My review of the Steven Hall's The Raw Shark Texts appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. Here's the opening:
It's not difficult to see why Steven Hall's debut novel, The Raw Shark Texts, should have set off a heated bidding war for the film rights. One can all too easily imagine that pitch session - "It's Jaws meets The Matrix!" Nothing makes a film executive's heart beat faster than an easily reducible concept, the more derivative the better, as any trip to the multiplex these days can attest.
But what makes for a studio green light works against a novel with literary ambitions. And Hall clearly has ambitions. His allusions, which he wears on his sleeve, range from Orpheus to Paul Auster to - rather ham-fistedly for a novel about amnesia - Clio (the muse of memory). But The Raw Shark Texts runs aground on an overly familiar narrative and brings to mind the oft-quoted if apocryphal bon mot attributed to Samuel Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." Without necessarily intending to, The Raw Shark Texts also raises interesting questions about a generation of novelists whose primary influences are film and television and forces us to consider the line between homage and mere imitation.
You can read the rest here.
Liked your review... but if anything I think you were too forgiving. I found this book to be flat out apalling... it was the first novel I contemplated putting down out of sheer disgust and dissapointment in a long time. I really can't understand the interest it generated and any fan of Borges, Calvino, Auster, or even Murakami will probably find themselves insulted...
Posted by: Jon Hilderman | May 20, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Lord above, loved the review, but praying you don't review my debut...
Posted by: Michael | May 20, 2007 at 07:46 PM
I got a latte, grande, found a chair as far away from the piped in music (why do they do that at bookstores??) and prepared for a good read - I had read some hyped reviews - but man - o- man after about 20 pages I felt as though I'd entered the Matrix and been stomped by the horse on the cover of Auster's new book. I guess it is all about tech-dreams, but I like a good story and high crafted works. Your review was right on....I will, perhaps, try again when I switch from latte to cognac. Lyn LeJeune
The Beatitudes Network - Rebuilding the public libraries of New Orleans at www.beatitudesinneworleans.blogspot.com
Posted by: Lyn Lejeune | May 20, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Just a nit: is it quite right to identify Clio as the "muse of memory?" Isn't she more commonly identified as the Muse of History? Of course, like all the muses, Clio is the daughter of Mnemnosyne, the Titan personifying of memory.
Posted by: johnchx | May 21, 2007 at 06:53 AM
Damn, John - not a nit. An error, and you're quite right to point it out. I was stuck with Dante on the brain:
O Muses, o high genius, aid me now!
O memory that engraved the things I saw,
And although in this context, memory/history more or less speak to the same thing, I should have fact-checked it.
Posted by: TEV | May 21, 2007 at 07:45 AM
Flick watching destroyed conversational acuity I guess. The perception fish idea rocked however.
The Hood Company
Posted by: Brian Hadd | May 21, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Rorschach...*get it*? (nudge nudge)
Posted by: Steven Augustine | May 21, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Wow. I'm surprised by the hostility towards this book. I thought that it was thought provoking, and I was flat out moved by the ending. I'm a huge fan of the book, and it will certainly make my list of year-end favorites.
Maybe I'm a chump for buying into it so completely, but I'm glad that I did.
Posted by: DJ Cayenne | May 30, 2007 at 06:09 PM
When I finished this book, I was angry. It tried to wave away 300+ pages of tepid prose with a cheap gimmick. You can't retroactively add clever writing with cheap tricks, nice try though, Steven.
Posted by: André | May 07, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Yeah!
Posted by: Gato | October 14, 2010 at 06:46 AM