I’m giving up on City on Fire

10 Dec

Garth-Risk-Hallberg-BOOKGenerally speaking, I am loathe to give up on books. The same content loyalty that drove me to read all the Sookie Stackhouse novels and to watch Gossip Girl and Glee to their bitter conclusions means that it takes a real nightmare of a novel for me to throw in the towel.

But I have tried, and failed, three times to get invested in Garth Risk Hallberg’s City on Fire, a debut novel for which Hallberg received a $2 million advance. Set in 1970s New York City, COF follows an ensemble cast of characters whose lives serendipitously connect one New Year’s Eve. The novel careens forward and backward from that moment, detailing the first interactions of the various personalities—the young gay couple, the punk teenager and her doting best friend, the aging journalist and his gruff middle-aged subject—and how those interactions change and grow and are in many cases forever changed after that night. Also there’s an attempted murder.

By virtue of plot and style, City on Fire evokes a variety of other books: The Goldfinch, FreedomBonfire of the VanitiesEdit. And while none of COF’s plotlines or characters feel plagiarized or even particularly referential, there is still something fundamentally unoriginal about this novel, as though it were concocted specifically to sit next to Tartt and Franzen and Wolfe on the shelf, and not to inspire anything in its own right. When I was reading it, I was—for the most part—engaged with the characters. But when I wasn’t, COF would languish in my purse or under my bed for days or even weeks at a time; the narrative didn’t pull me in unless I was already in the middle of it, and even then barely.

Hallberg isn’t the worst writer, and COF is so clear about what it’s trying to be that it took me a long time to admit it wasn’t working. But his overeager attempts to embody the voices of his characters (something, admittedly, I have long nagged Franzen for not even attempting to do) are sometimes cringe-worthy. For example, awkward teenager Charlie’s inner monologue—”but there weren’t like great throngs of people on that uptown train;” “He was going to like rupture”—feels painfully forced.

Mostly though, COF is plodding and dull, too wrapped up in its own literary-ness to avoid the pitfalls of predictability and unoriginality. Hallberg’s separation of the novel into viewpoint-based chapters (with a few other bits sprinkled throughout, like the beginnings of a different novel, or letters between relatives) suggests he might have been better served by a short story collection, or a novella. Or by giving Donna Tartt the $2 million and letting her write it for him.

2papercutsTITLE: City on Fire
———————————
AUTHOR: Garth Risk Hallberg
———————————-
PAGES: Kindled
———————————-
ALSO WROTE: n/a
———————————-
SORTA LIKE: The Bonfire of the Vanities meets a Lifetime Original Movie
———————————-
FIRST LINE: “A Christmas tree was coming up Eleventh Avenue.”

7 Responses to “I’m giving up on City on Fire”

  1. franhunne4u December 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    Don’t feel wrong about giving up on a book – sometimes Bad is Bad.

  2. aliteralinterpretation.wordpress.com December 10, 2015 at 5:50 pm #

    So I haven’t read the book, your criticisms of it make it easy to see why you had to throw in the towel. I also have a hard time giving up in the middle of a series or book (I watched all the true blood series– A fact I’m not proud to admit). We’ve been so conditioned never to give up, it might be time to start practicing stopping when warranted.

  3. jennabrownson December 11, 2015 at 9:59 am #

    This is about the most diplomatic “throw in the towel” review I’ve ever read. Kudos. I had to laugh at your suggestion that the $2,000,000.00 go to Tartt. That’s funny. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on COF — which I’ve not read and may/may not try after reading your review.

  4. lauratfrey December 11, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

    I almost gave up twice, around page 200 and around page 600. And in the end it felt flat. You described it perfectly; I enjoyed it while I was reading it, but I had no desire to get back to it when not.

  5. aubreysbooknook December 19, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    Yikes! I had planned on reading this sometime, but I might have to reconsider…

  6. kristen Remeza December 22, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

    I agree with you. I just came upon the “like rupture” sentence and had to Google it to see if it annoyed anyone else. Did kids even use “like” in that way back in 1976? I was under the impression that came from Valley Girl-speak in the 80s!

    • Kira Bindrim December 22, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

      Wow, I didn’t even think of that. Great point! Either way it felt super forced.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: