The New Republic by Lionel Shriver
Publisher:
Harper Perennial
Date:
April 2, 2013 (Reprint edition)
ISBN:
978-0062103321
Pages:
416
Rating:
3.5 out of 5
Book Summary: Edgar
Kellogg has always yearned to be popular. When he leaves his lucrative law
career for a foreign correspondent post in a Portuguese backwater with a
homegrown terrorist movement, Edgar recognizes Barrington Saddler, the
disappeared reporter he’s replacing, as the larger-than-life character he longs
to emulate. Yet all is not as it appears. Os Soldados Ousados de Barba—”The
Daring Soldiers of Barba” —have been blowing up the rest of the world for years
in order to win independence for a province so dismal and backward that you
couldn’t give the rathole away. So why, with Barrington vanished, do incidents
claimed by the “SOB” suddenly dry up? A droll, playful novel, The New Republic
addresses terrorism with a deft, tongue-in-cheek touch while also pressing a
more intimate question: What makes particular people so magnetic, while the
rest of us inspire a shrug?
My Thoughts:
Lionel Shriver has been on my list of authors who I’ve wanted to
read for far too long. So, as is often
the case, when TLC Book Tours provided me the opportunity to review Shriver’s
most recent novel, The New Republic,
I happily signed up. I didn’t enjoy The New Republic but I thought it was an
interesting and well-written book. It’s about a few things: journalists and the
lengths they’ll go to for a front-page story; terrorism and how it pervades
every continent and country; politics and the means some activist groups use to
make themselves heard; how people – especially journalists – fill the time
while waiting for something to happen but mostly, this book is about the main
character, Edgar Kellogg.
The
protagonist, Edgar Kellogg, is 37 years old and recently quit his lucrative
career as a corporate lawyer to be a journalist. He isn’t a very likable character, tending to
be snide, arrogant and cynical as well as insecure. He wasn’t popular as a
corporate lawyer (who is?) and he’s decided to pursue a career in journalism. He believes it’ll get him a lot of love
especially since Toby Falconer, the BMOC from high school, whom Edgar adored
and was obsessed with, is a journalist. Edgar hasn’t spoken to Toby for 20
years but he’s followed Toby’s byline in the paper. He has no qualms about
calling Toby for a connection at his paper, the “National Record” because
Edgar’s that self-absorbed. He’s sure
Toby has amassed friends in every port from traveling around the world writing
articles. That’s what Edgar has always wanted most: popularity. He’s only managed, so far, to be the follower. The adorer and not the adored. Part of Edgar’s problem is he gets bored
easily and doesn’t like most people, but he’s convinced being a journalist will
give him the life he wants.
Edgar’s
dreams of a glamorous life as a journalist are shattered before he even gets on
the plane. His interview with the
“National Record” and his subsequent drink with Toby make it clear there’s not
much glamour in journalism. Guy Wallasek, editor of the “National Record”, calls
journalists “parasites” and “histories secretaries”. He also warns Edgar that journalists don’t
have an opinion of their own - they simply report what happens, and more often
than not it’s something depressing or outright morbid. Most of the time,
journalists are just waiting around, “chewing at the bit” for a story to write.
Shriver shares this in the second chapter, shortly after two quotes that open
the book, one from Conrad Black, the other from George Orwell, that criticize
journalists. As the book continues, we
meet plenty of journalists and nothing they say or do puts them in a good
light. One thing’s for certain: there’s
nothing glamorous about where Edgar’s been assigned by the “National Record”. Barba, the very bottom of Portugal, is
excessively windy, boring and covered with prickly pears. But the journalists camped out there are
happy to remain so long as the SOB continue to explode bombs around the world, giving
them fodder. Maybe this is why Shriver
doesn’t like journalists. In The New Republic, their moral center, if
it exists at all, is badly skewed.
When Edgar
arrives on Barba and hears more about the missing Barrington Saddler, try as he
might, Edgar cannot ignore all the talk.
He’s intrigued but also jealous. After all, Saddler is larger than life,
adored by one and all. Edgar has basically assumed Barrington’s life. He lives
in Barrington’s very large and ostentatious house, eating and drinking his
gourmet sundries, driving Barrington’s SUV and even wearing some of his
luxurious clothes. It was easy to see where this story was going, at least part
of it. Despite himself, Edgar is smitten with Barrington (a man he’s never met)
and emulates him. Soon, Edgar conjures
up a Barrington apparition to keep him company at night and to discuss the SOB
terrorists and related topics. Living in Barrington’s home, using his computer
and extensive notes on the SOB and Barba’s history, Edgar discovers a
frightening and glorious secret. To
divulge anymore would be to spoil the book.
Once I was over the shock I found the rest The New Republic inconsistent.
Shriver
makes it abundantly clear she thinks little of journalists. She succeeds in making them appear to be a
pack of hungry, groveling dogs willing to do just about anything to get their
byline in the paper. This includes manufacturing
witnesses to interview and hoping and praying for terrorists to set off a bomb
somewhere, anywhere. But with Edgar and
Barrington the story delves into fantasy when Shriver goes too far to prove her point. While skewing journalists, Shriver also slams
the notion of “boys will be boys” using terrorist bombings as a game of sorts making
people’s fears seem inconsequential. Maybe
it’s me, but I don’t think terrorism and bombings are humorous or a topic for
satire, not to this degree anyway. The ending is extremely unsatisfying, almost
aggravating, in this light. Some may
find it amusing but, ultimately I thought there should have been consequences for
Edgar as well as Barrington’s behavior. But,
if the ending is more realistic than I could imagine, meaning Shriver knows a
lot more than I can even fathom, it makes the ending something to inspire
outrage. If this is the case, no wonder
Shriver skewers journalists. I think The
New Republic is worth reading to decide for yourself what you think about
Shriver’s themes and ideas. And,
although I didn’t like this book, it’s made me even more interested in reading
Lionel Shriver’s other novels.
Thank you to
TLC Book Tours and Harper Perennial for the opportunity to read and review The
New Republic.
What an interesting review, Amy! I had no intention of reading this one, but now you have me considering it...
ReplyDelete