"In general, I know, I am much given to deprecating the fusty old Past at the expense of our improved and brighter Present, but in this one respect my allegiance is all to the long-ago. Let the critics have their "-isms" and their "-ologies," their Ibsens and their Shaws. Give me "East Lynn"! Give me "The Frozen Deeps"! Give me "The Turn of the Tide"!"
In general, there is a magnificent irony to this almost-pitch-perfect pastiche of the three-volume Victorian melodrama being the work of Thomas M. Disch, the distinguished writer of serious, thoughtful science fiction, and doyen of queer criticism, a master of -isms and -ologies himself. But there you are: Disch probably had as much fun writing this magnificent confection as the Gentle Reader will have getting lost in its labrynth of family secrets, twisted intrigue, gender bending surprises and poplin petticoats. (His inventory of Clara's wardrobe, once she has come into her unexpected fortune, was probably worth a PhD thesis in its own right ...)
For an extended review and thoughtful analysis of What Is It All FOR (with serious SPOILERS -- did these people know no decency?), you can do no better than a July 1975 review from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/09/specials/disch-reeve.html
I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer when she says that the novel could have benefited from some tightening up: this is one of those times when having the book's Big Reveal spoiled was a benefit as, knowing that the denouement was going to be worth the effort, I soldiered on through all the crinolines and the Baedeker-inspired tours of Venice and the Bay of Naples. The middle third probably stretched out the tension a bit more than absolutely necessary.
However, this is a novelty that is well-worth reading in its own right.
PS: I spotted one blooper. The main action of the novel takes place in the 1860s. At one point, Clara refers to something looking like a "teddy bear." But, as we all know, the teddy bear was launched by Stief in the first decade of the 20th century -- and named after Teddy Roosevelt. It was such a blatant goof, it made me wonder if Disch was having a bit of fun with us, and a more knowledgeable scholar of 19th century culture and manners might be able to spot other "deliberate errors" seeded in the text.
In general, there is a magnificent irony to this almost-pitch-perfect pastiche of the three-volume Victorian melodrama being the work of Thomas M. Disch, the distinguished writer of serious, thoughtful science fiction, and doyen of queer criticism, a master of -isms and -ologies himself. But there you are: Disch probably had as much fun writing this magnificent confection as the Gentle Reader will have getting lost in its labrynth of family secrets, twisted intrigue, gender bending surprises and poplin petticoats. (His inventory of Clara's wardrobe, once she has come into her unexpected fortune, was probably worth a PhD thesis in its own right ...)
For an extended review and thoughtful analysis of What Is It All FOR (with serious SPOILERS -- did these people know no decency?), you can do no better than a July 1975 review from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/09/specials/disch-reeve.html
I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer when she says that the novel could have benefited from some tightening up: this is one of those times when having the book's Big Reveal spoiled was a benefit as, knowing that the denouement was going to be worth the effort, I soldiered on through all the crinolines and the Baedeker-inspired tours of Venice and the Bay of Naples. The middle third probably stretched out the tension a bit more than absolutely necessary.
However, this is a novelty that is well-worth reading in its own right.
PS: I spotted one blooper. The main action of the novel takes place in the 1860s. At one point, Clara refers to something looking like a "teddy bear." But, as we all know, the teddy bear was launched by Stief in the first decade of the 20th century -- and named after Teddy Roosevelt. It was such a blatant goof, it made me wonder if Disch was having a bit of fun with us, and a more knowledgeable scholar of 19th century culture and manners might be able to spot other "deliberate errors" seeded in the text.
