Is it as good as everyone says it is, or is the hype misleading?

Is it as good as everyone says it is, or is the hype misleading?

Creatively disappointing, also emotionally uncharged when it intends to be otherwise. Depends on what you read for I guess.

I finished it last night and thought it was really good. Never read any Saunders before.
>emotionally uncharged
There were some things that fell flat, but I disagree for the most part.

what's his deal
besides everyone liking him I always forget what his stories are like- like magical realism but folksy and "humanistic"?

>but I disagree for the most part.
It's fine to be wrong. It's fine to have no standards. I'm glad your searches are always fruitful.

Tell me some specific things you had problems with. Use spoiler tags.

I felt the same.
I don't really thing spoiler tags are necessary. On a basic structural level, there were some problems. I don't actually have any issues with the 'citation' method of expressing thoughts and dialogues Saunders uses, but as a structural device, those citations create a barrier between the reader and the action and characters of the novel. Based on his short stories, Saunders is a master at creating an immediate and compassionate connection between his reader and his subjects, but on a basic structural level that's not happening in "Lincoln."

The various historical excerpts kind of pull the reader even more out of the book. I get at some level there's a Rashomon thing going on, with even historical sources disagreeing on things that should be basic and objective (where a man's eyes blue or brown? Was there a moon, or was it clouded over?) and using that same approach with his characters implies something similar. But it doesn't actually lead up to any great purpose or reveal.

I agree with the user who says
>also emotionally uncharged when it intends to be otherwise.

The end (the revelation that the dead people are dead, and all the resulting flashboomlightwhatevering) was clearly intended be meaningful, but there wasn't much of a connection between the characters and the reader, both due to the structural issues addressed above, and because there weren't really any attempts at empathy with those characters being made by Saunders.

I think that he overwhelmed himself, to be honest. He tried to address 'The Civil War' and Racisim and Death, but that's not where his strength lies. His real strength as a writer lies in writing about pathetic characters who nevertheless try to do (or are forced into doing) good for others, even when they doubt there's anything to be gained by it, because ultimately that's the only thing that we can do. But Lincoln is too large a figure for him. The book falls rather flat.

It's a shame, but hey, it was at least an attempt at something, I suppose.

personal attacks based on a subjective opinion.

Nice.

I don't really know if I can make any meaningful argument for my opinion, it just worked better for me.
The historical chapters didn't really pull me out of it, especially a toward the end when they are basically used to show characters thoughts. The only time it really bothered me was at the beginning.
The structure of the bardo chapters made me feel even more connected to the characters than I think I would have been otherwise. Since you're always hearing things from a characters point of view a lot of the building of the characters, aside from them telling their own story, is shown in how they talk about others. The switching back and forth in chapters could be a bit tiring but I think it worked well.
I don't really think there needed to be any big reveal, and they fact that they are dead isn't really a reveal at all, since we know it and the characters know it.
The only thing I really have a problem with was how racism was covered in the novel. It felt almost shoved in. I'm glad the focus wasn't on how slavery was wrong or any really easy tired argument, but it still seemed like the 4 black characters were just "person hurt as a result of slavery" since they were pretty minor characters. That's not a huge problem though, since it isn't really the point.

I'm glad it worked for you. I will say that the historical chapters didn't put me off either (except for, at you, the very beginning), but neither did they really do anything for me.

I didn't think the switching back and forth was particularly tiring, but I also don't know that it added very much. I also don't think there had to be a 'reveal,' and that's probably my fault for using language that way. I used the term because the dead characters kind of realized - or remembered - all at once that they were dead.

I agree racism seemed shoved in. Unfortunately, I think that it's going to make the book immune from criticism for a while, because everyone is too sensitive to criticize any liberal who tries to take on the subject of racism. Meh. I have no doubt that Saunders is trying to say something about the import of a black soul going along for the ride with President Lincoln at the end of the story. What exactly he is trying to say is more difficult to parse.

I think the part of the novel that works most for most people ("Sir, if you are as powerful as I feel that you are, and as inclined toward us as you seem to be, endeavor to do something for us, so that we might do something for ourselves. We are ready, sir; are angry, are capable, our hopes are coiled up so tight as to be deadly, or holy: turn us loose, sir, let us at it, let us show what we can do") fell completely flat for me, but that's a temperamental thing on my part, I suppose. The parts that were a hagiography of Lincoln really didn't work for me, and were a distraction from things I might have cared more about.

Yeah, choosing to have that at the end was a bit strange, it didn't really work for me either. I think it would've been a better choice to end on one of the other characters, like one of our 3 main Bardo guys, or maybe the Traynor girl. Maybe showing them after they have "gone" would have gone against the whole "moving on" thing, but that didn't stop him from doing it a few chapters earlier. I think it could've made for a stronger ending.
Lincoln riding with the black man, which I suppose does make some point about him continuing on and facing his problems through his pain, made it seem like race and slavery were a more important part of the novel than they actually were. That probably added to race feeling shoved in, since it's the focus at the end.

Shit it's checked out and held in all my county's libraries. Might have to check it out.

I'm about 50 pages in and I don't like it. I'm avoiding all the long posts above mine because I will read it all, but I find the form irritating as fuck so far.

the amount of history chapters lessens as the book goes on. The beginning has too many. The beginning is kind of hard to get through because of the history, and lack of explanation during the Bardo chapters. Definitely gets better.

I will push on. Thanks, user.

I'm still in the goddamned "little quotes from the ghosts" part. It feels endless.

I recently read Gore Vidal's Lincoln, so I am familiar with the dramatis personae and the circumstances. I recommend as an introduction.

There are articles and banners everywhere for this book. Saunders was even on Colbert the other night.
But I hardly see any discussion online. Maybe people just haven't read it yet. Hope it doesn't flop, desu
In "Veeky Forums.org/lit thread No.9134319" by user.

>In "Veeky Forums.org/lit thread No.9134319" by user.

Kek

Op Cit Veeky Forums.org

It's overrated pomo pleb tier trash.

>reading books that were written in the last 20 years

You read it then?

His short fiction is painfully repetitious.
Its one thing to have a theme or a set of interests as a writer, its another to keep writing the same story over and over again (the only person allowed to do this is JG Ballard because he had something real to say that bore repetition).

Is this different or just a novel-length take on "the George Saunders story".

Surrealistic with a hint of humor, is what I've gathered from Pastoralia and The Very Persistent Gappers of Frip.

Ah good. I have that.

Just want to add for anyone thinking of reading Lincoln in the Bardo, you don't have to have a good understanding of the time and people. You won't be lost or anything if you don't is what I mean.
Didn't even know Lincoln had kids before this book.

True, but it won't hurt to have some context. Of the times, the war, the people. The reviews I have read insist that there are no historical inaccuracies, so it won't interfere with your enjoyment of the story.

I think Mary Todd Lincoln is probably the most tragic figure in American history. As some might say today: Worst. Life. Ever.

agree, very repetitive. also he uses violence and guns in a way that indicates he isn't able to create a compelling narrative without them.