Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2001, is a clever, sprawling novel about two young cousins who become almost overnight sensations in the world of comic books, helping to launch the genre’s golden age leading into World War II.
Kavalier & Clay tells the story of Josef Kavalier, a Jewish refugee from Prague who flees the Nazis in a most unusual fashion, and Sammy Klayman (who adopts the nom de plume of Sam Clay), his American cousin with whom he goes to live. Sammy has a knack for storycraft but isn’t much for art, while Josef, in addition to being an experienced magician, is a skilled and meticulous artist. Seeing the success of Superman, the two cook up a new superhero, The Escapist, and convince Sammy’s novelty-selling employer to publish a comic book as a way to sell more useless gadgets to kids. The Escapist is a success, but after a few years of glory, the two cousins’ lives take rather sudden turns for the worse.
Chabon’s mind and typewriter appear to ignore boundaries and guidelines, resulting in a book that often lacks direction and needed cuts both to its prose and to its scope. There’s an entire section, depicting Joe’s time serving in Antarctica during the war, that is superfluous and insanely over the top (Joe survives carbon monoxide poisoning that kills almost everyone in the camp, then survives a plane crash, then survives being shot … come on). The major plot events are usually out of the blue; the first chunk of the novel revolves almost entirely around the development and publishing of the cousins’ comic books, with side stories about their two romantic entanglements, when, roughly two-thirds of the way through the book, Chabon suddenly shifts direction, hitting each cousin with a separate, shocking, tragic event, and turning the book dark as if he’d switched off all the lights.
The prose suffers similarly from the lack of editing. His vocabulary is immense, including a handful of Chabon neologisms, but he uses a number of words that will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers and would have been better replaced by more common terms. Does he really need to describe an after-lunch event as “post-prandial?” Why would he add the last two words to the sentence, “Lit thus from behind by a brimming window, Josef Kavalier seemed to shine, to incandesce.” Why refer to the “ordinary wailing and termagancy of the dogs” instead of referring to their temper or peevishness or (if he wanted to use a fancy word) choler? These words may all be perfectly cromulent, but it doesn’t mean they were the best words for Chabon to use in his prose. He’s clearly a man in command of the language – referring to an expanse of Antarctic water as “this grievous sea,” calling a dictionary simply “the unabridged” – but his verbal brake pads appear to be worn through.
The first two-thirds of the novel, before it turns dark, is witty. Chabon is deft at writing quick dialogue and providing dry, almost Wodehouse-ish observations (“He drank an extremely cheap brand of rye called Brass Lamp. Sammy claimed that it was not rye at all but actual lamp oil, as Deasey was strongly near-sighted.), adding the occasional flourish of grin-inducing detail, as in the footnote that tells us that the compendium of one character’s pulp-fiction works was found a half-century later in an IKEA store “serving as a dignified-looking stage property on a floor-model ‘Hjörp’ wall unit.” But those occasional footnotes are another symbol of Chabon’s expansive vision and unwillingness to narrow his scope for the novel’s own good; whereas the miraculous Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is fully committed to the novel-cum-historical-document approach, with copious footnotes and consistent use of fictional reference works, Chabon is a footnote dilettante and gives only splotches of fictional history as it suits him.
Kavalier doesn’t fare well in comparison to Jonathan Strange beyond their different approaches to adding realistic historical notes and details. Susanna Clarke created two flawed but compelling main characters, putting them in partnership and then in conflict, giving the reader incentives both to support and oppose each character in response to individual thoughts and actions. Neither Kavalier nor Clay is as fully-formed as Strange or Norrell; Sammy’s character, in particular, is only briefly explained by an odd chapter about his odder father, and Clay’s homosexuality is there almost as a plot convenience, with little exploration at all of the conflicts a gay (and mostly closeted) man would have faced in that time. Sammy is gay because it allows Chabon to mess with him twice in crucial plot points that wouldn’t have worked if he was straight. When he’s finally outed, the consequences are almost nil, which doesn’t seem remotely realistic for the time period.
Kavalier is worth reading for Chabon’s sheer vision – he researched his topic thoroughly and created a paean to the golden age of comics that also covers the Holocaust – and some of the book’s more successful inventive ploys, but the disjointed story and incomplete characters left me disappointed and unaffected at the close.
Next up: Another Pulitzer winner, the oddly out-of-print The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love, by Oscar Hijuelos. About a quarter of the way through it, I’m not impressed, although I’ll save the biting commentary for the writeup.
I read the book two weeks ago and came to some of the same conclusions. The language is fantastic in some places, and the story is compelling, especially for the first two thirds of the books. After it takes the turn, however, it tails off a little bit.
I saw that you said that you do not usually enjoy books that deal with war. I was wondering if you read The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien, which is a great read and deals with war exceptionally. Another book that I feel does a good job with war is The Killer Angels by Michael Sharra (who wrote For Love of the Game). It won the Pulitzer and tells the story of Gettysburg in compelling fashion. I recommend both to you.
I’ve never read Kavalier & Clay but have been meaning to for awhile. On the other hand, I really liked Wonder Boys, so I would suggest that since I think it is relatively focused compared to what I have heard about Kavalier & Clay. As a caveat, though, I did watch the movie, which I absolutely love, before I read the book.
I also wholeheartedly agree with S R about how good The Things They Carried is. Once again, the caveat is I read it while still in high school and haven’t revisited it since.
Also, on the Oscar Hijuelos front, my entire high school had to read Empress of the Splendid Season one summer. Then they had Hijuelos come and speak at an assembly. Not only did I not care for the book, he was one of the most unimpressive speakers I have ever seen.
I cannot fathom plowing all the way through the incredibly dry and ponderous “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell,” but I adored “Kavalier and Clay.”
Different strokes.
Seconded, and I am no Chabon fanboy (my wife is, so I read her castoffs). I think this review is a more-or-less accurate depiction of Chabon’s flaws and virtues as an author generally, but I felt they worked. There is no better place for ignoring boundaries and guidelines with a little bonus logorrhea than in an homage to comics, and perhaps no worse place for ‘fully formed’ characters.
To each his own, I guess. I dug it.
It may very well be a style thing; I’m not sure I’ve read a “loose” book like this one that I’ve really loved. Even the expansive works like Murakami’s or books with wide targets like Catch-22 have had tighter plotting.
I’m being a bit of an Anglo-snob on the vocab. Anthony Powell sent me to the dictionary a few times – I remember one word, “assoil,” that earned the dreaded archaic marking – but I’ll accept this from an English writer who started writing in the late 1940s, whereas I’m less accepting of it from an American writer writing today.
You embiggened that review with this cromulent performance.
Thank you.
I’m a big Chabon fan, and I do love this book, though I agree he could’ve used some editing. I think his best work is probably either Wonder Boys or the Mysteries of Pittsburgh.
The Yiddish Policeman’s Union was disappointing, and I’d love for Keith to read Summerland – his young adult novel, about kids who save the world by playing baseball, but that needs some editing too. It’s good, though.
I agree with Robert; found both Wonder Boys and Mysteries more enjoyable than K&C.
I have a soft spot for Chabon books as I was reading Summerland when I met my wife.
The only Chabon book I’ve read is “The Yiddish Policeman’s Union,” and, like Robert, I found it fairly underwhelming. Some parts of the story I found compelling, but ultimately my reaction at the end of the book was “Uh-huh… and?” Though I would be willing to give Chabon another try somewhere down the road.
Perhaps the Antarctica story line was meant to be an allusion to Superman’s fortress of solitude. If so, it was lost on me. I will say that I found everything that preceded the downturn to be very entertaining, especially the story of how Josef Kavalier escapes the Nazis. That could really stand on its own.
Mambo Kings- I don’t know. I wanted to like it. Keith, if there were ever two authors with different grasps of the english language . . . K&C and Mambo Kings interesting switch. Maybe read Arundhati Roy next?
Keith,
Glad to see the family medical issues have passed. I agree with your review of K&C, but really, that’s Chabon and all his works, even if overwritten, have their beautiful sections.
That being said, if you’re on a Pulitzer Prize kick and want a book that isn’t overwritten, try bumping Lonesome Dove up on the queue. I finished it last week and even though its 850 or so pages, I wished it were 100 longer. Fortunately, there are 2 prequels and 2 sequels. (prequel #1 is also recommended)
Funny, there’s a line in the “Wonder Boys” movie (haven’t read the book yet) where someone tells Grady Tripp, about the book he’s writing: “You know how in class you’re always telling us that writers make choices? … It sort of reads in places like you didn’t make any choices.”
I’ll echo commentary on the Yiddish Policeman’s Union – it was a wonderfully enjoyable read and the language/characters are compelling, but its a better world than it is a story – the plot was irrational, to say the least. I left a little bemused.
PS – Keith, Read Jonathan Strange on your advice. I really enjoyed the book, but I found Norrell to be just… boring. Really, Araballela Strange was far more interesting a character than he was.
I agree with the review overall, especially regarding tightening the plot, the jarring tone change and an overall looseness that seems to sag around much of the book.
What I object to in your review is the quibbling with word choice on the grounds you find certain bits of language too ornate to be worthwhile. There’s always someone who wants it plainer, and I usually don’t enjoy the same writing those people do. Yes, there is such a thing as purple prose, and it is to be avoided, but one of the reasons to read Chabon is his verbal pyrotechnics. Complaining about the occasional misfire in a long fireworks show strikes me as tetchy.
Also if you are coming to Houston to see players this spring, please email me regarding your restaurant choices. Houston has a lot to offer, and I’ll try to help you find it.
Apparently, we are different people. K&C is my favorite book, and I despised Wind-Up Bird. For me, the key is usually characters. I cared very much about the people in K&C and not at all about the ones in Wind-Up Bird. One of my favorite things about Chabon is his ability to sculpt realistic and evocative characters and place them believably into fantastic situations. This is where I think Murakami fails. That said, don’t read Gentlemen of the Road unless you want a 200 page vocab lesson.
I can’t imagine reading Wind-Up Bird and not empathizing with and outright rooting for Toru, both in his quest to get his wife back but also in his personal journey.