Scan barcode
solarflowrr's review
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
sarahc95's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
cameronfrye's review
challenging
dark
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
1.5
delilahreads's review against another edition
challenging
dark
sad
medium-paced
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Domestic abuse, Death, Violence, Child abuse, and Suicidal thoughts
Moderate: Rape, Sexual harassment, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Emotional abuse, Pedophilia, and Suicide attempt
feralshojo's review against another edition
3.0
The story left me with a lukewarm feeling.
The first third does a good job of illuminating the boy's circumstances - you do start to feel pity and even compassion when he's treated badly by his dominant father who completely shoves the boy's wishes for his life aside.
But this slight emotional connection degraded to indifference during the rest of the story, which is mainly because the boy is - a failure.
He gives in to his weakness and goes from bad to worse, though the obscenities the book has been banned for are quite tame for today's standards. The language is simple though not too graphic.
My problem with this book was the lack of emotional connection. Yes, nothing good happens to the boy, but in the end he brought it on himself for his physical and mental weakness as well as his naivity.
I also had no emotional connection to The Kid in [b:Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West|394535|Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West|Cormac McCarthy|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1453995760s/394535.jpg|1065465], but the character The Judge was captivating and there were so many disturbing things happening, it was impossible not to have an impact.
The impact of The Boy however, was quite lacking.
The first third does a good job of illuminating the boy's circumstances - you do start to feel pity and even compassion when he's treated badly by his dominant father who completely shoves the boy's wishes for his life aside.
But this slight emotional connection degraded to indifference during the rest of the story, which is mainly because the boy is - a failure.
He gives in to his weakness and goes from bad to worse, though the obscenities the book has been banned for are quite tame for today's standards. The language is simple though not too graphic.
My problem with this book was the lack of emotional connection. Yes, nothing good happens to the boy, but in the end he brought it on himself for his physical and mental weakness as well as his naivity.
Spoiler
He was actively seeking out the act that gave him syphilis, so my sympathy is kept within limits.I also had no emotional connection to The Kid in [b:Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West|394535|Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West|Cormac McCarthy|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1453995760s/394535.jpg|1065465], but the character The Judge was captivating and there were so many disturbing things happening, it was impossible not to have an impact.
The impact of The Boy however, was quite lacking.
zefrog's review
2.0
On page 185 of the book, one of the characters says of the protagonist: "I can't understand this lad at all", a thought that clearly runs through the minds of all the people who come into contact with Boy, Arthur Fearon. This surely must include the readers too.
In fact, more than not understanding him, it seems that, apart from a few ambivalent exceptions, they also all strongly dislike him. And that's hardly surprising. Fearon, as a character, is infuriating: he is foolish, uncooperative (most, if not all, characters ask of him, repeatedly: "what is the matter with you?"), needy, inconsistent and pathetic.
He forever takes rash decisions, pledging life-long commitment, only to go back on them a few days later. There appears to be no redeeming qualities in him and the tragic and dramatic end of the book, rather than shocking the reader, is in the end rather welcome. He deserves pretty much all that he gets (and that's quite a lot).
And then there is the writing itself.
The foreword to my edition, written by Hanley's son, quotes a comment made by the author himself about the book in 1953: "It took me ten days. Now I realise that is should have taken me much longer than that. So shapeless and crude and overburdened with feelings." And here are the problems of the book neatly and candidly summarised.
The writing is sloppy (I suspect that are many missing words and substitutions), describing situations as if through some sort of limiting tunnel vision, which means the reader is often wondering what is actually going on.
Hanley is also not very good at voices, jumping register from one line of dialogue to the next; dialogue which is mostly unnatural and unconvincing to begin with. The characters often voice thoughts that would not normally make it to explicit utterance, or indulge in meaningless and unjustified rants.
Three years after the book was published in 1931, the police brought a successful charge of obscene libel against it, thus adding to the growing list of literary martyrs of the time. Though, unlike others, the book was not completely suppressed as a result, the scandal apparently impacted Hanley's careers as a novelist.
In his introduction to my edition, Anthony Burgess, agrees with the Times's obituary of Hanley (1985) that he was a "neglected genius of the novel". By my reckoning and the author's own admission, Boy, should certainly not be considered as evidence of this. A, thankfully short, literary curiosity at best.
Two examples of Hanley's opaque or careless writing that stand out:
- When Fearon ostensibly, possibly, engages in sexual intercourse (though it's never really clear at the time that that's what happening), the resulting orgasm reads more like a painful fit than the pleasurable experience that would lead the character to seek a rematch the following night.
- At some point Fearon escapes from the ship he is on by swimming to the shore. Oddly he decides to first take off his socks and put them in his shoes which he has already removed and when he arrives on the quay, otherwise fully dressed, there is no mention of his being wet at all.
In fact, more than not understanding him, it seems that, apart from a few ambivalent exceptions, they also all strongly dislike him. And that's hardly surprising. Fearon, as a character, is infuriating: he is foolish, uncooperative (most, if not all, characters ask of him, repeatedly: "what is the matter with you?"), needy, inconsistent and pathetic.
He forever takes rash decisions, pledging life-long commitment, only to go back on them a few days later. There appears to be no redeeming qualities in him and the tragic and dramatic end of the book, rather than shocking the reader, is in the end rather welcome. He deserves pretty much all that he gets (and that's quite a lot).
And then there is the writing itself.
The foreword to my edition, written by Hanley's son, quotes a comment made by the author himself about the book in 1953: "It took me ten days. Now I realise that is should have taken me much longer than that. So shapeless and crude and overburdened with feelings." And here are the problems of the book neatly and candidly summarised.
The writing is sloppy (I suspect that are many missing words and substitutions), describing situations as if through some sort of limiting tunnel vision, which means the reader is often wondering what is actually going on.
Hanley is also not very good at voices, jumping register from one line of dialogue to the next; dialogue which is mostly unnatural and unconvincing to begin with. The characters often voice thoughts that would not normally make it to explicit utterance, or indulge in meaningless and unjustified rants.
Three years after the book was published in 1931, the police brought a successful charge of obscene libel against it, thus adding to the growing list of literary martyrs of the time. Though, unlike others, the book was not completely suppressed as a result, the scandal apparently impacted Hanley's careers as a novelist.
In his introduction to my edition, Anthony Burgess, agrees with the Times's obituary of Hanley (1985) that he was a "neglected genius of the novel". By my reckoning and the author's own admission, Boy, should certainly not be considered as evidence of this. A, thankfully short, literary curiosity at best.
Two examples of Hanley's opaque or careless writing that stand out:
- When Fearon ostensibly, possibly, engages in sexual intercourse (though it's never really clear at the time that that's what happening), the resulting orgasm reads more like a painful fit than the pleasurable experience that would lead the character to seek a rematch the following night.
- At some point Fearon escapes from the ship he is on by swimming to the shore. Oddly he decides to first take off his socks and put them in his shoes which he has already removed and when he arrives on the quay, otherwise fully dressed, there is no mention of his being wet at all.
More...