I finally finished my first Don Delillo novel! I say finished, instead of read, because I've picked up most of his novels at least once, so I've read plenty of his novels, but I never seem to finish them. White Noise I had picked up at least twice before I was finally able to get all the way through. That said, I am aware that most of you have strong feelings about White Noise, strong positive feelings, so I want to clarify that this isn't a book bash. I am going to blame my unlove on a few things and well see if we can meet in the middle somewhere.1. I'm told old, I don't have that dreamy college student thing going for me anymore. Point being, it just not as easy to get wrapped up in the world of White Noise, or the fame that DeLillo has.
2. Americana Literature: in general I find it "obvious". Please don't shoot! Maybe it's that it so NOT obvious I can't even being to grasp it.
3. Too many years of too much hype. Lets face it, people have been talking about how great White Noise (and Delillo in general) is for so long that it would just be impossible for me to find it as great as the build up.
So here's the thing, I didn't hate White Noise, but I definitely didn't love it. There were parts that were rather humors and I did actually laugh out loud on the train (you can imagine how embarrassing that is) and of course the writing is obviously the product of someone who is very talented.
That's not enough to make you love a book though. I was left wondering what the point was. Maybe it's that Delillo is trying to make us really look at our American way and all our White Noise, well I get that, I mean I am actually a part of this society, but then what? What does he want us to do besides admit we are so distracted we don't even know ourselves? This is how I usually feel about Americana lit (see point 2)(not that I have read a ton of it.) I spend 300 or so pages with your book but its all just to point out the obvious. I don't need a book to be reminded that I spend 9 hours a day on a computer, I read books to get away from that.
As contrived as the ending was, I did kind of like it, but it came long after I assumed there would be nothing redemptive about Jack's character. I am sure someone wants to fight me on that comment, and I wholly welcome it, please tell me why I'm so so wrong. And what does Wilder's tricycle ride across the interstate signify?
31 comments:
Hooray! Someone who agrees with me.
This is a slightly different example, but there's a videogame that came out a while ago (Shenmue for those who care) where you could interact with the environment much in the same way you could in real life. You could pick up stuff, open drawers, etc. Everyone thought this would be great until they played it. It was incredibly boring.
The moral here being: if it's boring in real life, it's going to be boring to [play/read/watch].
I'm not sure if that was my criticism of White Noise (frankly, I'm pretty sure I just found it to be dull), but it's a criticism I can understand.
az, bash away. you are right on.
two comments, and both on my side, i never would have guessed it, not in a million years. maybe i was misguided in thinking everyone loved this book.
as far i recall, i still love it.
I wish I could remember why I didn't like it. I'm sure it had a lot to do with the hype. I do remember a lot of scenes and bits of dialog that I loved. I just think those opening, disconnected chapters really put me off, and I couldn't get over it by the end. It doesn't seem worth rereading to figure out.
i really liked this book. i came in expecting to hate it.
wilder refutes death in the same way he refutes life. in his riding his tricycle across the highway he refuses the fear that grasps everyone else in the book. in refusing to speak he refutes the consumerist life that is so pervasive in the lives of those who surround him. wilder's barbaric yawp is an existential yawp. he refuses jack's and barbette's fear of death and embraces his life. wilder i believe is camus' stranger. one could also say that wilder is seeking death in his wild ride and at the end not finding it he releases his cries in the midst of the meaningless nature of life. wilder then it seems in his seemingly bewildered mystical state does not find death but life and mourns his lack of death. this is of course a juxtapostion of jack and barbette's obsession with eluding death. wilder seeks death but does not find it jack and barbette seek to avoid death but in the end find it.
but he's four!
you weren't misguided. you and the diehns are the first people i've met who didn't like it. of course, that probably says more about the people i know than about white noise.
but like dan, i can't remember why i felt that way. i mean, i'm not sure why i liked it.
metaphor has not age limit. in all honesty his age is what makes his character such a perfect contrast to jack and barbette.
i think al to an extent is right.
and delillo wouldn't mind putting his most redemptive or existential metaphor into the hands of a non-speaking 4 year-old daredevil.
to an extent? those were some of my best 2 am ruminations.
Actually, its fine if DeLillo wanted Wilder to represent those things. And by those things i mean, not being afraid of death, etc etc. (what big al said) but he can't actually be aware of choosing them. It can't be as though Wilder intentionally went out into the street where cars were oncoming because he is the antithesis of his crazy parents. And that's the other thing, how does Wilder become this existential marvel when he is constantly under the car of people who are so the opposite. It just didn't jive with the rules of the novel...to me. I just don't get how that should be a comfortable leap for the reader, its so far fetched.
far fetched, indeed. but this is white noise. where believablity fades into the background like everything else in life and we are left with a convoluted murder attmept/german nun without faith except to convince others she has it.
i totally understand what your are saying, azf, i think i just dispute it in the notions of the delilology
that is the beauty of an existential character. they recognize their despair while those around them do not. in his active pursuit of death wilder realizes the, for lack of a better word, absurdity that life has to offer. he is the only one who walks around the supermarket aisles unperturbed by the displacement of all the objects.
white noise is an absurdest paradise. we must keep in mind that delillo is commenting upon the absurdity of our daily life. look at people's reaction to the cloud or the supermarket or jack's obsession with meaningless trifectas or his conversation with the nun. it seems that wilder, in his abnormality, is the only sane character in the novel. he is the overcomer. jack recognizes this and stops going to his doctor but does not recognize the absurdity of his life.
i don't understand what you are saying here:
"i just dispute it in the notions of the delilology"
is it, that you agree with me, but its DeLillo and he can get away with that?
this leads him toward the murder plot as a means to overcome the fear of death by controlling death. but jack does not, like an existential character would, take responsibility for his action but regrets his action and seeks to amend his action.
Im sorry big al, you are not convincing me. Wilder CANNOT "activly pursue death." He is four years old. DeLillo can try and make him whatever he wants, but Wilder can't choose that, he's too young, and the not being able to choose keeps him from being existential.
i disagree. wilder chooses not to speak i think that in and of itself is a qualifying gesture of existential angst.
is ludo in the last samurai incapable of learning greek at four? is he incapable of narrating a book? in fiction age is representative but not necessarily determinant of mental capacity. don't get hung up on his age. age is only a referent.
A baby is a universal. right?
A baby has not been socially coerced, so to speak. A Baby is pure nature devoid of history, exchange, computers and fear of death. Now because wilder is as the novel says underdeveloped wouldn't that save him from what children would normally develop into? Any thing jack says about Wilder has do to with his natural-ness and innocence, his as, al would say, existential purity.
but actually azf, what I really want to know, and even though this is a book blog, what do you think about The Good, The Bad and The Queen?
but i understand you azf. I have become disalusioned with dilillo of late. The fact is that most of the time, he doesn't write brilliant novels he writes brilliant moments. exceptional amazing moments, that are in the middle of awkward and sometimes dull narratives.
But how much do I Love Murrey Siskand! expounding on the mystical attributes of advertising and commercial sign structures.
and the dialogue! what humour! what subtle wit! He should have stuck to writing plays.
fr, i think you hit the nail on the head when you said that DeLillo "doesn't write brilliant novels he writes brilliant moments." There were parts I truly enjoyed but over all it just wasn't a brilliant novel.
And I haven't heard The Good, The Bad and The Queen yet...tell me, am I not living life to the fullest? What do you think?
yes by not listening to The good, the bad, etc, you are not being as fully melancholy as you could do. my melancholia has reached full capacity ever since I started listening to their record. Its that fucking good.
also I don't know of any music that sounds more like London.
Did anyone else read Underworld? I worked my way through that one for several months, and the only thing I remember from it is that New York is cool.
new york is not cool so much as it's either sodom, gomorrah, or both, depending on the day.
and american lit is obvious? what does that even mean? example, please.
the good the bad and the queen is, well, not as good as the spoon show i went to last week. and not as exciting as interpol's new record. but at least it's not "obvious."
seriously. what do you mean by "obvious"? I don't read "literature" so much as i dont, so i'm not sure what you mean.
amen to that last guy who said that new york was sodom and gamorrah. yikes. ever been in their subway? it's horrible. no wonder everyone's growth is stunted and their hair is falling out. it's like the whole city's got the mange.
but seriously. the good the bad and the queen. it's cloudy and rainy everyday in NE. there's no weather that's more like london than london except maybe new england. the gb and the q is perfect for it. there's nothing ugly about it.
More later, but for now, I said AmericanA (note the "a" at the end of the sentence) not American. Does that make more sense?
i read underworld, paul, if your still around. i thought it was wonderful, and i think the ending has much of what white noise lacks that azf is talking about.
unfortunately it is 900 pages long, and its hard to recommend. in case one won't like it.
I struggled with Underworld. It seemed like it had a lot more room than it needed to say what it had to say. It seemed like he tried to jam a lot into the book, and as a result, I remember only snippets, instead of the entire book. Should I read White Noise?
Well, paul, what are your three favorite books? Then we will decide if you should read White Noise.
I just finished White Noise a few days ago... I appreciated the overall concept of White Noise, and I thought his discussions (the characters' discussions, that is) of death were very thoughtful and interesting... still, I thought some parts of the novel were a bit contrived/unbelievable. It just seemed a little too far out there to with with the rest of the novel - the way some events and situations were handled, and the "wordly" daughter of one of his wives - I thought that was a little too far-fetched to work well with the rest of the very-realistic novel. It didn't just push the boundaries, it came right out.
Still, I guess I'm kind of confused about the "end result" view of death. What do you all think?
Post a Comment