Told through deceptively simple prose, Karin Tidbeck’s Amatka
depicts a world chillingly reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. Layers
of bureaucracy and social conditioning create the illusion of a happy community,
while despair, disease, and alienation produce attrition and threaten the city’s
survival. Social and psychological disintegration parallel the breakdown of the
physical environment. Objects large and small must be constantly marked with written
labels or names spoken aloud or they break down into amorphous goo.
The use of language in creating and maintaining reality is
one of the more creative I’ve seen. I admired how Tidbeck introduces her world
with very little explanation, using subtle clues layered into the otherwise
prosaic action. For most of the book, I had a pretty good idea of what was
going on: the mutable nature of matter, the increasing suppression of dissent,
the enforcement of conformity, and the inexorable loss of history. I was
curious about how humans had come to live in a world in which the basic rules
of physics were so plastic and what the underground resistance was about, but I
was also confident that the answers would be made clear.
The publisher describes this book as, “A surreal debut novel set in a world shaped by language in
the tradition of Margaret Atwood and Ursula K. Le Guin.” The only part of this
description I agree (other than “debut”) with is “surreal.” Atwood and Le Guin created
imaginative, provocative stories, but their work is accessible to most readers.
There’s a difference between being mysterious and mystifying. As I waited for
the answers to the many questions Tidbeck raised, she piled mystifying upon
mystifying until I had no idea what exactly Vanja was discovering (other than
that the commune was re-using stable “good” paper for announcements).
The book ends with Vanja acting in an
erratic, destructive manner, setting fire to the records she previously
treasured, and then being lobotomized so that when she’s freed, she no longer
possessed the speech that would allow her to re-shape the world as part of the
resistance. I don’t mind grimness, but such a downer puts Amatka
squarely in the 1984 camp. This could have been such a cool book, too,
with a denouement that made all the sacrifices worth it. After earning my trust
as a reader, Tidbeck dropped the ball royally. I doubt I’ll pick up anything of
hers in the future. To be fair, however, I don’t think the disappointing ending
is entirely Tidbeck’s fault; it’s what happens when pretentious literary editors take on
genre projects.
That's a fascinating take on the disappointment of the novel. Now I'm going to have to check out the publisher!
ReplyDeleteThank you! In general, I try to select books to review that I'm likely to enjoy, but sometimes that doesn't work out. I try to keep in mind that the author and editor really believed in a book that I bounced off of, and that some readers will, indeed, love it. That said, I am most likely to write a critical review of anything I perceive as pretentious and "litr'ary." See also this review: https://deborahjross.blogspot.com/2021/08/book-review-literary-attempt-at-ya.html
Delete