The best satire is beautifully written (thus, consign almost all 'satire' to the garbage can); it can be enjoyed by people who disagree with the author on large matters (a religious person should enjoy The Living End, because they will agree on the smaller absurdities that Elkin deals with so well, and his treatment of God is nuanced rather than new-atheistical); and ultimately is less about what the book hates and more about loving something (here: humanity) that the object of hatred seems to be inhibiting. And The Living End is very good satire indeed. I hear that this is 'minor' Elkin, which makes me very excited to read his other works, but also apprehensive. 'Minor' in what way? Because it's short (usually a good thing)? Because it's weird (again, a good thing)? Because it's unclear whether he's using religion as an allegory for literature ('God,' who is supposedly an object of satire, seems very much to be Stanley Elkin by the end of the book) or literature as an allegory for religion? Because it's three interconnected stories rather than one novel? Because Joseph speaks cod Yiddish? I do not know, and won't know until I read the rest of Elkin, which I certainly plan to do now. Funny but serious authors are ridiculously scarce (there is surely an essay waiting to be written about 'literary fiction,' grief-porn, memoir, post-New-Yorker short fiction, America, and the scarcity of serious writers who are funny). Elkin writes beautiful sentences when he chooses to, and doesn't choose to all the time, because it's easier to be funny when your sentences aren't funny--but he also chooses not be funny all the time. It's this sense that he's choosing what to do that sets him apart as a serious author. Elkin has not found his 'voice.' He gets to decide what voice he writes in. Also, I could write a dissertation about theology, literary criticism, and this book. Anyone who reads it as straightforward and easy satire on Christianity is missing *a lot*.
I wonder, as Elkin's God does, about the audience for this book. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the biblical worldview. Elkin doesn't stop with the book being a reductio, a vast percentage of his sentences are reductios—that seems the main narrative strategy. Take a position and then keep piling on. He does a good job of exposing the absurdity. I wonder if he needed this much space, if it could have been done shorter, but then it is hard to take on eternity with a few short words. So who's the audience? Is he trying to sway fundamentalists? They just burn the book. And non-beleivers? For them he's preaching to the choir; it's right-on and ha-ha and give it to 'em. The mass in the middle then? Or is he just strutting his stuff for his fellow academics? The ending is quite fitting. God as an artist. Making a mess of things because it makes a better story that way. And given a second chance at creatio ex nihilo, a chance to make things, perhaps, better, God chooses to annihilate everything. This really is a beautiful example of how to start with a hallowed belief, take it seriously, follow it all the way through until it implodes upon it's inherent absurdity, and finally tumbles into farce. Elkin does this best in the Hell section—how long could you burn anyway? For eternity? Really? Well let me just riff on that for awhile and we'll see what that would be like. That strategy works well following the realistic beginning, Ellerbee's hell on earth as it were. Almost as if Elkin is saying, You think it can be worse than this? Let's see what Heaven and Hell have in store. After all, you can't write about the Void; just circle it the way Beckett did.
Do You like book The Living End (2004)?
This book was very, very disturbing and upsetting, but it sticks with you and makes you think about it, and I guess I see its purpose now. It takes commonly held religious beliefs and explores what the world would be like if they were literally true. (If you sin at all you go to hell, even if you're overall a good person and the 'sins' are petty and stupid, like taking names in vain, and hell is a burning fiery pit of eternal torture, etc etc etc.) I guess I would recommend this book because, after reading it, you *know* that these things cannot possibly be true, because if they were, life would be pointless and horrible, God would be petty and cruel, and all of existence would be an abomination.
—zim
Hell of a read. Give me an atheist's depiction of the afterlife any day ±this one condenses the entire gestalt of the Divine Commedia into one snappy refusal to submit to the stricture of belief for the sake of belief. This is belief for the sake of life, for the sake of death, for the sake of cognition, for the sake of meaning, for the sake of meanness, for the sake of an inconvenient trip to the convenience store and a freak off-ing, an offering to all that is and was and ever could be to remember that every moment is a sacred act—that the essence of being is part and parcel with every absent thought or action, from attempting to purchase a pack of smokes to asking WHY???
—Rand
years ago, during the height of oprah's book club reign of terror, greg proposed that i start my own club at our store, in which i would create a series of stickers to be put on books, larger and more offensive than oprah's, showing my feelings about the book. basically - a thumbs-up for books i loveda thumbs-down for books i hated:and something like this: for "who knew i would like this book with such an awful cover and not-very-interesting premise even though both greg and tom have been telling me for years to read stanley elkin because i would like him and it turns out i do??"it was a complicated system. and, naturally, we never actually did anything towards this plan, but if we had, i am sure i could have toppled oprah off her couch.it was only a matter of time.and it was only a matter of time before i finally read a stanley elkin novel. and i am so freaking glad i did. it is my understanding that this is one of his "lesser" works, and that's fine. i think it is a good starting point - i got a sense of his humor, his language, the clarity of his vision, and his comedic irony. and i liked it. truthfully, i liked the first part best. i was hooked by the third paragraph, and i fell in love with ellerbee; a good man who always tries to do the right thing learns, after his untimely death, that god really does mean all that fine print. i thought it was perfect. the rest of the book was also good - a sort of riff on dante that goes to some extremes dante would not have touched with a barge pole, but my heart belongs to ellerbee.and i vow to read at least two more elkin novels before the end of the year.*you heard it here first.watch your back, oprah.*edit - i did not keep this vow. i am the worst.
—karen
