Breathing Lessonshas been on my tbr list for ages not only because it won the Pulitzer Prize, but also because I’m an Anne Tyler fan. While I enjoyed it, I’m always of the mindset that a prize-winning book should be in the 4 1/2 to 5 star range for me, and this one was slightly under that with a 4 star rating. An interesting note is that The Accidental Tourist and Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant were both finalists for the Pulitzer Prize as well.
The story takes place in a single day and doesn’t have much of a plot, but the characters are so believable that that didn’t really bother me. Maggie and Ira Moran seemed like a very real couple to me. The novel centers on their marriage but also branches out into Maggie’s relationship with her friend Serena and the couple’s relationships with their children and grandchild. In the novel Maggie is portrayed as a flighty woman who just wants everyone to get along and quite frequently tries to encourage reconciliation between injured parties. Ira is somewhat aloof but has a habit of whistling tunes that betray his inner mindset. He can be blunt at times and doesn’t appreciate Maggie’s well-intentioned meddling. However, in the end we are left wondering which of the two has really done the most damage by his or her actions.
I could identify with Maggie’s wish to be more involved in her children’s and granchild’s lives. I also identified with some of Ira’s issues and their issues as a married couple. I think almost everyone would know a couple like Maggie and Ira Moran. Perhaps that is what Tyler does so well, though. She brings those ‘typical’ characters to life in a way that makes us wish we could continue the relationship with them even after the story is finished.
I own all of Anne Tyler’s novels published after Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, although this is only my third book read. The other two were The Amateur Marriage and Saint Maybe, which I also enjoyed.
I felt that Father’s altogether human blindness could not be held against him. The dangerous ramifications that existed for his wife and children when he undertook to extricate himself from his embarrassing and humiliating situation in Nashville he could not have been expected to foresee.
A Summons to Memphis by Peter Taylor won the Pulitzer Prize in 1987.
I’m not sure how I feel about this book. On the one hand it has a real ‘sense of place’ for the South; on the other hand, it can leave you wondering what all the fuss is about. Set in Tennessee, it is basically a story about how a domineering father and a move from Nashville to Memphis affected a family.
But again, I ask — why all the fuss? Why would a move leave everyone in the family so altered? What if they had moved to California instead of another southern city in the same state? What if they had had to move every year as some families do? What if they had had to endure much more painful occurrences such as divorce, death, sickness, or violence? So what if the father thwarted some of their plans? Move away. Act like a grown up and make your own decisions instead of acting like a child for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps that was Peter Taylor’s point. After living in the South for over 15 years, I’ve seen some maneuvering behind the pleasantries, some manipulation behind the politeness. No one saying what they really mean or feel. The exaggeration of small problems into a lifelong battle. Not being able to get away from family, on both the parents’ and the adult children’s side. This novel has all of the above. In that sense and in the descriptions of both cities, I do feel the book conveys a strong sense of the South, but some readers may be bored by the relatively small problems faced by the family in this book. In addition, there were quite a few instances in the story where Taylor seems to repeat himself and I found myself asking, ‘Didn’t he just say that?’ Very strange.
Recommended for those interested in Southern literature or Pulitzer winners.
I will keep this review short because I just didn’t like this book. At all. This book was just not my cup of tea. Plainly put, it was quite vulgar and crass and just not at all what I want in my reading. I’m not necessarily sorry that I read it, though, as I do have a commitment to reading all of the Pulitzers. I just wish the committee had chosen a different book.
There was a section in the middle that was quite interesting about the brutal reign of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. If not for that section, the book would have only received a 1 star rating. It did have quite a few literary references that were somewhat enjoyable as well, but no, that does not make up for the rest of it I did not enjoy. I am just glad that I can now mark this one off my tbr list.
(By the way, the finalists in 2008 were Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson and Shakespeare’s Kitchen by Lore Segal. If you’ve read Oscar and one or both of the finalists, how did they compare?)
2007, 339 pp.
[Disclaimer: This copy was obtained from my public library.]
Memory lived not in initial possession but in the freed hands, pardoned and freed, and in the heart that can empty but fill again, in the patterns restored by dreams.
Eudora Welty’s Pulitzer Prize winning book was a little disappointing to me. I had been looking forward to reading her work for awhile, and I thought this book would be perfect for the Southern Reading Challenge and, of course, the Pulitzer Project. While it does convey a strong sense of the South, I didn’t like Welty’s writing style at all.
The first 2/3 of the book is almost like a play in that it is about 85-90% dialogue. It was extremely difficult to read. The last 1/3 has very little dialogue and was definitely the best part of the book. In this last section, we are able to make sense (a little) of Laurel’s relationship with her parents and her past.
Although I’m glad I read this book for its Southern feel and because I can check off another Pulitzer, I can’t really recommend it unless you are reading it for the same goals.
But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. (Jude 1:20-21, ESV)
I will keep this review short because I just didn’t like this book. At all. This book was just not my cup of tea. Plainly put, it was quite vulgar and crass and just not at all what I want in my reading. I’m not necessarily sorry that I read it, though, as I do have a commitment to reading all of the Pulitzers. I just wish the committee had chosen a different book.
