Our Tragic Universe Hardcover – Sep 1 2010
|New from||Used from|
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.
A "freewheeling intellectual journey with no destination. ... For the omnivorous reader who, like Meg, can't get enough of the insights and passions and theories and inner lives of others, Thomas's fifth novel should be an addictive delight." —Kirkus Reviews
"Thomas brilliantly reminds us that, despite popular representations, many women are actually staying up half the night talking ideas. One feels alone. And then one reads Our Tragic Universe." —Jincy Willett, author of Winner of the National Book Award
"A delight, not least for the quality of Scarlett Thomas’s writing, which is full of a very enjoyable life and energy." —Philip Pullman
"Our Tragic Universe surprised me with where it goes, and in such a terrific way. Scarlett Thomas’s prose is so addictive you can’t help but fall deeper and deeper under her spell. How does she do it? She is a genius." —Douglas Coupland
About the Author
SCARLETT THOMAS is the author of PopCo and The End of Mr. Y. She has been nominated for the Orange Prize and named Writer of the Year by Elle UK, one of the twenty best young writers by the Independent , and one of the Telegraph 's 20 best writers under 40.See all Product Description
Top Customer Reviews
For a much, much better take on the difficulties of writing a novel, read Lydia Davis's *The End of the Story* instead.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
I was puzzled by Meg's relationship with Christopher. She's living for seven years with this loser who treats her with no respect. Abuse, is more like it. And we have no clue until near the end of the book as to why Meg ever took up with this schlmiel (he's angular and sexy, whatever that means). But why does she stay with him? She's a very "together" person, she's making a living as a writer, she's quite an admirable person in some ways. She certainly has a good relationship with her dog. So why does it take her SO LONG to deal with it? Another thing that puzzled me was why everyone in the book was having an affair. Is everyone in Britain morally bankrupt? Or is this just some chicklit convention I'm not aware of? Of relationships and such, Meg is mostly mum. We don't really know, often, what her reaction is to an event, such as her boyfriend saying something abusive. She'll just carry on by taking the dog for a walk, and never mentioning the conversation again, or until later. She withholds her thoughts and feelings at odd times, and tells us the backstories of the other characters in a seemingly haphazard way. But she's such a good writer that I'm sure all of this was done on purpose, and I'm not smart enough to get it. I would've enjoyed the book more had it explored the pseudo-science bits more. It seems to be more than psuedo in the book, and yet in the end, we have a "Zeb Ross" ending, where all is explained rationally away (you'll know what I mean when you read the book) at the end by the scientists.
Thomas makes us think about fiction, and how we wish there were meaning in our lives. That things happen for a reason, and that if you work hard and heroically, you will get the girl and vanquish the dragon. We like to think that the Universe is not just some tragic joke. That all can be fixed and have a happy ending in 22 minutes plus commercials. That there are secret powers we know nothing about, and we're all immortal. That we aren't living the lives we see on television, so we jump from bed to bed looking for the right sitcom to live in. Thomas makes you question the assumptions your life is built upon. There's a lot to think about and enjoy here. I'm glad I got a chance to read this, thanks to the Vine program. Thanks, Amazon!
I was going to describe Our Tragic Universe as a character driven novel, but that doesn't seem right, either. This is something completely different.
The characters in this novel discuss storycrafting quite a bit, and one thing that comes up often is the idea of the storyless story. This sounds like an oxymoron, but it's the best way to describe Our Tragic Universe.
That doesn't mean that nothing happens, but it doesn't follow a regular plot outline. Things do happen in the lives of the characters, but not in the formulaic way that we are accustomed to. The main character doesn't have anything that drives her to act. It's more like things happen and she adapts. When I describe it that way, it sounds really boring, but I wasn't bored. I enjoyed the writing and my curiosity about what was going to happen kept me reading.
I've never read a story like this before. It's worth reading just for its uniqueness. I think this is a book that will be discussed in writing classes, I'm just not sure if it will be received as an example of what to do, or what not to do. Either way, I liked it and feel as though I should read it again now that I know what to expect from this peculiar novel.
Scarlett Thomas is not new to me. I have read some of her previous works before. I had this hope that "Our Tragic Universe" would live it up to my expectation. This book is curiously divided into two parts. In part one, the main character Meg - a book reviewer, a ghost writer, an aspired writer, a lady in her late thirties, a character that at one point I thought Scarlett is Meg - has a rather mundane life that is getting slightly worse. In part two, Meg has a relatively more hopeful life that is getting slightly better. If I may deduce what saves her life (as promised by the synopses), it is money. Or rather the time freed up by not needing to think about making ends meet can be used to do something more interesting. If I may second guess on what the synopses writer means by "Our Tragic Universe" is a book about how relationships are created and destroyed, it merely means that if you stuck or think you stuck in a relationship that is going nowhere, break up and start anew. However, I doubt that is what Scarlett Thomas has intended this book to be (and I surely hope not).
"Our Tragic Universe", to me, is an experimental work of writing. A storyless story as defined in page 388 and 389 (and hinted at the very beginning of the story) is as follows.
- [The storyless story] is the subtle rejection of story within its own structure ... It has no moral center. It is not something from which a reader should strive to learn something, but rather a puzzle or a paradox with no `answer' or `solution', except for false ones. The readers are not encouraged to `get into' the storyless story but to stay outside.
To illustrate what a storyless story is like, here is an example (page 389). By and large, I see the similarity of that and to the entire book.
- A story about a hermit making jam could be as interesting as a story about a hero overcoming a dragon, except that it would be likely that the writer would make the hermit overcome the jam in the same way the hero overcomes the dragon. The storyless story shows the hermit making the jam while the hero overcomes the dragon, and then the hermit giving remedies and aid - and jam - to both the hero and the dragon before going to bed with a book.
And so I have subconsciously played along with this storyless story concept while throughout the bulk of the book, I was hoping that "Our Tragic Universe" would be as innovative and engaging as "The End Of Mr. Y". "Our Tragic Universe" has all the great ingredients. A book that Meg needed to review called "The Science of Living Forever" has a great potential to be the metafiction (a story within a story), such as the story by Lumas in "The End Of Mr. Y". "The Science of Living Forever" even has a sequel called "Second World" that would have fitted beautifully with this book in two parts. There is a mysterious wild beast living in town. There is even a ship in a bottle that mysteriously appeared at the shore when Meg was `conversing' with the Universe. The magical healing power, the placebo versus nocebo (the opposite of placebo), the conversation with the dead on an astral plane - tragically, none of these have been converted into something intriguing, something that lives up to the basic expectation established between a reader and a writer, something that is remotely close to "The End Of Mr. Y". This book may wish to break away from the standard structure of (1) having a central issue or the `ordinary world' of the problem, (2) the problem itself, (3) the way to set out and resolve the issue, (4) a previously unseen element in the central conflict that could make the problem seems insurmountable, (5) a climax or turning point, and (6) the resolution - as implied using Tarot reading on page 322. In fact, "Our Tragic Universe" has done it so well that it does not have any of the above. The fallacy of a storyless story, to me, is in the absence of a climax or a convincing turning point, it is not a very inspiring story. Having said that, with an open mind and if reading an experiment piece is what you are after, "Our Tragic Universe" is certainly unique. It is still an easy read with lively conversations filled with truncated ideas and well known stories. Be prepared that this book has nothing to with tragedy, certainly nothing to do with the Universe. And neglect the bad and misleading marketing tagline "Could a Story Save Your Life?".
I do not think I would subscribe to the notions of fictionless fiction, historyless history, romanceless romance, unproven proof, and uncertain certainty (page 390). I think these are some pointless phases the author has dreamed up with (that anyone could create a dozen more). I do not think that being a realist writer means that he or she has to produce fictionless fiction (page 390). To me, the goal of a realist artist is to produce artworks with the goals of truth and accuracy in mind. That, in the context of writing, is a job belongs to the journalists. A fiction is not a real story, as repeatedly mentioned in a wonderful book called "How To Read Novels Like A Professor". A fiction is simply a work of fiction.
Thats not to say that her new book is bad in any way, I enjoyed it a lot, but it takes a certain kind of person to fully enjoy it. Unlike her last books, which though intellectual and extremely thought provoking still had really good and well paced plots, this one doesn't. Its part and parcel with the idea of a non-story, which is constantly talked about within the book itself.
This story without a story though is an interesting one in that it takes a look at relationships, how they grow and crumble, what causes them to start, and then to falter. Whether friendships or love, this book takes a hard look at them, while discussing new age ideas, the afterlife, monsters on the moore, dog psychology, how to write book candy, publishing industry, maritime history, ghosts, "energy", magic, and holidays; all combined with lots of tangerines.
Tangerines in this book take the place of cigarettes in Thomas's past books, and I feel its quiet fitting. The book can be broken up and eaten in parts, and still taste good, it can be consumed all at once, there are even sometimes "little tangerine babies at the top", and millions of ways you can peel a tangerine. I don't think this was on purpose, its probably more likely that the author quit smoking while writing the book and needed something for her protagonist to do while drinking tea, reading books, and pondering the great expanse of the universe.
But like a Tangerine also, this book will not be for everyones taste. Its not a normal story, which will upset many. Its not a "psychological thriller" like the Amazon coding suggests, its not even a novel in the sense that most in the west think of a novel with heros, but it is a way to sneak the authors thoughts into writing, without everyone coming at her with pitchforks and torches. And for those who like the first 20 pages, you'll like it till the end (mostly), but if you dont like the first 20 pages, put down this book and wait for her next one (which I hear she's going back to University to get a degree to write).