Sign in with Facebook
Catherine's Reviews > People of the Book
People of the Book
by
by
This is an awful book.
I expected great things from Brooks - March is a book I treasure - but this novel is a third-rate Da Vinci code, written with about the same amount of skill.
The premise is captivating - a 500-year-old haggadah is found in Sarajevo in 1996, and the novel sets out to explore the book's journey across Europe in those intervening years. Along the way, the haggadah acts as an entry point into the tumult, crisis, and unspeakable violence experienced by Jewish communities across Europe.
Yet the novel does not live up to the premise. The focus is not upon the haggadah or the people who have handled it between 1480 and 1996, but rather upon the Australian conservator called in to restore it in Sarajevo. The details of where the haggadah has been are important because Hanna, the conservator, is writing an essay about its journey, and she'll gain academic and professional prestige from doing so. Hello, cultural appropriation! For example: "why had an illuminator working in Spain, for a Jewish client, in the manner of a European Christian, have used an Iranian paintbrush? Clarissa's identification of this anomaly had been great for my essay. It had given me an excuse to riff on the way knowledge had traveled amazing distances during the Conveivencia, over well-established routes linking the artists and intellectuals of Spain with their counterparts in Baghdad, Cairo, and Isphahan." (321) (We are actually supposed to clap our hands with glee on Hanna's behalf at that point, I think.) Once Hanna's expertise about the haggadah is questioned, she gives up her work as a conservator of old, European and Middle Eastern texts, and instead starts saving Australian Aboriginal art from being destroyed by mining companies. She has an assistant - he's Aboriginal, but it's Hanna who we're supposed to identify and sympathize with, feeling pleased that she's a white superwoman, saving people from themselves.
There are other truly problematic issues of race in the text. The first character of color we encounter is a Rasta cab driver who smokes ganja and who won't drop her at Scotland Yard in case he gets caught for using drugs. We meet a man - Raz - who is part African-American and part Hawaiian, and whom the protagonist observes "was one of those vanguard beings of indeterminate ethnicity, the magnificent mutts I hope we are all destined to become given another millennium of intermixing." (141). Yep, that's right, she just called him a mongrel. The depictions of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faith are so broad-brushed i don't know what to think - it's like a child's paint-by-numbers for major world religions.
And of course, in the tradition of Dan Brown, it's a love story. Within a few pages of beginning the book Hanna's sleeping with the Muslim curator of Sarajevo's major museum, and by the end she's overcome her aversion to the idea of a long-term relationship and is ready to be with him. Whoop-dee-doo.
In conclusion: UGH.
I expected great things from Brooks - March is a book I treasure - but this novel is a third-rate Da Vinci code, written with about the same amount of skill.
The premise is captivating - a 500-year-old haggadah is found in Sarajevo in 1996, and the novel sets out to explore the book's journey across Europe in those intervening years. Along the way, the haggadah acts as an entry point into the tumult, crisis, and unspeakable violence experienced by Jewish communities across Europe.
Yet the novel does not live up to the premise. The focus is not upon the haggadah or the people who have handled it between 1480 and 1996, but rather upon the Australian conservator called in to restore it in Sarajevo. The details of where the haggadah has been are important because Hanna, the conservator, is writing an essay about its journey, and she'll gain academic and professional prestige from doing so. Hello, cultural appropriation! For example: "why had an illuminator working in Spain, for a Jewish client, in the manner of a European Christian, have used an Iranian paintbrush? Clarissa's identification of this anomaly had been great for my essay. It had given me an excuse to riff on the way knowledge had traveled amazing distances during the Conveivencia, over well-established routes linking the artists and intellectuals of Spain with their counterparts in Baghdad, Cairo, and Isphahan." (321) (We are actually supposed to clap our hands with glee on Hanna's behalf at that point, I think.) Once Hanna's expertise about the haggadah is questioned, she gives up her work as a conservator of old, European and Middle Eastern texts, and instead starts saving Australian Aboriginal art from being destroyed by mining companies. She has an assistant - he's Aboriginal, but it's Hanna who we're supposed to identify and sympathize with, feeling pleased that she's a white superwoman, saving people from themselves.
There are other truly problematic issues of race in the text. The first character of color we encounter is a Rasta cab driver who smokes ganja and who won't drop her at Scotland Yard in case he gets caught for using drugs. We meet a man - Raz - who is part African-American and part Hawaiian, and whom the protagonist observes "was one of those vanguard beings of indeterminate ethnicity, the magnificent mutts I hope we are all destined to become given another millennium of intermixing." (141). Yep, that's right, she just called him a mongrel. The depictions of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faith are so broad-brushed i don't know what to think - it's like a child's paint-by-numbers for major world religions.
And of course, in the tradition of Dan Brown, it's a love story. Within a few pages of beginning the book Hanna's sleeping with the Muslim curator of Sarajevo's major museum, and by the end she's overcome her aversion to the idea of a long-term relationship and is ready to be with him. Whoop-dee-doo.
In conclusion: UGH.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
People of the Book.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-34 of 34 (34 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Patrick
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 02, 2010 04:20AM
I think that the reason she paints the three major religions in such broad strokes is deemphasize it as a label. I think she instead wanted to emphasize the universalities of man instead of labels/ideologies that tend to divide us.
reply
|
flag
Patrick wrote: "I think that the reason she paints the three major religions in such broad strokes is deemphasize it as a label. I think she instead wanted to emphasize the universalities of man instead of labels..."Even if I agreed (which I don't - I don't think religion is a 'label' in her work, or in real life), that argument doesn't address why she indulged in such problematic portrayals of race.
You do not think that some people in the world primarily label themselves based on their religion? I think Jewish people especially Orthodox Jews, Islamic fundamentalist, and Southern Evangelical Christians in the U.S. would probably beg to differ. If you asked them who they are as people, they would probably answer with their religion first and foremost. I think this happens the most for example in Jerusalem where your religion does play a part on who you are as a person. I was just commenting on the religious aspect of your comment not on the race portion. Given the religious tensions of today especially in Israel, I think it is her main thesis that what matters most are the universalities of man and not religion.
I must say your review cracked me up...I liked the book but agree with you its not her best....MArch and The Year of Wonders was superior.
Horrible. Trite. Predictable.
I love this book! GB did a beautiful job bringing to life the people who may have been involved in the creation of the book.I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to works of literature as well.
I'm on page 38 and cannot get into it! Agh.
I liked the stories of all the people running around making and changing and saving the book. Could not stand Hanna or her evil mother or her stupid life.
This is ma first book bi Geraldine Brooks. I am really disappointed, and your review summs up my sentiments to the detail. An excellent premise, poor result.
I just completed reading this and was disappointed... I smiled when I saw your description as a 3rd rate DaVinci Code bc I actually enjoyed the DaVinci Code a lot more than this book LOL
So surprised by this review. I really loved People of the Book and it was my first book by brooks. But it's interesting to read different opinions anyway.
You are so right -- a generous and insightful review. After a couple of attempts I still couldn't get further than a few pages in. Heavy-handed in writing style and doctrinaire in approach, this book is toe-curlingly bad.
I was hoping for a treasure, became enamored with the setting and technical info about conservators and then the story moved to a shallow yet intimate relationship among professed intellectuals. Will not finish this book. Sorry.
I am about to start chapter two and do not think I can be bothered, even though it is a book club choice. The first chapter was so badly written, so puerile, the character is cringingly awful. Who really cares that she flying first class to London, who cares that she has to change planes in Vienna...Really!! Her character is so superficial that even writing this I am angry that I have even read as much as I have!
Focusing on Hanna as the reason you didn’t like the book is wrong. Hanna is a modern vehicle for telling a rich story about the history of three religions and their intersections in both horrific ways and heartwarming ways. It is a beautiful story. Hanna is just a vehicle for tying the stories together.
I'm 2/3 way through and feel the same way. There seems to be an underlying agenda in this book...basically, Christians bad, everyone else good. I don't like any of the characters. All are deeply flawed with little sparks of humanity. There is some history but iI feel it's all told through a particular ideological lens. I keep having to google to confirm events which adds to the tediousness of this reading.
The premise is really interesting, but I’m 100 pages in, and I just can’t bring myself to read almost 300 more. I probably should have stopped much earlier... after the bizarre finger-licking incident.
There is a difference between referring to someone as a mutt - which means they are of such a mixed ancestry that their ethnicity can't really be classified - and a mongrel. The character of Hanna, and by extension the author isn't denigrating Raz but instead showing an affection, an appreciation, and suggesting the oneness of the human race specifically with the end of the quote: "...I hope we are all destined to become given another millennium of intermixing."There is no racism or appropriation here. You seem to be angry about the exact opposite meaning of the sentence, and in general your review reads like the sort of essay written by someone seeking out a reason to be offended. This is an excellent book that celebrates the mixing of cultures.
I can’t disagree with any of the points you made but I can’t share your negative overall feelings. I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I’d not heard of Geraldine Brooks before seeing a copy of People of the Book in a secondhand bookshop which I bought purely on the basis of the subject as described on the back cover. I thought she did a brilliant job of presenting the history of the Haggadah going backward through time together with story as it relates to Hanna Heath.I told my wife, who has read much more widely than I have (I tend to stick with the Victorians), that although I enjoyed the story a lot I didn’t think that much of the writing and wouldn’t call Geraldine Brooks a great author. She immediately handed over a copy of March saying that crap writers tend not to win the Pulitzer Prize. I am halfway through March and have changed my opinion of Brooks and see her now as an exceedingly talented author.
Perhaps if I’d read People of the Book after March I’d have been as disappointed as you were as my expectations would have been so much higher.
@Dan - well said - Christines review is not a good depiction of the tone of the work. The focus is heavily on tracing the origins of a book as a way of historical describing crimes against Jews. The contemporary detective character Hanna is complex and well developed driven by curiosity and is simply there to move the narrative, her ambitions are not central to the story. Certainly not a self serving racist. A simply ridiculous reading on the part of the reviewer.
This review makes some good points, but one the whole it only really makes sense if you think that Jews are white. The whole point of the book is that they aren’t. I understand the cultural discomfort with centering the persecution of Jews instead of other races/ethnicities (after all, Jews are supposed to be white), but I agree with Brodie. This book is about Jews, unapologetically.
Marilynn wrote: "Focusing on Hanna as the reason you didn’t like the book is wrong. Hanna is a modern vehicle for telling a rich story about the history of three religions and their intersections in both horrific w..."Exactly. I loved the book.
Harsh! I am releasing it back into the wild after 110 pages, but I still appreciate Brooks's skill and loving detail. The religious tolerance theme is noble, but I haven't found Hanna very interesting; still, if I had read it ten years ago I probably would have found it worth finishing.
I read this some years ago and felt the underlying theme of this book was all Christians bad, all Muslims and Jews good so I wholly agree with Isabella’s critique regarding an agenda. Not a book I’d recommend. (I did learn a new word however: palimpsest!! )
I agree with Catherine, Hanna could have been an amazing character, but she comes across as superficial and at times narcissistic.
You probably won't like Mark Twain's book, Tom Sawyer.
@Bean - good one@Dan - right on
I actually liked all the research parts but found myself getting very bored with all the stories about the people who had saved or handled the book.
Not only “ugh” but “meh.” 😵💫
So so interesting… all the stories about the people who touched the manuscript were the best part. All her personal relationships were the journalists filler at best.
Lots of major plot point spoilers, especially in the long 3rd paragraph and the 6th. It's fine- great even!- not to like the book. Not cool to spoil it.
Just came across this review. My rating is not as harsh as yours but I concur with your comments. I may try March next though
