Helpful Score: 3
Chad Harbach's "The Art of Fielding" is a very well-written book, but I was very ambivalent while reading it.
There wasn't any one character that I liked a lot more than the others, and they all seemed to be extremely flawed.
If you like baseball, which I do, then there are some great baseball moments in the book, but that was about it for me. I thought that this book was a bit elitist, too.
It was okay, but not my favorite book of this summer yet.
There wasn't any one character that I liked a lot more than the others, and they all seemed to be extremely flawed.
If you like baseball, which I do, then there are some great baseball moments in the book, but that was about it for me. I thought that this book was a bit elitist, too.
It was okay, but not my favorite book of this summer yet.
Helpful Score: 1
Chad Harbach's first novel paints a clear picture of an athlete's breakdown at a small college in the Midwest. Campus life is beautifully rendered, down to the color of the paint on the walls and the smell of the food in the cafeteria. A parallel story describes a love affair between the college president and one of his students - a big ethical no-no, which, from this academic's viewpoint, is hard to stomach. The characters are a bit flat, but the sounds and smells of college life make the book a pleasant read.
Helpful Score: 1
I really enjoyed this book-it is extremely well written and I came to care about all of the characters. A basic understanding of baseball is helpful, otherwise a lot of it might be boring or not clearly understood. I would give it 5 stars and highly recommend this book.
I really enjoyed this marvelous book that uses college baseball as a backdrop. It's a story about friendship and coming of age written with a deep sense of emotion and is full of characters who are vulnerable, quirky and very unforgettable. The main protagonist of the story is Henry Skrimshander, a very promising shortstop who is recruited to play on the Westish College team in rural Wisconsin. Henry's Bible is The Art of Fielding, a baseball manual written by the fictional Aparicio Rodriguez, a Hall of Fame shortstop for Henry's beloved St. Louis Cardinals. (Aparicio was based on the fictional combination of Luis Aparicio and Ozzie Smith). Henry seems destined for greatness and actually ties Rodriguez's NCAA record of 51 consecutive games without an error which leads to scouts from the Big Leagues looking seriously at him. But then an errant throw makes Henry doubt himself and his game suffers drastically.
But Henry is not alone in this very satisfying story. Henry was recruited to Westish by another student, Mike Schwartz, a strapping catcher who acts as his trainer and mentor. Then there is Owen Dunne, Henry's roommate who describes himself as a gay mulatto. The college president, Guert Affenlight, is also a Herman Melville scholar and has a special interest in Owen that he is trying to keep secret. And then there is his daughter, Pella, who moves in with him when her marriage falls apart.
The baseball sequences in this novel are very well written and provide a great overall background for the story. Henry's meltdown as he struggles to get his game together and the other characters reactions to it really provides the drive to the novel but the other sub-plots involving Affenlight and Owen, and Pella and Schwartz add even more substance to this powerful tale.
But Henry is not alone in this very satisfying story. Henry was recruited to Westish by another student, Mike Schwartz, a strapping catcher who acts as his trainer and mentor. Then there is Owen Dunne, Henry's roommate who describes himself as a gay mulatto. The college president, Guert Affenlight, is also a Herman Melville scholar and has a special interest in Owen that he is trying to keep secret. And then there is his daughter, Pella, who moves in with him when her marriage falls apart.
The baseball sequences in this novel are very well written and provide a great overall background for the story. Henry's meltdown as he struggles to get his game together and the other characters reactions to it really provides the drive to the novel but the other sub-plots involving Affenlight and Owen, and Pella and Schwartz add even more substance to this powerful tale.
A brilliant book, with believable characters that one really cares about, well-plotted action, and a heart-warming ending. And of course, there is a bit of America's past time: baseball. My highest recommendation.
Loved it. Fast read. The story took many unexpected turns. And if you're a baseball fan, you'll love the authentic baseball scenes.
The Art of Fielding is a baseball book that, of course, isn't merely about baseball. But there are so many baseball scenes and references that I do think a reader has to like baseball or know about baseball in order to enjoy the book. That being said, the Art of Fielding is about the lives of five intertwined people on a college campus located along the shore of Lake Michigan. The characters face defining moments, failure (errors) and self-doubt. There were times when this novel reminded me of A Prayer for Owen Meany and The Secret History. I liked The Art of Fielding, although I'm not convinced it merited its "one of the best books of the year" status bestowed by many outlets (Amazon, NY Times).
I really loved this book. Great story, I was sad when it was over. I would love to see this turned into a movie.
I expected witty, swoonworthy college lit in a baseball setting. I got adolescent romantic angst masquerading as enlightened adult philosophizing. THE ART OF FIELDING is a decentdare I say enjoyable?read if you dont go in expecting what I did, but just kind of a drag if you were expecting that.
The good: If you like odd romantic pairings, varsity athletes undergoing emotional crises, and almost-John-Green-like philosophical insights, youll enjoy THE ART OF FIELDING. The writing is really not bad, although definitely nothing mind-blowing. Theres a handful of witty dialogue that will let a chuckle or two escape, and if youre a fan of the self-identifying gay mulatto Buddhist roommate character trope, youll enjoy Owen Dunne.
The not so good: While the first third was enjoyable as we witnessed Henrys rise from good to great, the rest of the book gets bogged down in angst. And by angst, I actually mean ANGST. You have the expected angst of Henry agonizing over his mistake, but you also have the angst of some troubled maybe-lovers with childhoods that they agonize over but are never fully shown to readers, and you also have the angst of a SIXTY-YEAR-OLD MAN IN LOVE. And Im not trying to be ageist, but rather remarking about how vomit-inducing it is to read about Affenlights love described using the literary equivalent of babys breath, rose-petal showers, and soft soft skin. If I want those kinds of descriptions of love, Ill read Keats. I want my depictions of love grittier, less rose-tinted, more realistic, and it was a real drag for me to be subject to such descriptions of what I suppose the author believes to be a true, perfect, and untarnished love.
What does all this angst amount to? Not much. I dont mind, and may even appreciate, angst if it seems justified and their reasons are shown well, but THE ART OF FIELDING doesnt do that. Rather, were told that such-and-such a thing from such a characters past has influenced him or her to act the way he or she is acting. And thats not enough. Its not enough for the author to just tell me, at the beginning of a chapter early on in the book, that a character had a bad childhood and daddy issues, because, by not showing this backstory, a bad childhood and daddy issues simply become lame excuses for sloppy characterization. As a result, Pella and Schwartz interact like cavemen, each one grunting obscurely things like, So is that what you want? Yeah, thats what I want. So thats it? Yeah, thats it. I hope youre happy. You make me miserable. I guess some romances in real life actually do pan out that way, but I couldnt help but think that the author was projecting his desire for an ideal of the blameless relationship overcoming communicative opaqueness onto his characters, which resulted in exasperation on my part.
For those of you who arrived at this book following John Greens recommendation, I guess I would say that this is like a third or fourth draft that a younger, less philosophically polished John Green mightve written himself. As such, its enjoyable enough, if youre in the mood for it, but otherwise there are a lot of writerly flaws within that make it a not wholly immersive for the more demanding reader.
The good: If you like odd romantic pairings, varsity athletes undergoing emotional crises, and almost-John-Green-like philosophical insights, youll enjoy THE ART OF FIELDING. The writing is really not bad, although definitely nothing mind-blowing. Theres a handful of witty dialogue that will let a chuckle or two escape, and if youre a fan of the self-identifying gay mulatto Buddhist roommate character trope, youll enjoy Owen Dunne.
The not so good: While the first third was enjoyable as we witnessed Henrys rise from good to great, the rest of the book gets bogged down in angst. And by angst, I actually mean ANGST. You have the expected angst of Henry agonizing over his mistake, but you also have the angst of some troubled maybe-lovers with childhoods that they agonize over but are never fully shown to readers, and you also have the angst of a SIXTY-YEAR-OLD MAN IN LOVE. And Im not trying to be ageist, but rather remarking about how vomit-inducing it is to read about Affenlights love described using the literary equivalent of babys breath, rose-petal showers, and soft soft skin. If I want those kinds of descriptions of love, Ill read Keats. I want my depictions of love grittier, less rose-tinted, more realistic, and it was a real drag for me to be subject to such descriptions of what I suppose the author believes to be a true, perfect, and untarnished love.
What does all this angst amount to? Not much. I dont mind, and may even appreciate, angst if it seems justified and their reasons are shown well, but THE ART OF FIELDING doesnt do that. Rather, were told that such-and-such a thing from such a characters past has influenced him or her to act the way he or she is acting. And thats not enough. Its not enough for the author to just tell me, at the beginning of a chapter early on in the book, that a character had a bad childhood and daddy issues, because, by not showing this backstory, a bad childhood and daddy issues simply become lame excuses for sloppy characterization. As a result, Pella and Schwartz interact like cavemen, each one grunting obscurely things like, So is that what you want? Yeah, thats what I want. So thats it? Yeah, thats it. I hope youre happy. You make me miserable. I guess some romances in real life actually do pan out that way, but I couldnt help but think that the author was projecting his desire for an ideal of the blameless relationship overcoming communicative opaqueness onto his characters, which resulted in exasperation on my part.
For those of you who arrived at this book following John Greens recommendation, I guess I would say that this is like a third or fourth draft that a younger, less philosophically polished John Green mightve written himself. As such, its enjoyable enough, if youre in the mood for it, but otherwise there are a lot of writerly flaws within that make it a not wholly immersive for the more demanding reader.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I thought it would be all about baseball, and it is, but the Harbach makes a seamless quilt of baseball and life, and loss of innocence and adulthood.
This multi-layered debut novel is well written. The comparisons with John Irving are fleeting but evident in the character of Henry. Baseball is the major character around whom the others revolve and develop. Friendship is also a strong force in this novel, and the ending is a bittersweet conclusion to the love of each other that these characters share. I look forward to reading future books by this talented writer.
I expected witty, swoonworthy college lit in a baseball setting. I got adolescent romantic angst masquerading as enlightened adult philosophizing. THE ART OF FIELDING is a decentdare I say enjoyable?read if you dont go in expecting what I did, but just kind of a drag if you were expecting that.
The good: If you like odd romantic pairings, varsity athletes undergoing emotional crises, and almost-John-Green-like philosophical insights, youll enjoy THE ART OF FIELDING. The writing is really not bad, although definitely nothing mind-blowing. Theres a handful of witty dialogue that will let a chuckle or two escape, and if youre a fan of the self-identifying gay mulatto Buddhist roommate character trope, youll enjoy Owen Dunne.
The not so good: While the first third was enjoyable as we witnessed Henrys rise from good to great, the rest of the book gets bogged down in angst. And by angst, I actually mean ANGST. You have the expected angst of Henry agonizing over his mistake, but you also have the angst of some troubled maybe-lovers with childhoods that they agonize over but are never fully shown to readers, and you also have the angst of a SIXTY-YEAR-OLD MAN IN LOVE. And Im not trying to be ageist, but rather remarking about how vomit-inducing it is to read about Affenlights love described using the literary equivalent of babys breath, rose-petal showers, and soft soft skin. If I want those kinds of descriptions of love, Ill read Keats. I want my depictions of love grittier, less rose-tinted, more realistic, and it was a real drag for me to be subject to such descriptions of what I suppose the author believes to be a true, perfect, and untarnished love.
What does all this angst amount to? Not much. I dont mind, and may even appreciate, angst if it seems justified and their reasons are shown well, but THE ART OF FIELDING doesnt do that. Rather, were told that such-and-such a thing from such a characters past has influenced him or her to act the way he or she is acting. And thats not enough. Its not enough for the author to just tell me, at the beginning of a chapter early on in the book, that a character had a bad childhood and daddy issues, because, by not showing this backstory, a bad childhood and daddy issues simply become lame excuses for sloppy characterization. As a result, Pella and Schwartz interact like cavemen, each one grunting obscurely things like, So is that what you want? Yeah, thats what I want. So thats it? Yeah, thats it. I hope youre happy. You make me miserable. I guess some romances in real life actually do pan out that way, but I couldnt help but think that the author was projecting his desire for an ideal of the blameless relationship overcoming communicative opaqueness onto his characters, which resulted in exasperation on my part.
For those of you who arrived at this book following John Greens recommendation, I guess I would say that this is like a third or fourth draft that a younger, less philosophically polished John Green mightve written himself. As such, its enjoyable enough, if youre in the mood for it, but otherwise there are a lot of writerly flaws within that make it a not wholly immersive for the more demanding reader.
The good: If you like odd romantic pairings, varsity athletes undergoing emotional crises, and almost-John-Green-like philosophical insights, youll enjoy THE ART OF FIELDING. The writing is really not bad, although definitely nothing mind-blowing. Theres a handful of witty dialogue that will let a chuckle or two escape, and if youre a fan of the self-identifying gay mulatto Buddhist roommate character trope, youll enjoy Owen Dunne.
The not so good: While the first third was enjoyable as we witnessed Henrys rise from good to great, the rest of the book gets bogged down in angst. And by angst, I actually mean ANGST. You have the expected angst of Henry agonizing over his mistake, but you also have the angst of some troubled maybe-lovers with childhoods that they agonize over but are never fully shown to readers, and you also have the angst of a SIXTY-YEAR-OLD MAN IN LOVE. And Im not trying to be ageist, but rather remarking about how vomit-inducing it is to read about Affenlights love described using the literary equivalent of babys breath, rose-petal showers, and soft soft skin. If I want those kinds of descriptions of love, Ill read Keats. I want my depictions of love grittier, less rose-tinted, more realistic, and it was a real drag for me to be subject to such descriptions of what I suppose the author believes to be a true, perfect, and untarnished love.
What does all this angst amount to? Not much. I dont mind, and may even appreciate, angst if it seems justified and their reasons are shown well, but THE ART OF FIELDING doesnt do that. Rather, were told that such-and-such a thing from such a characters past has influenced him or her to act the way he or she is acting. And thats not enough. Its not enough for the author to just tell me, at the beginning of a chapter early on in the book, that a character had a bad childhood and daddy issues, because, by not showing this backstory, a bad childhood and daddy issues simply become lame excuses for sloppy characterization. As a result, Pella and Schwartz interact like cavemen, each one grunting obscurely things like, So is that what you want? Yeah, thats what I want. So thats it? Yeah, thats it. I hope youre happy. You make me miserable. I guess some romances in real life actually do pan out that way, but I couldnt help but think that the author was projecting his desire for an ideal of the blameless relationship overcoming communicative opaqueness onto his characters, which resulted in exasperation on my part.
For those of you who arrived at this book following John Greens recommendation, I guess I would say that this is like a third or fourth draft that a younger, less philosophically polished John Green mightve written himself. As such, its enjoyable enough, if youre in the mood for it, but otherwise there are a lot of writerly flaws within that make it a not wholly immersive for the more demanding reader.
Enjoyed the book. Kind of seemed to run out of gas in the last couple of innings.
I read the trade paperback version of this book, and the thing that struck me immediately was the volume of favorable blurbs I waded through before I even got to the text - forty-one favorable reviews! I've been a voracious reader for more than sixty years, and don't recall ever running across this volume of slavish adulation. War and Peace didn't get write-ups like this.
I'm enough of a cynic that I wondered if it could really be this good. I started out very favorably impressed by the prose style and the over-all writing, but as I got further into the book I uncovered some disappointing trends. Maybe I'm showing my age and experience (I'm 75 and twice married - one bad and one good) when I say that I was a little dismayed to discover that each main character's solution to all his/her problems was having sex with somebody. I'm all in favor of a healthy sex life, but it is NOT the answer to every problem I've ever had.
I was put off by the rather casual acceptance of the school president's homosexual affair with one of his students - that is definitely not the answer to everyone's life problems.
I finished the book disappointed; the book gets 3 stars for the writing alone, but no extras for the gratuitous sex - both homo and heterosexual.
I've thought about the 41 blurbs for several months, and have come to the conclusion that they were written by critics who went out of their way to prove how homophobic they are not. This compares favorably with the liberals who elected a totally unqualified man president to prove how racially prejudiced they are not.
When I run across a book that I have a lot of reservations about, I usually refer to Amazon's reviews to see how far off track I am. 431 Amazon customers gave the book 5 stars, but 107 gave it one star - I'm not the only person who didn't think it was the best book of this or any year.
I'm enough of a cynic that I wondered if it could really be this good. I started out very favorably impressed by the prose style and the over-all writing, but as I got further into the book I uncovered some disappointing trends. Maybe I'm showing my age and experience (I'm 75 and twice married - one bad and one good) when I say that I was a little dismayed to discover that each main character's solution to all his/her problems was having sex with somebody. I'm all in favor of a healthy sex life, but it is NOT the answer to every problem I've ever had.
I was put off by the rather casual acceptance of the school president's homosexual affair with one of his students - that is definitely not the answer to everyone's life problems.
I finished the book disappointed; the book gets 3 stars for the writing alone, but no extras for the gratuitous sex - both homo and heterosexual.
I've thought about the 41 blurbs for several months, and have come to the conclusion that they were written by critics who went out of their way to prove how homophobic they are not. This compares favorably with the liberals who elected a totally unqualified man president to prove how racially prejudiced they are not.
When I run across a book that I have a lot of reservations about, I usually refer to Amazon's reviews to see how far off track I am. 431 Amazon customers gave the book 5 stars, but 107 gave it one star - I'm not the only person who didn't think it was the best book of this or any year.
