The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter / Carson McCullersBoston: Mariner Books, 2000, c1940.
359 p.
It's a classic that I'm not really sure what to think of. It's powerful, moving, strongly written; but also melodramatic and offensive, often, in its language.
The structure of the book is the first thing that caught my attention - it starts out focusing on one set of characters, then the next chapter is from the angle of another character who passed through in the first, and so on. Once all the characters and their stories have been introduced this way, the book melds them all and reveals how their lives become intertwined.
As I was reading, I'd assumed that the central character was Mick, a young tomboyish girl who lives with her family, has an affinity for music and is always wanting, wanting. But what, she's not sure.
As it turns out, the central character whom all the others revolve around is John Singer, a mute who -- perhaps because he never engages in conversation -- becomes the recipient of all these people's thoughts and dreams and rants and hopes and fears. They all see him in their own way, and all look to him to relieve their continual feeling of alienation and loneliness. But in the end, Singer is the most isolated and lonely of them all.
There is some wonderfully strong writing here. The language is not complicated or flowery; it's pretty straightforward, but is used with withering precision. These misfit characters are drawn clearly, their hidden thoughts and desires for themselves are revealed to the reader. I was uncomfortable with the language of the 40s, the casual references to slurs of that era. Even though it's suited to the time of writing and also to the story, it's still not pleasant to see it there.
I found many things in this book memorable and passionate. Blount, a drunk and a radical, is an obnoxious character but I think he's made to seem mad in order for McCullers to be able to say what she wanted to about inequity: he's a raging socialist and has a lot to say about the position of the common man in this era. And it all makes sense, and could be an online article you might stumble across today -- quite literally, today. An example from near the end:
But for all that, I just didn't love this book. Every character just keeps getting worse and worse off. More misery, more burden, nothing ever turns out for anyone, even the little kids in Mick's family turn into messed-up misfits due to circumstances. None of the characters ever have anything good happen to them at all, and while life can be a grind, there is always something that you can hold on to. Or at least I like to believe so.
Anyhow, it's a strong evocation of the South in the Depression Years, and has great characterizations, and if you like Oprah approved stories of misery, this might be more up your alley than it was mine.
I remember loving this book when I was in high school. Read it twice, I think. I don't recall it being offensive- but I probably would feel differently if I read it now.
ReplyDeleteI think it's the language use that I found the most offensive -- I know it is the era, and that she uses it purposefully, but it's still hard to read it now. There is a lot of powerful storytelling that is directly against that kind of racism and prejudice, but there was just a tone I couldn't quite fully buy into.
Delete