
This is the cover I recently bought used (image from http://wordlily.wordpress.com), and I think it sucks
Having just finished it, I can attest that this may have something to do with its boring as all get-out prologue. Seriously, four pages describing the island it’s set on and crab fishing, when we don’t yet care about the characters? Why did a writer as skillful as Paterson ever think that was a good idea?
Another possible explanation for my never having really cracked its spine in all the years it sat on my shelf is that, as I recall, the cover of my childhood edition strongly emphasized the biblical reference in the book’s title. Since I was totally unfamiliar with this*, the book became associated in my mind with Hard Things I Don’t Understand.
All of which is too bad, because it’s actually a great book. Shortly before reading it, I happened to read a discussion on writer Jennifer Hubbard’s blog about how good writing is about revealing emotions that we wouldn’t typically associate with an event, but that ring true when we read them. Or, as she put it much more pithily, “what it feels like instead of what it’s supposed to feel like.”** As it turns out, this is one of the things Paterson excels at in this book.
Here’s a handful of the tiny details that stuck out to me in this vein:
- “The pain in my arm became the only real thing, a sharp point of comfort in the midst of a nightmare.”
- “I was quite sure I was crazy, and it was amazing that as soon as I admitted it, I became quite calm.”
- “Call and Caroline were waving back and calling out to him, but I was standing there shivering, my arms crossed, my hands hooked up under my arms and pressed against my breasts.”
The biggest example, though, is a plot twist that I won’t spoil, but that definitely took me by surprise midway through the book. Suffice it to say that our protagonist develops an emotional response that I most certainly did not see coming, and that I think most authors would be hard-pressed to include today.
And speaking of things that felt dated (and I don’t necessarily mean that as an epithet): JACOB HAVE I LOVED follows its protagonist from age 13 until well into her adulthood. I think this would be a very rare choice today. Anyone got counterexamples, or a sense of whether I’m right or wrong that this this might have been more normal in the late ’70s/early ’80s?
* My most embarrassing story of how my childhood reading was distorted by my total ignorance of all things biblical: I was probably about nine when I first read Madeleine L’Engle’s MANY WATERS, and as I read this story about modern-day twins transported back to the dry, dry desert… living with a man who is the town laughingstock because he thinks God told him to build a big boat… a man named Noah… it did not occur to me that this was a retelling of Noah’s Ark until it actually occurred to the book’s main characters to speculate on this fact.
On the other hand, I did learn the story of Abraham from a very early age. Except, I think the part about how God said he wanted the killing done out on Highway 61 may have been embellished.
** It took a mighty effort to repress a MY SO-CALLED LIFE reference here. Bonus points to anyone (besides Emily!) who can identify it in the comments.
-->Feed me text
April 21, 2009 at 9:23 am
As a child who attended Sunday School each and every Sunday, the title is actually what drew me to the book. I remember loving it. Time for a reread though since I don’t remember a thing about it!
April 21, 2009 at 10:07 am
I totally do recommend it. Paterson also does a great job of repeatedly showing us all her main character’s worst sides, without making me unsympathetic (to me, at least).
April 21, 2009 at 11:02 am
I remember really loving this one. Also, Katherine Paterson will be at Book Expo this year, yay!
Was the MSCL ref to the yearbook? Like, as in yearbook shows how the year was supposed to be, whereas no one would really want a book of how things actually were.
Also, I really loved Many Waters–did you like it? I know a lot of people don’t like it compared to Wrinkle in Time or the others, but it’s actually my favorite of hers. I don’t know why.
April 21, 2009 at 11:23 am
Why would you ever want to suppress a MSCL reference?
April 21, 2009 at 11:39 am
I remember loving this book– I had it with the exact same cover!! I can’t remember the plot now, though. Time for a reread.
I loooved most of the Wrinkle in Time series, but was frustrated by Many Waters. I think maybe I just wanted more Meg Murry. I wonder how it’d hold up to an adult reading.
April 21, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I loved, and continue to love the first 3 in the Wrinkle in Time series. I didn’t read Many Waters until later than the others (high school maybe), and I didn’t like it nearly as much. I’ve read it again once or twice as an adult and its good, but nowhere near as excellent as the rest of the series. I think Sandy and Dennys are just lesser characters than Meg and Charles Wallace.
Also, I failed to sufficiently make fun of Elizabeth before — his name is Noah. Even with a thoroughly secular upbringing, don’t you absorb a bit by osmosis or something?
April 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think the reason I liked Many Waters b/c I read it at that special age and nephilim really really turned me on.
April 21, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Emily: Well, when Sandy and Dennis started saying, “Huh, I wonder if we could be reliving Noah’s Ark!”, I knew what they were talking about! I just didn’t, you know, get there before them.
Sadako: You are correct!
Everyone: MANY WATERS was always my favorite L’Engle, but I suspect that this is entirely because it happened to be, for years, the only one of my collection not in storage, so I read it a lot more times. I think if I reread them now — which I’ve been meaning to do — I’d probably prefer some of the others.
Just not AN ACCEPTABLE TIME, which I read for the first time a year ago… highly disappointing.
April 21, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Aw, I liked AN ACCEPTABLE TIME. Though Zachary kind of annoyed me.
I reread MEET THE AUSTINS recently, which was good. Though the Austins are a bit goody goody for my liking.
April 29, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I’m actually rereading MANY WATERS right now. When we first meet Noah, they just refer to him as “father” or “the patriarch.” Then Dennys speaks with him and he’s like, I’m Noah, and then a few pages later, Dennys is like, “Hm, is this Noah of the ark?” And the ark building doesn’t happen till much later in the book, so I wouldn’t feel too dumb. I think we’re supposed to identify with Dennys and Sandy and start speculating about it along with them.
April 30, 2009 at 1:17 am
Oh, good. I’m glad I remember my childhood-reading self as stupider than I actually was.
I had only the vaguest idea of what Noah’s Ark was even about (not sure I knew what the Ark was before I read this book), but I’m pretty sure I knew it involved animals two by two.
April 30, 2009 at 8:48 am
[...] on Why I love it: The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-BanksElizabeth on Books I should have read in childhood: Jacob Have I LovedElizabeth on When does a book cross [...]
April 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Same here. I really knew nothing–just about the animals. I did some wiki reading afterward. Turns out that there were something called the nephilim but it’s really vague about what they were. Something about the sons of gods mating with the daughters of man (nephilim could have been the children of fallen angels and human women), and how it’s a bit of fantasy/mythology that never got cleaned up. The names of the nephilim are taken from actual demons throughout Christianity/Judaism/Islam. Fascinating reading. Apparently one of God’s motives in flooding the earth in the Noah’s ark story was to get rid of the nephilim.
August 3, 2009 at 8:47 am
[...] that made great authors start great books in the most boring way possible, but between this and JACOB HAVE I LOVED, I feel like I’m being confronted with some sort of trial: subtle and surprising stories [...]