New York Times Revue of Station Eleven
A mediocre review, where we are told the parallels between
the story and the graphic novel are too direct and obvious. The review is more
of a synopsis of the novel, and leaves little reason to read actually read the novel.
The critics main complaint from the novel is the fact that it doesn't have a Hollywood style, post-apocalyptic feel. There is no crazy band of cannibals, nor bleak lack of hope in any of the characters. The critic honestly believes that after a pandemic, we all revert back into brutal inhuman monsters. The fact that the critic lacks the basic common understanding of human history that has shown us recover and rebuild from past pandemics is unfathomable.
The critic then goes on to comment on why so few "bad guys", survived to year 20, not taking into account that maybe people are not inherently evil, but simply reacting to their surroundings. The lack of oppression in the new world presented in "Station Eleven", would play a role in the behavior of the survivors. The idea that only the evilest would succeed in the lawless world in absurd and once again plays into the Hollywood stereotype. Groups banning together would most likely have a better chance of survival, and of course the novel does touch on how violent the early days of the new world were.
The critic refers to recent events in poverty stricken regions of the world, yet doesn't comment on how the novel repeatedly states that the symphony stays in a very small geographic region that is known to be safe. Obviously, the world as a whole is not like the small area covered by the symphony. I am sure somewhere in the "Station Eleven" world we can find this critic the Hollywood special affects, hell scene she so desperately yearns for. However, for the rest of this novel's readers, maybe we can see the deeper undertones, and true messages of this piece of art.
The critics main complaint from the novel is the fact that it doesn't have a Hollywood style, post-apocalyptic feel. There is no crazy band of cannibals, nor bleak lack of hope in any of the characters. The critic honestly believes that after a pandemic, we all revert back into brutal inhuman monsters. The fact that the critic lacks the basic common understanding of human history that has shown us recover and rebuild from past pandemics is unfathomable.
The critic then goes on to comment on why so few "bad guys", survived to year 20, not taking into account that maybe people are not inherently evil, but simply reacting to their surroundings. The lack of oppression in the new world presented in "Station Eleven", would play a role in the behavior of the survivors. The idea that only the evilest would succeed in the lawless world in absurd and once again plays into the Hollywood stereotype. Groups banning together would most likely have a better chance of survival, and of course the novel does touch on how violent the early days of the new world were.
The critic refers to recent events in poverty stricken regions of the world, yet doesn't comment on how the novel repeatedly states that the symphony stays in a very small geographic region that is known to be safe. Obviously, the world as a whole is not like the small area covered by the symphony. I am sure somewhere in the "Station Eleven" world we can find this critic the Hollywood special affects, hell scene she so desperately yearns for. However, for the rest of this novel's readers, maybe we can see the deeper undertones, and true messages of this piece of art.
Comments
Post a Comment