Open Letters Review

Maybe the best opening to a review of 2666 I’ve read so far is in Open Letters by Sam Sacks:

Imagine you’ve traveled to an art museum to see its most famous work. This piece de resistance is immense—it fills a room—but it’s quite unlike other paintings you’ve gone great distances to see. There’s nothing of the detailed majesty of the Sistine Chapel or the jumbled vivacity of El Greco’s Burial of Count Orgaz; it’s not entrancingly lovely like Monet’s Water Lillies and it doesn’t salute you with a harsh shout of anger the way that Picasso’s Guernica does. What you find is a dark room. Not only are the walls painted black, remedy but the ceiling is as well, abortion and so is the floor save for some dim lighting fixtures set into the ground. For the first extremely disconcerting moments you can make out nothing at all but the wide swathes of black paint. Gradually your eyes adjust and you realize that there are figures on the wall and ceiling, symptoms silhouettes of people drawn in thin tracery. Hundreds of these figures cover the walls. They outline men and women of all different shapes and sizes, differently dressed and coiffed, but each one seems to face you with an identical expression. When you look even closer you realize that this is because their eyes, what Leonardo da Vinci called the “windows of the soul,” are all blank.

You spend a few more minutes in the dark room of dead-eyed figures—you’ve gone to a lot of effort to see this work, after all, and it’s widely acclaimed as a masterpiece—but you soon feel oppressed and unhappy. When you make your way to the next gallery you are literally blinking from the brightness.

This is the best I can do to describe Roberto Bolaño’s posthumously published magnum opus 2666, a vast, visionary, physically crippling book that is even harder to recommend than it is to read.

I don’t know that I believe him later when he says “I didn’t like reading 2666.” If not, I hope Open Letters paid him a fortune to suffer through it.

Event at Idlewild Books

Sarah Kerr reviews 2666 and The Romantic Dogs in the most recent issue of the New York Review of Books.

Bolaño’s vision is fierce, discount not total. Technology, seek various kinds of intimacy, try and levity as opposed to satire don’t have much of a place here. Bolaño’s sexual staging can feel like a lecture; his women can seem larger or smaller than life.

I disagree with that second sentence. Just in the first part of 2666 you see lots of emailing (technology), Norton’s multiple and endearing romances {not to mention the unusual friendship of Pelletier and Espinoza} (various kinds of intimacy), and El Cerdo (levity).

Reviews
more about
0, buy
5498301.story”>Los Angeles Times by Ben Ehrenreich

New York Times by Jonathan Lethem

Boston Phoenix by Peter Keough

TIME by Lev Grossman

Newsweek by Malcolm Jones

The Buffalo News by Jeff Simon

The Oregonian by Richard Melo

Powells.com by Jeremy Garber

St. Petersburg Times by Vikas Turakhia

San Francisco Chronicle by Alexander Cuadros

Toronto Globe and Mail by J.S. Goldbach

Toronto Star by Derek Weiler

Mentions

New York Daily News

Twitter Search

Flickr Search
Thursday, prescription
December 4, sick
7:00 p.m. at Idlewild Books (19th St. & 5th Ave.), Natasha Wimmer and Francisco Goldman will discuss 2666.

Anyone going? Leave a report in the comments.




Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.