Sherwood Anderson (1876–1941)

The good: I appreciate his writing style. Every so often he hits upon a phrase or paragraph that reflects humans. His ideas of situations are sometimes interesting, even though they aren't reflective of reality.

The bad: first thing, the ridiculous setting. It feels like 90% of what's referred to as "great American" works or on those top 100 lists is set in some rural, pastoral town which feels like a complete fantasy. I cannot believe for one second this town exists. I feel kind of stupid saying this, given he was born and presumably grew up in such a town, but what's shown is not a town. He describes random houses and random people. Nobody wants for money, even if they're poor. There is no town past a few houses where characters live. Characters that should exist don't. There are no consequences. Nothing makes sense. This is what killed the book for me. I'm so sick of these utopian, rural towns, the conception of which is incredibly reactionary. Maybe this is unfair on the book itself but ugh. Nobody in the town has a life, except for what's described in each person's story. It's frustrating. The artificiality of the book shone through - ostensibly it's a reflection of reality yet it feels like fantasy.

Every character's story is a sort of melancholy. The first chapter warns us that every character is going to be a "grotesque," but it's ridiculous. Everybody has some sort of obvious but ridiculous and unlikely problem and ridiculous thoughts. They don't do anything except for the one event described by the story. A sad thing happens but although it defines their life for us the events don't change how they think or how they live. Apparently nobody can get over anything. Everything is static, even when it describes an incredibly long period of time. Nobody reacts to what happens.

There feels a strong divide between the description of what people do and how they think/what they are/what's going on. One character is described as having serious trouble speaking and apparently having serious, debilitating delusions yet he has a whole load of friends and a wife. It doesn't match at all. One character apparently goes through being walked home by a dude for 2 years (!) with nothing else happening - not even inviting him in to her house - and then suddenly decides she doesn't like it. Ok sure whatever. I can't think of many specific examples, just a general pervasive sense that the characters aren't real and what we're being told once doesn't fit what we're told later.

What made me give up on the book is incredibly minor but was the straw that broke the camel's back. A minor character is called "Sugars McNutts." The rest of the book is deadly serious. Come on.

I think my strong dislike of this book is influenced by how I'm feeling right now and is pretty over the top but my frustrations are real and all too typical of this sort of book. One star is maybe too little but what I liked about it was constantly overshadowed by the problems. It quickly felt like a chore to read. I didn't feel like I was reading about humans or anything that happens in real life.

later note: As I said I think my review is probably unfair. It's at least a little better than I make out, it just hit a lot of my pet peeves… (lisätietoja)

Winesburg, Ohio, em princípio, é um livro de contos, pois traz 22 histórias. Como os personagens aparecem nas diversas histórias e o espaço seja o mesmo (uma pequena cidade do centro oeste americano), lê-se-o como se lê p.ex. ¨Go down Moses¨ de Faulkner. Aliás, esta obra pode ser considerada precursora da moderna ficção americana porque teve forte influência sobre autores como Faulkner, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Henry Miller, etc. Há ligações entre os contos e uma cronologia que os amarra.… (lisätietoja)