Damon Galgut: In a strange room

[Mirabell]

In A Strange Room is, broadly speaking, a book about love and loneliness, about desirous dependencies and deathly despair. At the same time, it’s quite obviously a book about travel, about the way that Western mythologies of the self are often connected to travels through culturally rich exotic locales, about the way that modern day tourism follows historical routes of imperialism, but refracted through a personal, and individual lens. This is a deeply moving, devastating book that I can’t still think about without getting chills down my spine, written in a lyrical yet sparse language that is often close to trite phrases reminiscent of Coelho, but rises ultimately far above such trivial fare. The closeness in style or language to the terrible Brazilian hack can be chalked up to the fact that Galgut attempts to engage the sentimental, without falling into the morass of weepy trash; the book provides three comparably straightforward narratives of love and loss, written in a way that suggests honesty and unvarnished directness. If Galgut provides the occasional hokey adage, it’s because the plausibility of the voice demands it: the narrator of In A Strange Room is embattled and emotionally abused and consequently triteness surfaces as a way of reasserting authorial power and authority over events and, ultimately, his own life. As for the author: producing as marvelously clean and precise a book as this is a bravura achievement, and judging from this novel alone, Damon Galgut is a master of his craft.

the full review is here http://shigekuni.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/damon-galgut-in-a-strange-room/


jacobson#s book must be very good indeed if it beat this book to win the booker prize.

 

[Daniel del Real]

the full review is here http://shigekuni.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/damon-galgut-in-a-strange-room/


jacobson#s book must be very good indeed if it beat this book to win the booker prize.

You don't seem to convinced it is a good book in your review. You even compare his language and expressions to Coelho, but yet you finish with a sentence indicating it is good so a very good book could beat it.

 

[Mirabell]

Did you read the review? In the quote above alone I say

producing as marvelously clean and precise a book as this is a bravura achievement, and judging from this novel alone, Damon Galgut is a master of his craft.

and later

It’s really a testament to Galgut’s craft and intelligence that every chapter, every section, every page of the book is shot through with a thorough awareness of the places he sets his book in and their history, especially their recent history.

Galgut’s novel is a marvelous book that succeeds at everything it attempts to do and if it feels a bit ‘minor’, it’s because it’s meant to be. In A Strange Room is a breathless self-examination, a small but potent book, and one that will lodge itself in the reader’s brain for weeks.

 

[Daniel del Real]

Galgut’s novel is a marvelous book that succeeds at everything it attempts to do and if it feels a bit ‘minor’, it’s because it’s meant to be. In A Strange Room is a breathless self-examination, a small but potent book, and one that will lodge itself in the reader’s brain for weeks.

What do you mean with 'minor'?

 

[Mirabell]

difficult term, yes? I used the inverted commas to weasel me out of using it strictly.

I believe the major/minor distinction has to do with basic values underlying Canon. The more private an undertaking is, the more likely it is to be read/perceived as minor. It's not exact or anything. Is Gass' "The Tunnel" major or minor? Hard to say. In the case of Galgut's almost perfect little book, there's a distinct private feel to it. It's politically aware, but not primarily political. Etc.

 

[Liam]

I'd be interested to know what other people think of this. I read Galgut's The Good Doctor a few years ago for my South African Lit class, and thought that he "tried too hard." Although I thought the same thing about half of the other books as well; namely, Coetzee, Gordimer and Mda. Could just be me, .

 

[Stephni]

In the case of Galgut's almost perfect little book, there's a distinct private feel to it. It's politically aware, but not primarily political. Etc.

Do you read South African authors with the expectation that their work should be primarily political? Or do you consider that to be an important aspect of all 'major' literature? I know it is an example of why you class the book as minor but it is intriguing.

 

[Mirabell]

No, this author's previous books were political, at least some of them, and this is, as well, as I wrote in my review. My formulation was a bit daft, I admit. Minor literature is very often highly political, and private is not the opposite of political any more etc.

 

[Stephni]

I read Galgut's The Good Doctor a few years ago for my South African Lit class, and thought that he "tried too hard." Although I thought the same thing about half of the other books as well; namely, Coetzee, Gordimer and Mda.

I can't agree with "tried to hard" - prefer "burdened by" . Think the reason why I have never read any Galgut is the political and the lack of it maybe why I want to read In a Strange Room.

 

[Mirabell]

NY Times review of the book

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/books/review/Russo-t.html?ref=books