569 of 658 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The Slap (Paperback)
If Christos Tsiolkas had wanted to name his novel after its most prominent moment or topic, then he should have called it `unpleasant people having repetitive, unpleasant sex' rather than 'The Slap'. The novel's titular event is barely a footnote to the plot, and Tsiolkas seems morally afraid to engage with the issue on any significant plane: 'The Slap' is neither emotionally nor intellectually demanding and offers no insight into the ethical conundrum posed by its blurb.
At a BBQ in Melbourne, Australia, a four-year-old boy named Hugo is acting every bit the insufferable, entitled, disruptive and unpleasant infant his parents have brought him up to be. In an effort to calm the rowdy and precocious boy, a man who isn't his father slaps him in front of the entire gathering.
The domestic corporal punishment of children is a contentious issue; even more so when the chastisement is delivered by a non-parent. In some countries (not Australia) it's completely illegal, and in most parts of the world the concept is associated with a niche of old-fashioned parenting, perhaps synonymous with the traditionalist right.
Child slapping has also received an unprecedented amount of media attention in recent years; it's an issue about which everybody has an opinion - even if you've not been a parent, then you've been a child - making it perfect fodder for the popular novel. Perhaps this universal interest accounts for the novel's ridiculous sales record; it's currently the best-selling book of the 2010 Booker Prize longlist, and according to some sources, it's sold a staggering 5000% more copies than its closest competitor, Room by Emma Donoghue. These sales figures can probably be attributed to the book's provocative subject matter; but if you were feeling particularly cynical, you could argue that 'The Slap' has sold so well because it's the only paperback on the Booker longlist.
The narrative is divided into eight very long chapters, each told from the perspective of a different witness to the slap. The first thing I noticed was the ethnic and cultural diversity of the cast of characters at this neighbourhood barbecue. The entire social rainbow is represented in 'The Slap', and the novel's dramatis personae reads like the fantasy guest-list of an equal opportunities officer: there's an Indian-Australian, Greek-Australian, Aboriginal-Australian, naturalized white Australians, a black Muslim, a Catholic, a Hindi and an atheist; young, old, gay, straight, single, married and divorced; with careers ranging from the unemployed to car mechanics, doctors, vets, writers, actors, waitresses, shop-keepers and carpenters. I'm not saying that such a sundry group of tight-knit friends doesn't or couldn't exist (if anything, I admit that `realism' is an elastic and ambivalent critical term), but the cast smacks of misguided political correctness.
Concordantly, the social and economic diversity of the characters exposes Tsiolkas' laziness as a writer; he resorts to the most basic exploitation of social conflicts in order to create dramatic tension. It's indolent, lacks depth and is border-line offensive in its reductiveness.
However, despite their differing cultural heritages, the characters in The Slap all share the same, uniform personality. It's a psychological homunculus applied to every single protagonist. They are all (without exception); adulterous, quick to anger, violent, vain, profane, selfish and judgemental. The eight characters that the novel follows may as well all be the same person. They're not presented as anti-heroes, nor are they unpleasant in an appealing or curiously attractive way; they're just horrible, horrible people, and I thank God that Tsiolkas' vision of society isn't at all close to reality.
Supposedly, each chapter gives us a different viewpoint on the slapping of Hugo. I was hoping that, as the novel progressed, a complex discourse would develop; one that analyses the various moral and social implications of hitting children. But in truth, Tsiolkas has absolutely nothing to say on the matter; nothing in The Slap is enlightening, contentious, creative or insightful. The fall-out from the titular event lasts no more than fifty pages, and the writer doesn't contribute anything of interest to the debate. Only the two simplest of viewpoints are implicit in the narrative, and these the most garishly polar of the debate: `The kid deserved it' versus `nobody should hit a child'. What's more frustrating is that Tsiolkas refuses to express any kind of authorial opinion - lest he alienate a percentage of his potential readership, I imagine. The book is reluctant to fall down on either side of the child-slapping debate and thus lacks any argument or imperative whatsoever.
The prose can be defined by two stylistic idiosyncrasies: firstly, there's a constant use of expletives and secondly, an obsession with gratuitous sex.
I wish I could say the language was witty or shocking, but it's merely tedious in its verbose repetition. Every page of the book drips with profanity rather than insight; it seems that Tsiolkas can only articulate his characters' emotions with expletives; from happiness to sadness, everything is described in four-letter words. To say the novel suffers from a lack of linguistic breadth would be an understatement. Maybe this is how the average Australian speaks (which I doubt), but after 500 pages of it, I just had to let the pointlessly crude language wash over me, meaninglessly - surely this is not a good thing?
I found the novel's sex scenes to be equally pointless. I don't consider myself a prude, or squeamish, but the sheer amount of gratuitous sexual imagery in The Slap acts as nothing more than distracting filler. At times I was confused as to whether I was reading an attempt at literature, or soft-porn. Generally speaking, I discourage sex scenes in novels; unless they develop a plot, comment on themes or are in some way vital to character development, then I find them irrelevant. The language and imagery used to evoke sex in The Slap is cliché-riddled, ineloquent and unintentionally farcical. I don't want to see the characters having sex for the same reasons that I don't want to see Elizabeth Bennet slowly eating breakfast, or Jack Bauer voiding his bowels - it tells me nothing, it means nothing; I feel nothing.
Parts of the novel are also frustratingly difficult to read. There's a frequent confusion of pronouns, for example:
"Hector told Harry that he was in trouble."
The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous; is it Hector that's in trouble, or is it Harry? It isn't clear from the context and while I could forgive such a misguided construction if it were a one-off, this type of grammatical error is alarmingly common-place. Similarly, the second-half of the novel is riddled with typing and page-setting errors, take the following three examples:
`Brutal' she head [sic] her aunt say, `it's just brutal'.
`I'm going to put then [sic] kids to bed'
`Harry shouldn't have het [sic] that child.'
It's as if Tsiolkas' editors got bored half-way through the book (who can blame them?), and decided to give up. I find such a proliferation of typos in a printed novel to be utterly inexcusable and a detriment to the veracity of the medium.
'The Slap' is a complete failure; a book that promises so much but delivers so little. Supposedly, it's a heated and controversial novel about a much-debated moral issue; in reality The Slap makes no contribution to the child-slapping discussion. It offers no original insights or ethical commentary, and doesn't even do a good job of couching the debate in terms of its pros and cons. The actual event, `the slapping', is over in an instant and is soon forgotten about in favour of long, gratuitous sex-scenes and uninteresting personal disputes. I'm sure that the novel's ostensible subject matter will make it popular with a certain type of coffee-morning book group; but I'm also confident that, like me, most readers will be disappointed by the novel's refusal to engage with the issues at hand.
I cannot fathom why the Booker Prize judges saw fit to nominate this novel to their longlist. Don't read it. And if you happen to see Christos Tsiolkas walking down the street, feel-free to give him a much-deserved and well earned slap across the face.
Tracked by 15 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 131-140 of 140 posts in this discussion
Posted on 17 Jul 2012 16:21:27 BDT
S. A. Hawkins says:
I was going to write my own review of this book and then I read yours and you have said all I would have said, better than I would have said it. When I finished the book I thought "why did I persevere / why did I bother?" and yes I would join the queue to give Christo Tsiolkas a much earned Slap! Those who commented positively must have read a different book to you and me Tomcat! The only good thing I can say about this book is that I did not pay for it, I picked it up in a holiday resort "library".
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jul 2012 16:24:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jul 2012 16:26:06 BDT
S. A. Hawkins says:
A Stott - I did the same (picked it up for free in an exchange library) and that was the best thing about the book!
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2012 21:34:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Aug 2012 21:43:33 BDT
C. Wilson says:
132 replies! And I am 133. I normally don't agree with people who leave such well written, studied reviews but only give one star. This is based on the fact that if you went to such trouble to study the book in such detail it has to be worth two stars at least (one star being reserved for books you can't finish or just plain loathed) BUT in this case, I totally agree. I liked the concept of the book (although only to a degree) and saw it reviewed somewhere by someone who I would imagine hadn't read it. I loathe ALL the characters and wish them all dead. I hate the writing, the language (I don't mind bad language but in this case it just jars), the plot doesn't really exist and somehow these people - this author, well - as you say - the author needs a slap, his publisher needs a slap and the characters definitely need slapping. In fact I need a slap for reading half of this despite hating it almost from the start. And what it was doing on the long list for the Booker is just plain depressing. Please Amazon invent a NO STAR review so we can occasionally give it when the need arises.
Posted on 9 Feb 2013 17:22:26 GMT
Bookworm 24 says:
Thank you for an excellent review . I was given this book and didn't manage to read it all . I didn't empathise with any of the characters and was left feeling that my brain had been violated. It will be recycled as I can't bring myself to give it to a charity shop .
A truly horrible book !
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 10:51:55 GMT
Good comment, frank and direct.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Feb 2013 11:58:12 GMT
Michael Burns says:
I agree totally with your review of the book - I have struggled as far as chapter 3 but will waste no more time on this prurient rubbish.
I feel I must point you all in the direction of the TV series - it is everything the book is not - well written, mature and insightful.
Posted on 22 Jan 2014 18:18:36 GMT
This book review is self aggrandising nonsense.
You've completely missed the depiction of modern Australia's sexual and racial politics.
You seem to have judged the book by it's cover: perhaps it's title alone.
You've completely missed the point.
What would it take for you to realise - since you very rightly suggested the book has no statement about, or as you put it "refusal to engage" the "much-debated moral issue" - that, perhaps, it wasn't about that at all?