The Lacuna was no exception. And being a reader that usually gives a book to about half way through to decide if i should continue reading it or not-i tend to therefore to continue reading most books which i didn't necessarily like from the beginning.
However i did like the Lacuna from the beginning although i did not like the constant metaphors which she seemed forced to use. Another thing mentioned to us in the several writing courses i've been on. 'Make sure you use lots of metaphors.' Did she choose these metaphors? Sometimes there were two metaphors in one sentence. They were good metaphors most of the time. But since there were so many it felt forced-and became unnecessary. The good ones did not stand out any more-they simply blended into the rest. A shame i think. Towards the second half of the book the metaphors seemed to be less or at least to have stood out less.
I loved how she was able to portray both the Mexican culture and style of life as well as the American in the 50s. I personally don't know much about the Mexican Revolution and feel i would have enjoyed the book more if i knew more-but i can always read it again when i have brushed up on my Mexican Revolution. However the Cold War and Mc Carthy era as well as the Russain Revoluton i feel a bit more confident in and could therefore understand these history sections in the book a bit more. Also being a big fan of Frida Kahlo i enjoyed hearing her voice come through quite clearly in the novel. Obviously it could be discussed regarding the accuracy of the history and of what actually happened.
But it does inspire me to write a half fiction- half history book myself.
When books are written by a member of the opposite sex to the main protagonist questions are always asked to whether the author can pull it off or not. What is interesting with the Lacuna is that although the main character is a man and everything which happens is told from his point of view all the people he speaks about and who are most close to him are women-we actually find out little about himself.
I understand the concept of identity and the difficulty of trying to find out where you belong which is an important theme in the book, but i would almost have wanted some more of it. It seemed mostly to be a sort of innocence, comedy and naivety portrayed through the main character regarding his not knowing where he belongs and not necessarily a struggle.
One does feel a certain motherly pull towards him as do the female characters as they all seem to be looking after him and wanting to help him. Is this the right idea? And in that case why? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? Obviously towards the end we do.
The connection with today's celebrities is also very good-and putting it in a past time-where there was no internet and therefore a lot easier to stay incognito.
Overall, although i liked the bits to do with Frida Kahlo and could have done with a whole book just about their relationship, i think the second section of the book is better. I believe possibly because you don't actually know what is going to happen while in the first part you know that Lev Trotsky will get murdered. And you're simply waiting for it to happen.
I want to read it again-but need to learn more about the Mexican Revolution.
I do love the way the book was set up. A lot of detail-and sticking to the voice of the narrator and keeping it very clear. The history wasn't forced but came quite lightly. She didn't treat the reader like an idiot if you don't know something-look it up! She didn't explain every little metaphor, every innuendo every double meaning and every historical event. I like that-and i'm the first to admit i probably missed a lot of the meaning in the book which is why i want to read it again.
