Monday, May 19, 2014

Darkness fell swiftly, at first an enemy, but then a friend

Life After Life by Kate Atkinson is like one of those "chose your own adventure" stories. Except you (the reader) aren't doing the choosing. The author did and wrote down all her versions.

Ursula Todd keeps reliving her life over again. Each time she dies, and she dies a LOT, she starts again with a vague recollection of what happened last time. She doesn't know this is happening to her. She just knows she has a very strong sense of deja vu. Strong enough that without really knowing why, she makes little changes that vastly alter the course of her life. Of course, each one ends in death and we begin again.

Ursula is born each time a snowy night in 1910. Her lives sometimes leave her in this decade; other times she makes it to the 1940s and World War II. We spend a lot of time seeing the same or at least very similar scenes, play out in different ways. Characters may play an important role or they made fade into the background. It has little wisps of the Butterfly Effect where a small change in the past makes a big difference in the future, although this doesn't seem to be the point of the novel.

Despite the fact that this isn't exactly my favorite time period to read about, I was still pulled into the story. I wanted to see what would happen to Ursula this time. Would she be able to make things better? Would this time around be much much worse? Atkinson managed to bring to life how terrible war was for everyone.

Overall I liked the structure of the novel, and kudos to Atkinson for keeping things organized because it would be very easy to make a mess of this style, but overall the book didn't stick with me. I think part of that had to do with the length. I don't mind long books but this one seemed to get too repetitive at times, and while I realize repetition is sort of the point of a reincarnation novel, it doesn't mean I'm not going to get bored with things at times.

One criticism I have, which is really a minor one and the cause of me thinking way too much about these sort of details*, is the fact that while Ursula is making changes to her life, everyone else is pretty much following the same script. Ursula is obviously our main character, but what does this mean for the others? The more Ursula relives her life, the more I realized that everyone else was just decoration to her story. Sure, maybe decoration that she interacts with. Or decoration that was a real asshole. But still. It only exists to fill in her story. And again, I get it, that's usually what happens to secondary characters in a book. But it's not supposed to feel that way. You're supposed to think of these people as having their own lives, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, free will, even if you can't see them exercising it. And maybe they are making changes, we just don't notice cos we're watching things from Ursula's point of view, but I didn't totally get that impression. Maybe that has to do with the fact that the other characters aren't really fleshed out.

*See Harry Potter & plumbing

Title quote from page 84

Atkinson, Kate. Life After Life. Back Bay Books, 2013

Comments (19)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Oh. Hm. I could see reading this. But is she a RESPECTED author, Alley. Or more like "my suburban mom neighbor loved this book." NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING NECESSARILY WRONG WITH THAT. *coughs*

Also I think there was an X-Files episode like this. (there was. and it is called Monday)
3 replies · active 569 weeks ago
Yeah, I could see this being a popular suburban-book-club book choice. That would also explain why I found my copy at a Costco. Now I also got "Tell The Wolves I'm Home" at a Costco but still. Their book choices tend to skew a certain way.
Kate Atkinson IS respected. By me. And also internationally. And also with awards and stuff. And also because she's British. *stomps away in a huff*
All British people should be respected all the time. Obviously. (I liked this more than Alley did, I think. If that helps except it doesn't cause you and I have opposite book taste, Alice)
I read this last year and admittedly *LOVED* it, but I also really like reading about this time period (I thought the descriptions and experiences of the Blitz were some of the best writing in the book), and I loved how Atkinson stayed completely within the realm of the factual except for that ONE detail (aka reincarnation). But I can definitely see your point about repetitiveness, an inherent possibility in any book about reincarnation, I suppose?
1 reply · active 569 weeks ago
I think if I was more of a fan of the time period in general I would have enjoyed it more. Again, not to say it's done badly by any means.

If the book were about reincarnation in the more traditional sense, where she's being reborn as something new each time, there wouldn't have been the repetitive factor. I actually thought that's what it would be and at first was a little bummed she was repeating the same life over and over again, although eventually I ended up liking that, even if I did think there were points Atkinson could have skimmed through some more.
This IS exactly my favorite time period, so as you can imagine I was very into Life after Life. Did you indeed feel like the other characters weren't fleshed out enough? One of my favorite things about the book was how fleshed out they were -- I thought all the stuff with her family rang very true, and I loved her sister and father particularly.
1 reply · active 569 weeks ago
I thought the mom was the only other fleshed out character. The others felt like caricatures. They had a couple key features and that was about it but I didn't feel like they could stand on their own.

I liked her sister and dad but when I think about them, I don't get much out of them other than Pam was the smart one that didn't get to do smart things because she was born a girl at the wrong time and the dad was kinda stoic and really liked Ursula.
Interesting! I really didn't feel like the other characters weren't fleshed out, I think they were fleshed out enough given that it was Ursula's story, but I understand where that criticism is coming from.

I can also remember it being implied several times that the other characters might also all be reliving their lives over and over again, although I can't point you to where it says that because my copy is at home, and finding those parts would probably involve rereading it. I'm sure though that there are times when decisions which change the course of the story aren't made or influenced by Ursula in any way...

I might be mixing this up with About Time, which I saw on a plane a few months ago though. Haha.
4 replies · active 569 weeks ago
I'm trying to remember an instance where some action was changed without Ursula having her hand in it. I think in the end-end there was a brief timeline where the Todds decided to keep Izzie's kid. That seemed to be unrelated to Ursula, although it also seemed to be after Ursula's story was over. But for the most part people reacted basically the same way each go-round unless Ursula made some change.

Also, how was About Time?
I LOVED ABOUT TIME. Bill Nighy, Alley. Bill Nighy being an adorable, sweet father and making me cry.
I... can't remember an example! But there definitely were some!!! If I re-read it at some point I'll come back and post another comment.

About Time was enjoyable! Not one of the best films I've ever seen, but a good way to spend a few hours of a stupidly long flight!
I think there was some stuff at the very end where Sylvie and Hugh keep Izzie's kid. That would have been an action without Ursula doing anything. That's the only thing I can come up with. Otherwise everyone seemed to behave the same way unless Ursula changed something (pushing the maid down the stairs, for example. or punching that kid who REALLY GOT OFF LIGHT JUST GETTING PUNCHED)
I super-liked this book, although I see what you mean about the repetition. For me, Kate kept it fresh by using just enough overlap to give context and then changing the story arc in pretty unexpected ways. And I thought the other characters had quite a bit of depth, but since I read this several months ago, I've basically forgotten everything about it. Sigh.
1 reply · active 569 weeks ago
I feel like her mom was fleshed out but the more I tried to recall the others the more I just got these brief glimpses and realized I could totally picture them sort of folding in half like a marionette when the puppeteer puts the strings down, just waiting for Ursula to show up again. I liked her aunt Izzie but she didn't really seem to go beyond "quirky rebellious aunt" in terms of characterization.
I JUST READ THIS (ok, like a few weeks ago) and it's the kind of book where I couldn't stop reading at the time, but then at the end I felt kind of hollow? Like a bit 'what's the point?' About it all, really. I'm still going to say I liked it better than you did by the sound of. It, but it still wasn't perfect for me.

HOWEVER. I didn't even think about how everyone else acts the same in all her lives and she's the only one who's allowed to act differently. That is a very interesting point you make and I like it. I feel like it's either that she's the most important person in the universe, or, yeah, the other characters weren't really characters, more just devices. (I did love Teddy though... But probably only because she kept saying how loveable he was, not because he actually was)
3 replies · active 569 weeks ago
I didn't haaaaate this or anything. I liked it while I was reading. Though I did very much get to a "what's the point" bit. Because really, what WAS the point? Was she going to live her life over and over and over again forever? It's like a video game. Except you can win those. It's like a bad video game.

I liked Izzie. I liked the other characters, they just didn't seem like fully fleshed out characters. Except the mom. The mom was all there.

I liked Teddy too, although now I'm trying to think of him doing something especially loveable. Ursula and Sylvie told us he was.
Teddy's likeableness definitely rested on being told that he was likeable. The thing is though, much as I liked Ursula, even SHE wasn't really fleshed out. I mean, all these different things happened to her but we didn't massively have an idea of how she felt about them. She just mostly, you know, died over them. It was weird.

I am having a hard time reviewing it because the more I think about it, the more it falls apart; but I also REALLY liked it while I was reading it. I hate it when books do this to me. Stupid books.
Yeah, I sort of felt the same way where I enjoyed the book a lot more before I started really thinking about it. Which I guess isn't a great endorsement for the book. ALTHOUGH it does mean that the story and the writing draws you in enough that you don't worry about all those details until later. So that's something.

You're right about Ursula. Even she isn't really fleshed out. Damn.

Post a new comment

Comments by