Paul Harding: Tinkers

[Mirabell]

Hidden in this book is a spare meditation about the burdens we inherit, about the power we have to start anew, hidden also is a fine, considered, traditional ars moriendi, with a dying man’s last thoughts, breathing a last, dignified breath. Hidden, too, is a book about the changes that Americans underwent these past years, about the role that acceptance and commitments play in the treatment of illnesses, and a book about the epiphanies of adolescence. All this is in there, but hidden behind a large smoke screen of likeable effects and cheap sentimentalities. It is downright depressing. (...) I assure you, there is an excellent book hidden here behind the complacent, brainless tear-jerker that Tinkers turned out to be. Whatever its flaws, it is a nice read, and Harding, as a writer, is highly skilled, and his instincts are frequently excellent. This is not a very good book, yet it’s also not a bad one. It’s a disposable, but ultimately a moving book. It’s short, and a quick read, and imbued with the elegant serenity of Christian traditions. It doesn’t approach Aquinas’ claritas pulchri, but why should it have to. A very decent book, and miles above the tripe that Moore (http://shigekuni.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/gaudy-lorrie-moores-a-gate-at-the-stairs/) (http://shigekuni.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/manque-paul-austers-in-the-country-of-last-things/)et al. keep publishing. You might point out that I read and enjoy a lot of tripe, why am I so hard on a book that is clearly so accomplished? Because it could have been much better. Stephenie Meyer can’t write good prose to save her life. Tinkers is held back by a measured complacency, its author has actually remarkable skills and good instincts. This book, it bears repeating, could have been much better. The result is mediocre. However, the prizes awarded to this book are not a shock, as they appear to express a longing for the 19th century qualities Harding emulates, and his very modern, taut writing and structure, well-schooled and effective may just have clinched the deal. Why his mass-market-ready book was repeatedly rejected by publishers does puzzle me. The bottom line is: I wanted to like this book, I didn’t. Is is worth reading? It is.

full review here Paul Harding: Tinkers shigekuni. (http://shigekuni.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/paul-harding-tinkers/)


well.

here is a very positive review http://quarterlyconversation.com/tinkers-by-paul-harding-review


who knows. I'm probably wrong.

[Mirabell]

This is the cover, by the way. just as cheesy as the book.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31xSuYbSkBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Liam]

Haven't read the book, but I think the cover is breath-takingly beautiful. Come on, M, it isn't any cheesier than the purple plum.

[Mirabell]

way cheesier. and the book is way, way crappier.

[miobrien]

I thought the concept of the book was interesting enough -- a dying man recollects events of his childhood. Not so original, but not so bad. I'm into that retrospective, mindfuck-via-memory type stuff. I liked the opening with his hallucinations and the morbidity of being in a hospital bed where the kitchen table used to be.

And then it didn't live up to its potential. It's an easy, fast read, so I didn't feel like it was a waste at all. I really just wanted something MORE: character development, plot, philosophy. Something that would make me really invest my mind in it. But I wouldn't call it a brainless tear-jerker because I didn't find much to cry about. I honestly didn't feel very connected to George or Howard.

The prose was magnificent -- poetic, flowing, elegant. But I would also agree, however, that a lot of the book is dependent on cheap sentimental gimmicks. And some of the passages about clocks and bird nests were just a bit too long and dense. They didn't really add anything to the narrative, nor were they that insightful.

A lot of the scenes in the book have stuck with me, but I'm not sure why. (Eg: Howard riding past the house the final time; the mouse and the pond)

Paul Harding has a short story titled "Miss Hale" that's worth a read. Very similar to Tinkers, however:

http://hcl.harvard.edu/harvardreview/News/Harding33.pdf

When you say he emulates 19th century qualities but his writing is "modern," what do you mean?

[Mirabell]

When you say he emulates 19th century qualities but his writing is "modern," what do you mean?

have you read my whole review? (link is below the quote) I was about to note a few things but I think I said it best there. If you need further explanations from my battered, feverish (it's summer! why do I get a cold NOW?) brain, pipe up. =)