570 of 659 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 51-60 of 140 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2011 20:37:59 BDT
Jason Greensides says:
Oh My God. What are you lot on about? The book is really good.
In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2011 13:21:27 BDT
Natalie Bird says:
My sentiments exactly. I have struggled half way through this book and found myself offended by the use of language that adds nothing to the content, puzzled by the story line as such and concluding ultimately, the very topic that lends its name to the novel is a mere thread that doesn't truly permeate. I find no interest in the characters and was very disappointed in the story that unfolded. I hate to abandon a book too, but really, this does not live up to the hype.
Posted on 10 May 2011 09:31:14 BDT
An excellent, very well-written and thought out review. Many thanks!! I can't help but agree wholeheartdely with your view on the amount of profanity in this novel. I'm am neither a prude nor squeamish but I found the constant repetition of swearing in this book to be incredibly tiring and boring.
Posted on 18 May 2011 13:50:18 BDT
P. Tancred says:
Yeeeesss, I think I'd have to agree with TomCat and the other anti-Slapists. I'm half way through it and will probably slog through to the end but have no optimism, especially in light of the reviews and comments, that it will leave me with anything other than a wish that I hadn't wasted my eyeball power on it. The most provoking thing about the book is the sheer unattractiveness of most of the characters - I think that if I had had the misfortune of being at a barbecue with them, I would have made a point of slapping them all! The other thing that has really got my goat about it is the staggering, formulaic, PC, rainbow-coalition heterogeneity of the characters - all those different ethnic backgrounds! all those different religious persuasions! all those multi-ethnic pairings! the gay schoolfriend! the bisexual father who dies of AIDS! And the people made out to be the real 'baddies' (the talentless drunkard and the self-righteous hippy airhead - parents to the ghastly Hugo), did you notice, are the 'true blue' Aussies, Gary and Rosie; conversely, the 'wogs', 'mussies' (I use Mr Tsiolkas's own terminolgy) and other 'New Australian' types, although being foul-mouthed, sneaky, adulterous, violent and generally otherwise unpleasant, are the 'goodies' - Mr Tsiolkas showing a shoulder chip, I wonder?
I, too would like to slap it down on the floor, or in the garbage, but as it's on my Kindle, maybe not a good idea
In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2011 14:06:31 BDT
Peter Scott says:
There's a good old-fashioned term, 'pot-boiler', to award to a book whose proper place is on the fire. Probably had a risk-analysis done as well as the PC, so is fire-proofed. Worth a try though.
Posted on 4 Jun 2011 17:32:11 BDT
Clara Matthews says:
Fantastic review which says all the things I hated about the book but couldn't even be bothered to write! I also read it for a book club and can't wait to savage it. I too am speechless at how it has garnered awards and received favourable plaudits from some excellent writers (Colm Toibin for example). Thank goodness I bought it on my Kindle so I can just delete it, saving anyone else from having to read it.
Posted on 9 Jun 2011 23:29:19 BDT
Miss V. J. Thompson says:
I completely agree. Although I managed to get 3/4 of the way through it before leaving it, I found it repetitive and littered with expletives. I usually give my books to my mother to read but will not be passing this one on!!
Posted on 11 Jun 2011 21:29:45 BDT
Totally agree. I struggled through this book hoping I would find something to like - I didn't. I thought the characters were hateful, stereotypical and one dimensional. The plot was terrible beacuse he never really tackled the issue. The language/style was terrible and was at time vulgar.
This is one to avoid. I wish I'd never wasted my time.
Posted on 19 Jun 2011 23:06:22 BDT
Great review TomCat - really couldn't agree more with everything you said :-)