Thanks for this review. I've read a lot of Bellow but I've shied away from his two longest books (this being one, and "Augie March" being the other). Your review seems to confirm that my instincts were correct. Here's what I wrote about him elsewhere: "My overriding impression is that he was the literary equivalent of a great barroom talker, the sort of person who has a fascinating way with words but is not necessarily a good storyteller."
I think that appraisal is spot on, although he has moments of truly exciting storytelling. Have you read Mr. Sammler’s Planet? The flashbacks to the Holocaust are harrowing and utterly captivating. But there is something about his book-level plotting that doesn’t always cohere for me. Herzog was the first Bellow I read and I *loved* it; every book of his I’ve read since has somewhat failed to live up to that first high. I started reading Augie March but put it down after ~100 pages because I got bored 😬
I've read several novels and stories but not "Sammler." I do agree about "Herzog." It's a virtuoso piece of writing that holds you even when he's writing about trivial, everyday stuff. Also, "Seize the Day" has a notably tight plot, but that's a novella.
Thanks for this, I enjoyed it so much. The written piece and the accompanying film. I’ve seen the comments here. I’m slightly shocked by them, particularly those of Scott, who seems to have a lot to say about SB without actually having read his major works. To call Bellow a ‘not necessarily good story telling’ is scandalous! Notwithstanding he’s a novelist, a truly great one, and not a story teller.
Just saw this comment, so figured I'd respond to it. It's true I haven't read the two biggest novels. You may, however, be interested in the response of someone who did - Joseph Epstein, in his recent book "The Novel, Who Needs It?":
"Bellow's larger problem was his inability to create plots. From The Adventures of Augie March on to Ravelstein, his novels tend to peter out, his endings rarely satisfy, and so finally the books themselves, though endowed with considerable charm as one reads along in them, finally seem neither memorable nor re-readable. Bellow was writing the novel of ideas but doing so through putting his ideas in the head and mouth of his Bellow-like narrators... he ended a less than fully successful novelist, his books more soliloquies than novels."
In fact, I don't fully agree with this, though I think Epstein has a point. It's just that I *like* those soliloquies, I enjoy reading his prose for the sheer stylistic and intellectual virtuosity of it. I find plenty that's memorable and re-readable in it, whether it's well-integrated into the story or not.
Thanks Scott, Epstein’s comments are very interesting and thought provoking. Of course they rely upon agreement with his core principle - that Bellow fails to create plots. Moreover, one might argue against the value of plot anyway. For myself, if I want that much plot I’ll read a crime book. I think Bellow has all the plot he needs. Plus he scores big on the much more important qualities of sheer linguistic brilliance, devastating humour, endless verve and energy on the page, and a wonderful supply of philosophical baiting and debating. It’s all a bit odd for me to read someone say Bellow is neither memorable nor re-readable. I’m currently reading Humboldt’s Gift for a third time. Its pleasure has in no way diminished. The accolades and the awards are not for nothing. I guess in the end one is Ruth a fan of one isn’t?
Yes, some novels don't really need plots if the writing is focused on something else. "Ravelstein" for instance is lightly fictionalized memoir; whether it can be defined as a "proper" novel or not strikes me as irrelevant.
Anyway, between Lillian's review and your response, I can't decide if I should read "Humboldt's Gift" or not. Maybe "Augie March" would be a better choice? Martin Amis thought it was *the* Great American Novel. But he had some kind of paternal relationship with Bellow, so maybe it was personal with him.
I’ve read both (plus everything else). Against most popular opinion I find Humboldt’s Gift the better novel (both are great IMO). I would also strongly recommend the three later novellas - The Bellarossa Connection, The Actual, and A Theft.
I’m so honored that my review facilitated this lovely exchange! I own all three of the novellas Anthony recommends but haven’t read them yet. I have read an earlier novella, Seize the Day (and posted a review of it under the title “Nobel Prize-Winning Negative Self-Talk”) and found it gripping and highly readable, if quite dark and somewhat joyless.
I’m planning on getting around to the other novellas at some point after I read Dangling Man (his debut novel).
Thanks for this review. I've read a lot of Bellow but I've shied away from his two longest books (this being one, and "Augie March" being the other). Your review seems to confirm that my instincts were correct. Here's what I wrote about him elsewhere: "My overriding impression is that he was the literary equivalent of a great barroom talker, the sort of person who has a fascinating way with words but is not necessarily a good storyteller."
I think that appraisal is spot on, although he has moments of truly exciting storytelling. Have you read Mr. Sammler’s Planet? The flashbacks to the Holocaust are harrowing and utterly captivating. But there is something about his book-level plotting that doesn’t always cohere for me. Herzog was the first Bellow I read and I *loved* it; every book of his I’ve read since has somewhat failed to live up to that first high. I started reading Augie March but put it down after ~100 pages because I got bored 😬
I've read several novels and stories but not "Sammler." I do agree about "Herzog." It's a virtuoso piece of writing that holds you even when he's writing about trivial, everyday stuff. Also, "Seize the Day" has a notably tight plot, but that's a novella.
Thanks for this, I enjoyed it so much. The written piece and the accompanying film. I’ve seen the comments here. I’m slightly shocked by them, particularly those of Scott, who seems to have a lot to say about SB without actually having read his major works. To call Bellow a ‘not necessarily good story telling’ is scandalous! Notwithstanding he’s a novelist, a truly great one, and not a story teller.
Just saw this comment, so figured I'd respond to it. It's true I haven't read the two biggest novels. You may, however, be interested in the response of someone who did - Joseph Epstein, in his recent book "The Novel, Who Needs It?":
"Bellow's larger problem was his inability to create plots. From The Adventures of Augie March on to Ravelstein, his novels tend to peter out, his endings rarely satisfy, and so finally the books themselves, though endowed with considerable charm as one reads along in them, finally seem neither memorable nor re-readable. Bellow was writing the novel of ideas but doing so through putting his ideas in the head and mouth of his Bellow-like narrators... he ended a less than fully successful novelist, his books more soliloquies than novels."
In fact, I don't fully agree with this, though I think Epstein has a point. It's just that I *like* those soliloquies, I enjoy reading his prose for the sheer stylistic and intellectual virtuosity of it. I find plenty that's memorable and re-readable in it, whether it's well-integrated into the story or not.
Thanks Scott, Epstein’s comments are very interesting and thought provoking. Of course they rely upon agreement with his core principle - that Bellow fails to create plots. Moreover, one might argue against the value of plot anyway. For myself, if I want that much plot I’ll read a crime book. I think Bellow has all the plot he needs. Plus he scores big on the much more important qualities of sheer linguistic brilliance, devastating humour, endless verve and energy on the page, and a wonderful supply of philosophical baiting and debating. It’s all a bit odd for me to read someone say Bellow is neither memorable nor re-readable. I’m currently reading Humboldt’s Gift for a third time. Its pleasure has in no way diminished. The accolades and the awards are not for nothing. I guess in the end one is Ruth a fan of one isn’t?
Yes, some novels don't really need plots if the writing is focused on something else. "Ravelstein" for instance is lightly fictionalized memoir; whether it can be defined as a "proper" novel or not strikes me as irrelevant.
Anyway, between Lillian's review and your response, I can't decide if I should read "Humboldt's Gift" or not. Maybe "Augie March" would be a better choice? Martin Amis thought it was *the* Great American Novel. But he had some kind of paternal relationship with Bellow, so maybe it was personal with him.
I’ve read both (plus everything else). Against most popular opinion I find Humboldt’s Gift the better novel (both are great IMO). I would also strongly recommend the three later novellas - The Bellarossa Connection, The Actual, and A Theft.
I like the novella as a form, so I will probably look into those.
I’m so honored that my review facilitated this lovely exchange! I own all three of the novellas Anthony recommends but haven’t read them yet. I have read an earlier novella, Seize the Day (and posted a review of it under the title “Nobel Prize-Winning Negative Self-Talk”) and found it gripping and highly readable, if quite dark and somewhat joyless.
I’m planning on getting around to the other novellas at some point after I read Dangling Man (his debut novel).