Reading with Jodie

When the delightful Jodie and I decided to read Sarah Winman’s debut novel, When God Was A Rabbit together, we agreed to keep in contact by email over the course of the reading process. Thank goodness we did! My first impressions of the book were dreadful, and I was overwhelmed by the guilty fear that I had condemned us to a real clunker. I was more relieved that I can say when we exchanged our first emails and Jodie wasn’t finding it too bad. There are many ways to appreciate books, just as there are, ahem, many ways to skin a rabbit, and liking a book through another reader’s eyes is a great one. Without her, I think I would have given up on it; with her, our discussions gave me a whole other level from which to consider the novel.

When God Was a Rabbit is a story about a brother and sister, Elly and Joe, who grow up in the 70s with their parents and one of those classic fictional devices, the live-in aunt, in this case an attractive lesbian actress, Nancy, who comes out with a lot of witticisms. The first half of the book concerns their childhood and the string of triumphs and disasters that happen to the family. These come in all shapes and sizes, from a catastrophic nativity play, to a big win on the pools, with child abuse and difficult friendships thrown in. The narrative clips along at quite a pace, the voice is precocious for a child and the emotional tone mostly deadpan. There’s no distinction made between the ‘real life’ events, like Joe’s discovery he is gay and the painful break up with his first boyfriend, from the magical realist ones, for instance, the talking rabbit called God, and Elly’s friend Jenny Penny’s trick (she has a difficult home life with her alcoholic mother) of extracting a 50 pence piece from inside her forearm. The jumble of tragic-comic events, seemingly random, mostly painful and threatening but experienced with the uncomprehending resilience of childhood reminded me of two other stories – Voltaire’s Candide and the Book of Job. In both cases, we’re looking at absurd life journeys, which test the faith and philosophy of the protagonists to the limit. Not good news for me, as I can’t stand either of those stories.

But Jodie could appreciate the silence surrounding the events – ‘gappy fiction (which is a good term for it) – as the places were readers could speculate and wonder, which reminded me that I like gappy fiction too. Rather than resent the book for delivering what felt like a scrambled mess to me, I could start picking the elements apart and wondering at their relation to one another. Magic realism, for instance, was originally a socio-political mode of writing, arising in South America among indigenous people who had been bulldozed by colonising cultures. It was a way to rewrite history from the perspective of the dispossessed, who used folklore, myth and magic to alter events miraculously, or to see beauty and possibility arising out of the most ordinary occurrences. Children aren’t exactly the oppressed of South America, but they do lack power, and often replace it with a firm belief in the possibilities of magical thinking. Magic realism then began to look like a way for the children in this book to bear intolerable sorrows, or account for incomprehensible events, or even sometimes just as distraction in times of trouble. I liked it a lot more in that light.

In the second half of the book, Elly and Joe have grown up and set off into the world. Desperate things keep happening, but when one of them turns out to be 9/11, the narrative finally slows and lingers over the consequences of this event for Elly’s family.  Jodie and I both enjoyed the fuller exploration of this part of the story but now it was Jode’s turn to struggle with the strategies the novel adopted and in particular, the semi-miraculous resolution of the narrative, which pulled a happy ending out of a hat, even if the rabbit was by now long gone. Jodie had trouble with (and this is a genius term which I am adopting from now on) the ‘hand wavey method of storytelling’ in which ‘terribly convenient things happened at terribly convenient times.’ This is undeniably true, and it made us look back over the whole of the narrative, trying to figure out what to make of the mix of tragic and comic events, the level of meaning we were invited (or not) to deduce from them and the uneven realism of the novel that dipped in and out of the magical.

At one level, I felt this novel was simply out of control of its events. For instance, Joe’s first boyfriend, Charlie, is kidnapped and held ransom in the first half of the narrative, his ears and his hands chopped off and sent back to his horrified relatives. And yet when Charlie turns up in the second half he seems whole and able-bodied, certainly no mention of prosthetic hands when he picks up a coffee cup, say. Am I supposed to imagine reconstructive surgery? The tone from the first half of the narrative discourages this sort of rational thinking, though; it invites the reader to marvel at events, but not necessarily to understand them. The second half of the narrative enacts resolution and closure and lots of meaning about the love of a good family. In other words, the two halves are asking for very different reading experiences.  What began to strike me about When God Was a Rabbit was its determination to bring conflicting things together: the arbitrary and random were intertwined with the artificial and contrived, the tragic and the comic go hand in hand, the youthful voice of the narrator is merged with a highly adult, sensitive perspective. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it feels jarring.

As Jodie wrote to me, we kept coming back to the question of how real (or not) the narrative felt, and what the consequences of that (magical) reality did to the way we read the happy ending. The narrative tried really hard to be poignant – too hard, I felt. And the ending was supposed to give us faith that no matter what happened, everything would come good in time (shades here of Voltaire’s everything happens for the best in the best of all possible worlds). But I think you can either have a romp, where the reader ends up laughing at dreadful things because no one is taking them seriously, or you can have an emotionally affecting narrative where dreadful things happen and the reader bonds with the characters forced to adapt to or process events. When you’ve got both going on, with magic realism thrown in for good measure, well, then the author is trying to do way too much. This was a big bestselling book, with a hefty advance for the author – did I enjoy it? No, not really. But thanks to Jodie, did I find it interesting? I most certainly did. The moral of the story is, when you come across a book that really taxes your understanding, take a Jodie along with you – it improves the experience immeasurably.

Read Jodie’s account of our readalong here.

14 thoughts on “Reading with Jodie

  1. What a fun post. There have been many times when I have read a book with a group of people and I have not liked it but when the group begins to discuss it the book is suddenly much better than my original conclusion. I don’t suddenly go from not liking it to liking it but like Jodie did for you, I end up with more of an appreciation for it than I would have otherwise. Sometimes having a Jodie makes a big difference. I also think that “to have” or “to take along” a “Jodie” should become a regular phrase as it is quite a compact and useful description of a very long and sometimes complicated reading experience🙂

  2. Hmm, I don’t think I’d enjoy this book at all! Like you, I dislike the kind of book where the characters undergo a series of terrible trials that aren’t taken very seriously (I had to study Candide at school and hated it) and I don’t like magically convenient endings either, so I think I will avoid this one! I love what you said about magical realism though – I always learn such interesting things from your blog and am really enjoying reading it.

  3. Wow, so many things I dislike packed into one book. Magic realism, trying too hard to be poignant, incorporating 9/11, disjointed narrative expectations, an unbelievably happy ending…an alarmingly comprehensive list. Glad you read it so I don’t have to!

    But seriously, I do relate to the experience of a collective reading experience helping me to get more out of a book I wouldn’t otherwise appreciate.

  4. Alas I had no Jodie to help me while reading this book. I thought it was pretty terrible. I might have abandoned it had I not known you would be posting on it at some point. I don’t know if I mind “gappy fiction”, I certainly do like working certain things out by myself as a reader; however in this case, the gaps did not work for me. I felt the story lurched from one event to another, dropping story lines here and there, and I never got a feel for any of the characters, with Jenny Penny possible being the only exception. Even the rabbit doesn’t stick around.

    Simon at “Stuck in a Book” had a poll last week on what is more important to readers: plot, characters or writing. In When God was a Rabbit, there was some pretty writing, but for my money, the plot and characterization were sorely missing.

    Re: the kidnapping, I remember the ear, but not the hands. Maybe it was only one?

  5. I’m so interested to read your post and the comments as your reaction to this book is very similar to mine (and I was rather afraid I was the only one to be put off by its flaws!).

  6. I’ve just started this and I already have some reservations. I don’t have a Jodie but I do now have your opinions to refer to. I’m going to read this with a critical eye / ear now. Thanks.

  7. I can see how someone’s appreciation for something we don’t really like or care for could alter the perception. I’ve read reviews of books I didn’t like by people who loved them and started to see them in a new light. They will not become favourites but I will find the reading was worth my time.
    I’m glad you had Jodie and I’m sure I would need her as well as this book frankly doesn’t sound like something I would easily enjoy.

  8. Stefanie – lol! Oh yes please, let’s get the phrase “to take along a Jodie” into the next OED! But joking aside, it enriched my perspective enormously to read the book with her. Group reads are just great like that.

    Sarah – oh thank you, what a lovely comment! I am always sort of glad to come across another person who hates Candide. I mean, it’s fine for all those who like it – good for you! But it’s a special kind of companionship to share a loathing for a book, too.🙂

    Emily – put it like that, and I wonder why we ever thought it would be a good idea! But the back cover makes it sound incredibly engaging and entrancing… (I so agree with you on that 9/11 thing). But hurray for group reading – it is such a great way to enrich a reading experience.

    Ruthiella – oh I wish I’d known you were reading too – you could have joined in with our email chats! I’m relieved that your opinion of the book was also a critical one, but sorry to put you through it. Really sorry! I promise the next readalong will be a cracker. I could go and check up on the hands and ears thing, but you know, I don’t mind too much. You are quite probably right. That’s an interesting poll Simon had. Thinking about it, I’d have to say it’s characters and plot together that really make a book for me – it’s watching human interaction, when it’s fascinating, and you can see triumph or tragedy or disaster or more hilarity ahead that’s so compelling. I don’t think that nice writing alone is enough, either.

    Cornflower – well it’s such a relief to know we are not alone here! Thank you for the solidarity!

    Lilian – art is meant to be shared, isn’t it? Even the solitary pursuit of reading is (even) more fun if you have people to talk it over with. I do love this possibility thanks to the blogworld.

    lola – if you fancy reading this, then I’d say just go ahead and do so. You never know what your own reaction will be, and you may love it. I figure any book is worth a shot at the first 50 pages, and you’ll soon know if it works for you (and I hope it does!).

    Pete – ooh, would love to know what you think. Do tell me, one way or another, yes?

    Caroline – yes, I think that’s it. You can’t always love what others do, but you really can appreciate it more. We needed each other to get over the rocky bits of this one, and I certainly liked it more for the things we could get out of it. I couldn’t exactly recommend it to you, but then I’d never tell anyone NOT to read something, because who knows how a book will strike a person? I’m all for having a go.

    • Don’t blame yourself for making me read this Litlove. Simon at Savidge Reads gave it a very positive review which helped cement my resolve to read it as well. I will blame him (just kidding!). Lots of people on goodreads gave it four and five star reviews as well. I read Candide ages ago for a French class in college…and loved it! So there you go, there is no accounting for taste. 

  9. I think for this book I was a Jodie! I loved it, thought it was very nostalgic and I enjoyed reading about a brother/sister relationship for a change. Sounds fun to read along with someone, especially when you have such different opinions.

  10. I’ve looked at this one and came close to buying it as I had heard good things about it but now I’m not sure it’s one I would click with. Still, there are books you love and books you can appreciate having read without necessarily loving it (and it sounds like this is the latter). And it is nice seeing a book through someone else’s eyes as you get an entirely different view and appreciation for it!

  11. Pingback: When God was a Rabbit by Sarah Winman |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s