Scan barcode
A review by monazaneefer
The Parisian by Isabella Hammad
Wow, I have actually been reading this book for two years? Lel.
Rating: ★★★✩✩ (3 stars)
Read as: Started Vol 1 as an audiobook, before moving onto the physical copy for the remainder.
Writing
Hammad's writing is exquisite. It reads like a classic: from the descriptions to the narration to the old-school, clean language without any exaggeration or experimentation in style. It is gorgeous and I am healthily envious that a debut author could write like this.
Everything else
Hammad needed an editor. After Midhat moves back to Palestine, the story structure crumbles. I kept waiting for the story to explain itself, for me to find symbolism of the absolute dissonance between Vol 1 and the remainder of the novel. The former was clear and had purpose. The remainder - it wasn't just the superfluous addition of the various details of the tumultuous era, it was the absolutely randomly observations that added nothing to the character, story, plot, atmosphere. As a writer, I know the amount of details we tend to add in the first draft and when you read it later, you realise it's redundant. It's THOSE details. For eg: when Midhat leaves the house, he sees Jamaal looking into a hole in the wall and the focus of that moment, even in the 3-4 lines it took, was pointless.
I understand the ending but honestly what even led Midhat to that moment? There was nothing that implied growth to even reach that climax. Why has nobody in interviews questioned Hammad on her choice for this novel's structure? This being so contentious amongst reviewers, you'd think it would be important to ask the author.
I still want to read Hammad's other novel, Enter Ghost. I don't think I saw reviewers complain about what they complained about with The Parisian. Plus, it's Hammad's elegant writing and the fact that it's about Palestine, I don't have ill feelings towards the book. It had so much potential; quite wasted really.
Rating: ★★★✩✩ (3 stars)
Read as: Started Vol 1 as an audiobook, before moving onto the physical copy for the remainder.
Writing
Hammad's writing is exquisite. It reads like a classic: from the descriptions to the narration to the old-school, clean language without any exaggeration or experimentation in style. It is gorgeous and I am healthily envious that a debut author could write like this.
Everything else
Hammad needed an editor. After Midhat moves back to Palestine, the story structure crumbles. I kept waiting for the story to explain itself, for me to find symbolism of the absolute dissonance between Vol 1 and the remainder of the novel. The former was clear and had purpose. The remainder - it wasn't just the superfluous addition of the various details of the tumultuous era, it was the absolutely randomly observations that added nothing to the character, story, plot, atmosphere. As a writer, I know the amount of details we tend to add in the first draft and when you read it later, you realise it's redundant. It's THOSE details. For eg: when Midhat leaves the house, he sees Jamaal looking into a hole in the wall and the focus of that moment, even in the 3-4 lines it took, was pointless.
I understand the ending but honestly what even led Midhat to that moment? There was nothing that implied growth to even reach that climax. Why has nobody in interviews questioned Hammad on her choice for this novel's structure? This being so contentious amongst reviewers, you'd think it would be important to ask the author.
I still want to read Hammad's other novel, Enter Ghost. I don't think I saw reviewers complain about what they complained about with The Parisian. Plus, it's Hammad's elegant writing and the fact that it's about Palestine, I don't have ill feelings towards the book. It had so much potential; quite wasted really.