Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
Appointment in Samarra is a story about a man becoming unhinged. Wealthy Julian English, in an impulsive moment fueled by jealousy and resentment, splashes a drink in the face of Harry Reilly, an even wealthier man who Julian falsely believes slept with his wife. This event leads to Julian’s downfall — a string of bad decisions that seems to reflect a feeling of indifference and invincibility at first, but becomes a revelation that he’s ruining his life. The subsequent choices Julian makes are whimsical, spiteful, and idiotic: cheating on his wife with the girlfriend of a notorious gangster, fighting a one-armed man, etc. He fails to take responsibility for his actions despite the second chances and support he receives. O’Hara appears to be commenting on the entitlement of the wealthy class in early 1930s America. English represents the seemingly invincible “owner” class, whose bad decisions led to his self-destruction. This could mirror the similar implosion of upper/middle-class in the Great Depression whose investments were made on credit and wasted with the 1929 Stock Market Crash, although that’s really only based on vague allusions to the Depression and nothing solid in the text. I could also see English as being a depiction of the defiant working class who is punished for lashing out against powerful economic (Harry Reilly) and political (Ed Charney) forces.
By the second time Julian attempts to cheat, after a major fight with his wife, he is completely unsympathizable to the reader. O’Hara seems to scoff at the futility of Prohibition, with alcohol being tied clearly with bad decisions throughout the novel. O’Hara is a skilled writer no doubt, in fact maybe even a superb story teller — he certainly knows how to write dialogue, introduce characters in a meaningful way by elaborating on their various back stories so when they intersect in the plot there is some weight to their encounters, etc. — but he does come off a bit as an imitation Fitzgerald. They’re thematically quite similar and their talents are in roughly the same pocket, except Fitzgerald’s prose is more unique and ornate (and better). I actually don’t think O’Hara is much of a far cry from someone like Yates in their rather plain interest in contemporary American society (Yates is also better).
The story ends kind of lamely with Julian committing suicide. It’s a little melodramatic and a sort of cop out. No consequences to Julian’s actions, no meaningful closure. I feel like some of the well written side characters like Al Grecco were wasted and the book was 100-200 pages too short (I almost never feel that way about novels). It seems to make sense thematically, with Julian being some symbol of hopelessness or angry futility, but it’s just not interesting. Maybe I missed something.
By the second time Julian attempts to cheat, after a major fight with his wife, he is completely unsympathizable to the reader. O’Hara seems to scoff at the futility of Prohibition, with alcohol being tied clearly with bad decisions throughout the novel. O’Hara is a skilled writer no doubt, in fact maybe even a superb story teller — he certainly knows how to write dialogue, introduce characters in a meaningful way by elaborating on their various back stories so when they intersect in the plot there is some weight to their encounters, etc. — but he does come off a bit as an imitation Fitzgerald. They’re thematically quite similar and their talents are in roughly the same pocket, except Fitzgerald’s prose is more unique and ornate (and better). I actually don’t think O’Hara is much of a far cry from someone like Yates in their rather plain interest in contemporary American society (Yates is also better).
The story ends kind of lamely with Julian committing suicide. It’s a little melodramatic and a sort of cop out. No consequences to Julian’s actions, no meaningful closure. I feel like some of the well written side characters like Al Grecco were wasted and the book was 100-200 pages too short (I almost never feel that way about novels). It seems to make sense thematically, with Julian being some symbol of hopelessness or angry futility, but it’s just not interesting. Maybe I missed something.
There is one brilliant passage on grief near the end of this novel (the thumping "had to go through, had to go through, had to go through" paragraph).
Apart from that, I found the book almost unbearable. I never really wanted to live in the self-destructive brains of the suburban country-club fellas.
Apart from that, I found the book almost unbearable. I never really wanted to live in the self-destructive brains of the suburban country-club fellas.
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Some of the rhetoric will not fly today, but its exploration of self-sabotage in the midst of dissatisfaction has aged very well.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Alcoholism, Death, Infidelity, Sexism, Sexual content, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Toxic relationship, Antisemitism, Grief, Religious bigotry, Toxic friendship, Alcohol, Classism
Moderate: Racial slurs, Racism, Violence, Car accident, Pregnancy, War
Minor: Gun violence, Homophobia, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Trafficking, Death of parent, Murder
Be aware that there is bootlegging, carbon monoxide poisoning, dissolution of a marriage, mob violence, and prostitution.
challenging
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Suicide
Minor: Misogyny, Racism, Sexism, Antisemitism
This wasn't as good as I was hoping. It started out well but then towards the end it became kind of boring and dragged a little too much for my taste. In some ways it felt similar to The Great Gatsby: rich people partying, with the main character declining rapidly and heading for disaster.
I think this cover is brilliant, although I didn't read this edition. Definitely a book people should read, although it wasn't exactly enjoyable and I don't think I liked any of the characters, except perhaps for the Flieglers. It is a bit weird reviewing a classic, but it deserves to be a classic: expertly plotted, characters who are clearly drawn with wonderful voices and great modernist writing.
dark
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes