Beatrice and Virgil

Quite the book. I liked it, but a lot of people out there disagree with me. Here are some quotes from reviews and plain old reader responses:

This allegorical dichotomy teaches us nothing new about the Holocaust, nor gives us useful tools for deciphering and understanding its complex socio-historic causes. (wow -- harsh!)

I literally just finished Yann Martel's new book Beatrice and Virgil... about 10 minutes ago. I am shaken with rage as the book is one of the most hateful and ghastly jumble of horrors I have ever finished. At least it is mercifully short. (again: harsh. And "literally" just finished? As opposed to what? "Figuratively finished?)

a sophomoric piece of Beckett-lite [work] (ouch! And does the write mean "lite" or "like"?)
First of all, I wonder what people would be saying if this wasn't a Yann Marlel book. You've gotta think that it's being judged against the success of The Life of Pi. Also, okay, it's autobiographical in many ways, but since when is that a crime? I think it just adds to the layers and complex textures of this book.

Secondly -- give Martel credit -- he's calling into question the whole manner in which we look at fiction and non-fiction. "My book is about a new choice of stories. With a historical event, we not only have to bear witness, that is, tell what happend and address the needs of ghosts. We also have to interpret and conclude so that the needs of people today, the children of ghosts, can be addressed... Stories identify, unify, give meaning to. Just as music is noise that makes sense, a painting is colour that makes sense, so a story is life that makes sense."

Another great quote: "Fiction may not be real, but it's true. It goes beyond the garland of facts to get to emotional and psychological truths. A for nonfiction, as for histroy, it may be true but its truth is slippery, hard to access, with no fixed meaning bolted to it. If history doesn't become story, it dies to everyone except the historian."

Thirdly and fourthly, let's remember that this is a novella and it deals unabashedly in ideas. So, let's not lay on it the plot dictates of a four hundred page novel. Maybe Martel was worried about story critics (both his narrator and the taxidermist come under similar criticism) when he went where he went with Henry and the taxidermist storyline. It was bold and it mostly worked I thought. As for my second point, when a book -- that you find in the fiction section of a bookstore (aka a novel) -- deals in ideas and demands intellectual engagement from its readers, my own rule is that you forgive plot laxes (okay with everyone if I use that as a noun?)if the ideas of worthwhile. I thought Martel's ideas were very worthwhile.

Finally, if my "review" isn't all that clear, remember: "Words are cold, muddy toads trying to understand spirits dancing in a field."