#80, "The Night Circus"

"The Night Circus" Erin Morgenstern

This is Morgenstern's first (and to date, only) novel. It began way back in the ye-olden-days of 2004, as a project through NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month). I think it is pretty cool that an on-again, off-again writing project by some random person grew into a full length published novel, which went on to win several awards and get optioned to become a feature-length film. That is a great story of persistence, hard work, and do-it-yourselfness that, I think, exemplifies what being an artist in the 21st century is all about.

Unfortunately, the result of all that persistence, hard work and do-it-yourselfness is a middling book with a superficially interesting concept that doesn't really pay off, half-drawn characters who speak in an odd and unreal fashion, poor pacing (including a confusing and unexplained jumping back and forth between past and future), and lots and lots of nice adjectives that describe very odd things. The central tension of the book centers on a strange and mostly unexplained wager made by a pair of old wizards/magicians/enchanters/gods? who use mortals in their neverending game of whose-is-better. This wager binds two souls together, who then must work against each other in an undefined and brain-twisting competition until it runs its course (the conclusion of which I will not bother you with). Naturally this means that the two people fall in love and are then torn between their destinies, chosen for them by their teacher/mentor/evil-Yoda-figure, and their love for each other. Oh, and there's a circus. That's the setting of this duel, the main location for the novel. There are many uncertainties surrounding the circus. I'm not sure where it came from. It was created for the duel exclusively, or possibly it existed before and was twisted by the duellers--duellists?--to fit their schemes against each other. It is very strange. Overall, I think it is one of the strangest books I have ever read.

Besides the mind-bending plot, which is tough enough to swallow, I confess that at least a part of my problem with the novel was caused my own biases. For example, I do not usually enjoy books written in the present tense. The present tense is intended to make the reader a part of the action, directly involved in the moment-to-moment happenings of the book. When used from the first person, it evokes a journal entry, or admits access into the immediate thoughts of the character. It mostly works in a book like "The Hunger Games," which is written expressly from Katniss' point of view, and exists in real-time as you read. It is still jarring to me as a reader, for the simple reason that I am not Katniss. It actually takes me out of the experience. When the present tense is then coupled with a third-person style, it presents an even more uncomfortable sensation, and it is made worse by the dates given at the start of each chapter, which present an instant friction for me as a reader. It is not October 1902, it is August 2017. The assertion of the book (this is happening now) against my reality (no it's not) throws me out of the experience of reading. I admit, though, that is something that I bring to the book, so that is not exactly a fault of the author, even if I disagree with the choice.

Undeniably, Morgenstern writes in an extremely visual way, and you can often grab onto her descriptions of places and things for a while to tie you from event to event, scene to scene. Maybe it would make a better movie than a book, especially if a quality screenwriter got ahold of some of the worse dialogue. Good lord, the dialogue. It is sometimes ok, but most often has a quasi-old-fashioned feel that doesn't ring true. The best way I can describe it is that the characters talk as a writer thinks people talk, not as they actually talk.

In the end, I say good on Morgenstern for getting a novel out. I am all for people creating and sharing their work. What do I know? I don't have a published novel. But I didn't like this one. #whatIreadin2017