valid and their art isn't valid. Do you see the problem with objectivity in art?
I don't agree with one word you have said. Your argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. And the idea that I cannot be objective because YOU cannot is really quite absurd.
It's not a question of a universal standard. The meaning of the word is this: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. And this: intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
It's a question of being fair minded. The very fact that some can like a book and others not proves it. Just because I do not like a book, does not mean I cannot see it's merit. THAT is being objective.
To be frank, how could the word objective even exist if there was no such thing as objectivity? If the concept were not possible, there'd hardly be words and descriptions for it...now would there?
João actually already gave a great answer.
I did not say the concept of objectivity does not exist; just that it is impossible to give an objective critique of art. The word objective means to state facts. "This book is written by Richard Powers" is a fact. "The title is Bewilderment" is a fact. "It was released in 2021" is a fact. To write an objective review would be to simply outline the plot and give no opinion on it, which I would call a plot summary and not a review.
There is no objective measure of "merit", as you say. I say this book is overwritten. That is not a fact, it is my opinion. Many others have read this book and really like the style.
The narrator is strongly against autism/ADHD diagnosis for his son, which I think you could argue is the same thing.
No, that proves that you're wrong, in fact, because "merit" itself will have a different definition to different people.
Your definition of merit is not universal. Let's repeat that: your definition of merit is not universal. There isn't a defined standard as to what "merit" entails. If you give me one, I will give you another just as valid that is the opposite. Being able to say "I don't like this, but I see why people do" is not being objective, it's being empathetic. It's being culturally sensitive. This is different from being objective.
Tell me, who is the arbiter? Who writes the rule book? Who gets the right to say "this is what 'objectively good' looks like"? Fuck a world where anyone has that sort of power. The second you do that, you alienate troves of cultures and people whose definition of objectively good is entirely different. And historically, this sort of cultural alienation has already been used to persecute people from different cultures, to some very violent extremes.
If you say "This writing is good", that is because over the course of your life, you were exposed to writing in similar styles and formed emotional attatchments to those styles. They are familiar, they are recognizable to you as "good", because it's what you learned to love. Writing that you find good, another person out there will say "This is bad writing".
Hemingway is a good example of this. Millions of people consider him a brilliant writer. Millions of people consider him a terrible writer. There is no right or wrong answer to this. He is simultaneously a brilliant and a terrible writer, it will depend on who you ask. This is a fact, this is an objective truth. The quality of the writing, however, is subjective. It entirely depends on who is consuming the work.
Have you heard of Ramachandran? He is a doctor with a PhD in neuroscience. He was asked in an interview about how much science understands of how people experience art. Here is his response:
"I think right now one percent or less is explained by neuroscience, but I think a time will come when we’ll maybe understand 10, 20 percent of it."
Source: http://archive.ttbook.org/book/transc...
Now tell me that it is remotely possible to be objective, when any neuroscientist out there will tell you that it isn't. You're going against scientific evidence with your claim.
What we currently understand of artistic taste is mostly attributed to cultural upbringing. Art is a form of language, and like any language, you'll have an easier time connecting with one you learned to understand in your cultural background. This is why, as an artist, I'm taught to consistently and constantly expose myself to art in all forms of mediums possible, and of any style possible, by as many different people as possible.
And since I have a hunch you'll disagree with anything I have to say without even considering it, go find any neuroscientist out there and ask them if the appreciation of art is subjective or objective. Don't take my word for it, go read, and research and study by yourself.
The narrator is strongly against autism/AD..."
Well, now I know as an autistic person that I definitely don’t want to read this, then.
i'm just here to offer what's probably a too-obvious answer to your question, but w/r/t theo's not wanting to put robin on medication - which is just one of his many questionable parenting decisions - if he had, there would have been no need for robin to undergo the alternate treatment, which is the whole belly of the book. i have no idea what richard powers' stance on meds is (tho he's such a bright one it would be disappointing to learn that he held the same beliefs as theo), but from a purely narrative perspective, theo's resistance to medicating his son is in service to the larger story powers wanted to tell about this creepy brain experiment thing. there's no doubt theo loves his son, but he makes a lot of questionable parenting choices throughout the novel, and the "no meds for MY very troubled child!" is a particularly baffling one.
Thank you, karen! Right?! If we all thought the same way Goodreads would be pointless and boring :)
This is a good point about how it serves the narrative! I was just desperately wanting some kind of challenge to it. The whole book seemed to be about these two poor scientists who are victims of a very mean anti-science world-- climate deniers, xenophobic presidents, etc, etc --but it then seemed to lump medicine in with those things.
Maybe it is just my brain that sees it that way 🤷♀️ But I am glad you liked it more than my grumpy self.
Oh yeah. I 100% see why parents would be hesitant to medicate their child. In fact, I'd be a bit concerned if they weren't. But his whole negative attitude towards not just drugs themselves, but diagnoses and doctors in general, was more my issue.
2020-2021 feels are their own diagnosis 😂. I get you on that.
YOU decide. You decide if you enjoyed it, or if you're glad you read it, or if you're sorry you wasted your time. I can love a story, but if the facts are skew-whiff, it can ruin the book.
Thank you, Daniel. I'm glad to hear this. I often find star ratings an inadequate way of expressing my experiences with a book, so I appreciate you reading my explanation.
YOU decide. You de..."
Thank you. And EXACTLY.
Did you read A Children’s Bible? It’s also set in a not too distant time when humans have destroyed the earth. I liked it more than this or Migrations.
Have you considered medicating your child so he stops assaulting other children?
Absolutely not!
Okay, can we plug him into this experimental brain changing computer that reminds you of your dead wife then?
Immediately, and I'll be furious if they threaten the funding for its immoral use once I start getting lie ins!
Science is about inquisition, which is exactly why I found his dismissive and closed-minded attitude anti-science.
I talked about this in the review. It's true that characters are not always the same as their authors, but to me it read like not just a single character, but an overall message, given the context of the book.
I understand his reservations over giving his child psychoactive drugs completely. I would be hesitant also. What got me was his overall disdain for the medical professionals and any kind of autism/ADHD diagnosis.