i first came across zadie smith's "NW" in a must reads of september article on flavorpill. then a recommendation was posted in their fall 2012 books forecast. and being the flavorpill devotee that i am, put in a request at the library for "NW" along with a handful of others. of all the books, i looked forward to smith's the most. i hadn't read any of her prior books, but according to flavorpill, "NW" was her first book in seven years and her last novel "on beauty" was award winning.
maybe i overhyped it. but the book fell flat for me. there is no denying that zadie smith is a great writer. however, "NW" was not a great book. perhaps it was because i am not a londoner, at times i was confused because i could not locate the surroundings of the book. the reason i love reading books set in LA is because i can visualize where the characters are. however, my dislike can not simply be an issue of setting, that caused confusion but i think the issue was the characters.
i was not invested in any of the characters. it was "wuthering heights" all over again, where i could not empathize/sympathize with any of the characters because there was always one element of their lives that i didn't agree with. with leah, i was disappointed with how she lied to her husband and how she treated her body. with keisha, i couldn't stomach her double life, denial of her upbringing and obsession with the listings. i was rooting for felix, but even he had to be a guy and have farewell sex with his booty call which demonstrated he wasn't going to change. his fate was sad but by the time it occurred, i lost any faith i had in him really turning over a new leaf in life.
and i hate to be a cynic but did not buy the ending. really? leah suffering so much because she couldn't come to terms with the life she has? it lacked sincerity in my eyes. i wanted to tag her conversation with #firstworldproblems. you made it semi out of the projects, congrats, no need going around throwing yourself a pity party, especially because there are more serious problems in the world. instead of questioning why you didn't become a statistic, be grateful that you aren't one. also i hate to be heartless but if you are drug addict than you deserve the shitty stack that you dealt yourself. when it comes to drug addiction you do it to yourself. i would never see a drug addict and then have a meltdown like why me, how did i not become that? i didn't get leah's meltdown. when i do drugs i am aware of what i am doing to my body and it is choice. everyone has a right to say no, so sorry crackhead on the street you can't have my dollar. you chose to be a crackhead. (btw, please save your CIA giving crack to the project theories.)
i didn't grow up in the slums but delano is definitely low/working class yet i couldn't connect to "NW". this might also have to do with smith's modernist writing. leah's section was difficult to follow because it was all stream of thought. i guess it's like stein and woolf all over again, i need to get smarter to appreciate it.
i guess in the end it just all seem contrived. i am not sure of zadie smith's back story, but she wrote like an anthropologist would write about the slums versus someone that grew up in them. the bio on the book's back flap explained she grew up in "NW" and i am not saying that in order to write about the slums, someone needs to be from them, but it surprised me because i felt she didn't know what she was talking about. its like when oprah tries to talk like she understands the everyday woman experience, sorry oprah you don't, you're oprah, there is absolutely nothing "everyday woman" about you. its the same with zadie smith, she may have grown up in NW but she is too far removed from it now to be able to write about it, without sounding insincere and elitist. ( also now that i think about it, with the name change and the anthropological lens through which she viewed life, so she could be keisha.)
i expected this book to be provocative but it brought nothing new to the table in terms of class. regardless of your class, life kinda sucks and no one is really happy. because regardless of where you grew up, you are still human. rich people's don't have it all and are just as immoral as the next class. the individuals in a perfect marriage actually cannot stand each other. the thug you think is a drug addict might be turning his life around. that crackhead who is begging for money who you want save, probably enjoys her life. i think a more interesting viewpoint would have been a character who grows up disadvantaged in the slums who doesn't recognize it as a disadvantage. growing up in the slums was the crutch for all of the characters, their get out of jail free cards for poor life decisions. and perhaps i am too american at heart but you may be born into a lower class but you definitely do not have to stay there. and yes you may have some fall backs in life that lead you back to the slums but that isn't because you don't deserve more or better in life, it's because regardless the slums are your home and will always be a source of comfort.
though the class issues smith presented didn't interest me, the women issues did. i can admit that as a woman approaching her thirties and being single and childless, it was comforting to read leah and keisha's dealing with the same thing. smith pretty much nailed me with leah's inner monologue of:
"simply: i am eighteen in my mind i am eighteen and if i do nothing if i stand still nothing will change and i will be eighteen always."
is that not what i am currently doing with my life? trying to freeze time. put it on pause?
also this "return of saturn" era of life is even more difficult when you add in the biological clock too. as smith wrote:
"natalie blake and leah hanwell were 28 when the first emails began to arrive. over the next few years their number increased exponentially. photo attachments of stunned-looking women with hospital tags round their wrist, babies lying on their breast, hair inexplicably soaked through. they seems to have stepped across a chasm into another world."
this one doesn't get me too much because my peers have been having babies since i was in high school. actually come to think of it, if they grew up in the slums, getting these photos would not be as pressing. at the risk of sounding classist, it is in my opinion that lower classes have kids at a younger age. actually this is more of an issue of education than class. people with more education seem to wait in life to have kids because that education consumes majority of their time so having kids is kinda impossible. so i guess this an example of smith not being too realistic.
but i understand that smith was discussing the inevitable pressure as women get older that they need to become mothers to progress in life. for me personally, i have more pressure in terms of marriage than having a child. especially since everyone around me is now either married or engaged. but that can be saved for another time.
though i did not love this book, i plan on reading smith's "on beauty". as i said before smith is an excellent writer. there is no denying that. she was very clever when it came to descriptions. i loved how she would reference something pop culture-y, and versus naming it, she would describe it, kinda like a riddle. there were references to kurt corbain's suicide, friends, the wire and even chatroulette! though i totally missed the amy winehouse reference. and the heading about her was "beehive." i also enjoyed her literary references like "rabbit, run" about a vibrator. i appreciate smith's cleverness but even that could not save "NW" for me. i plan on reading her other books and hopefully will find the writer that flavorpill was so excited to read.
i was not invested in any of the characters. it was "wuthering heights" all over again, where i could not empathize/sympathize with any of the characters because there was always one element of their lives that i didn't agree with. with leah, i was disappointed with how she lied to her husband and how she treated her body. with keisha, i couldn't stomach her double life, denial of her upbringing and obsession with the listings. i was rooting for felix, but even he had to be a guy and have farewell sex with his booty call which demonstrated he wasn't going to change. his fate was sad but by the time it occurred, i lost any faith i had in him really turning over a new leaf in life.
and i hate to be a cynic but did not buy the ending. really? leah suffering so much because she couldn't come to terms with the life she has? it lacked sincerity in my eyes. i wanted to tag her conversation with #firstworldproblems. you made it semi out of the projects, congrats, no need going around throwing yourself a pity party, especially because there are more serious problems in the world. instead of questioning why you didn't become a statistic, be grateful that you aren't one. also i hate to be heartless but if you are drug addict than you deserve the shitty stack that you dealt yourself. when it comes to drug addiction you do it to yourself. i would never see a drug addict and then have a meltdown like why me, how did i not become that? i didn't get leah's meltdown. when i do drugs i am aware of what i am doing to my body and it is choice. everyone has a right to say no, so sorry crackhead on the street you can't have my dollar. you chose to be a crackhead. (btw, please save your CIA giving crack to the project theories.)
i didn't grow up in the slums but delano is definitely low/working class yet i couldn't connect to "NW". this might also have to do with smith's modernist writing. leah's section was difficult to follow because it was all stream of thought. i guess it's like stein and woolf all over again, i need to get smarter to appreciate it.
i guess in the end it just all seem contrived. i am not sure of zadie smith's back story, but she wrote like an anthropologist would write about the slums versus someone that grew up in them. the bio on the book's back flap explained she grew up in "NW" and i am not saying that in order to write about the slums, someone needs to be from them, but it surprised me because i felt she didn't know what she was talking about. its like when oprah tries to talk like she understands the everyday woman experience, sorry oprah you don't, you're oprah, there is absolutely nothing "everyday woman" about you. its the same with zadie smith, she may have grown up in NW but she is too far removed from it now to be able to write about it, without sounding insincere and elitist. ( also now that i think about it, with the name change and the anthropological lens through which she viewed life, so she could be keisha.)
i expected this book to be provocative but it brought nothing new to the table in terms of class. regardless of your class, life kinda sucks and no one is really happy. because regardless of where you grew up, you are still human. rich people's don't have it all and are just as immoral as the next class. the individuals in a perfect marriage actually cannot stand each other. the thug you think is a drug addict might be turning his life around. that crackhead who is begging for money who you want save, probably enjoys her life. i think a more interesting viewpoint would have been a character who grows up disadvantaged in the slums who doesn't recognize it as a disadvantage. growing up in the slums was the crutch for all of the characters, their get out of jail free cards for poor life decisions. and perhaps i am too american at heart but you may be born into a lower class but you definitely do not have to stay there. and yes you may have some fall backs in life that lead you back to the slums but that isn't because you don't deserve more or better in life, it's because regardless the slums are your home and will always be a source of comfort.
though the class issues smith presented didn't interest me, the women issues did. i can admit that as a woman approaching her thirties and being single and childless, it was comforting to read leah and keisha's dealing with the same thing. smith pretty much nailed me with leah's inner monologue of:
"simply: i am eighteen in my mind i am eighteen and if i do nothing if i stand still nothing will change and i will be eighteen always."
is that not what i am currently doing with my life? trying to freeze time. put it on pause?
also this "return of saturn" era of life is even more difficult when you add in the biological clock too. as smith wrote:
"natalie blake and leah hanwell were 28 when the first emails began to arrive. over the next few years their number increased exponentially. photo attachments of stunned-looking women with hospital tags round their wrist, babies lying on their breast, hair inexplicably soaked through. they seems to have stepped across a chasm into another world."
this one doesn't get me too much because my peers have been having babies since i was in high school. actually come to think of it, if they grew up in the slums, getting these photos would not be as pressing. at the risk of sounding classist, it is in my opinion that lower classes have kids at a younger age. actually this is more of an issue of education than class. people with more education seem to wait in life to have kids because that education consumes majority of their time so having kids is kinda impossible. so i guess this an example of smith not being too realistic.
but i understand that smith was discussing the inevitable pressure as women get older that they need to become mothers to progress in life. for me personally, i have more pressure in terms of marriage than having a child. especially since everyone around me is now either married or engaged. but that can be saved for another time.
though i did not love this book, i plan on reading smith's "on beauty". as i said before smith is an excellent writer. there is no denying that. she was very clever when it came to descriptions. i loved how she would reference something pop culture-y, and versus naming it, she would describe it, kinda like a riddle. there were references to kurt corbain's suicide, friends, the wire and even chatroulette! though i totally missed the amy winehouse reference. and the heading about her was "beehive." i also enjoyed her literary references like "rabbit, run" about a vibrator. i appreciate smith's cleverness but even that could not save "NW" for me. i plan on reading her other books and hopefully will find the writer that flavorpill was so excited to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment