The Blind Assassin

Margaret Atwood

Iris Chase narrates her life story in three views: the present (as an 80 something woman), the past (what an 80 something year old woman remembers of her youth), and from within a secretive love affair. The love affair is also part of the past, but written as 1st person present. The setting is 1930's central Canada (Toronto and environs) and follows the political landscape of WWI, Depression, and the Red Scare from the Canadian perspective. It turns out, however, that this book is not really about story or plot. It is about Iris and her sister Laura. It is about who two sisters are, not about what they do or how they live. It is about relationship, love, endurance, guilt, duty, and place.

I must admit that I didn't love this book. It didn't do enough. Probably the only reason I stayed with it was because the three view mechanism that Atwood used to tell the story changed views often enough to allow me to push through. But in the end, not enough happened. I am thinking that in order for character to mean something, the characters must engage with the world. They must do something in order for character to be revealed or formed. I feel the same displeasure with TV like "Downton Abbey". The characters sit around being (outraged, pleased, confused, put out, etc.) and we don't get to see often enough where these values come from or how the affect you in the world. And we don't want the other extreme, where there is all action, and no character (a la Clive Cussler). Many, I am sure, would argue that sci-fi often goes to this extreme of plot without character, but I would argue that good sci-fi at least tackles big ideas, which can become character-like in how you think about a story. Maybe I need to try a couple of "pure character" books of the highest quality to see how they sit with my theory.

Wait

note: this book is part of a Reading Lolita in Tehran project, which you can read more about here.