Friday, July 26, 2013

Cephalopod Coffeehouse: Grossman's You

I'm pleased to be a part of the Armchair Squid's go-your-own-way online book club again.  This past month, I read Austin Grossman's recent novel titled "You."  It's a slightly nostalgic look at the growth of the video game industry through the eyes of a fictitious team of programmers who were in it from the early days of home computers.

I ended up not being totally pleased with the book, but there were some good things.  Let me first issue praise where praise is due...
  • I loved the sense of camaraderie and purpose of the core characters, who built up a thriving video game empire from humble beginnings as outcast high school students.  Their early years -- especially their time at an experimental computer camp in the woods of western Massachusetts -- reminded me of the early years of the tight-knit team of "losers" from Stephen King's novel "It."  (And no, I didn't think of that just because it's another novel with a pronoun for a title!)
  • As someone of pretty much the exact age of the protagonists, I recall those early years, too, and I think Grossman captured a lot of its charm quite nicely.  I certainly shared the characters' drive toward their Platonic ideal of the Ultimate Game.  Some blurb on the back cover said something to the effect of "Now I want to go break out my old Commodore 64 and revisit some of those games."  I felt the same way.
But I couldn't ignore the problems.  Much of the book was built on flashbacks, and they were rolled out kind of haphazardly.  Almost as if Grossman was just making it up on the fly, as each new chapter was written.  In the early chapters, the present-day versions of the characters should have known about their past experiences together, but it's almost like they had amnesia until the flashbacks were presented.

The protagonist, Russell, was kind of a bland cipher, and (to me) borderline unlikable as a person.  Instead, I wanted to know more about Simon, the brilliant, unstable innovator who died a few years before the "present day" action of the book -- but who nonetheless drove much of the plot.  I think I've known a few people like Simon in my life, and I was left wondering if Grossman ever really knew or understood someone like this.

Part of me wants to wax philosophic about how modern literature seems uncomfortable with straightforwardly heroic personalities.  Do they see it as more preferable to have a wavering dud like Russell as the point-of-view character, than someone like Simon?  Someone who seemed to be honest, good, and unflinching in his will, even with flaws, even unto his own demise?

I was also unhappy with how the plot got resolved, but I'll leave out spoilers.

Still, the story made me think about a lot of things that I hadn't thought about in a long time, and it made me think about them in new ways.  I'm glad I read it, even if I wanted to throw it across the room when I was done.  :-)

- - -

Oh, one other thing.  Grossman's descriptions of Simon and his best pal Darren (the latter being the taller, smooth-talking pitch man who helped convey shy Simon's visions to the wider world) reminded me of another pair, where one of them does the talking for both... often to excess...


This comparison also got me to thinking of a few similar pairs in popular culture, where there's one who is silent and supposedly "deep," and the other who compensates by being more of an over-the-top goofball...



Can you think of any others?

19 comments:

  1. Have you ever read any of Douglas Coupland's novels? He covers this territory in a fictional sense pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hadn't heard of Coupland until now. Thanks! I'll check him out.

      Delete
  2. Funny regarding the pairs - what came to mind first were slightly larger groups:

    1. Marx Bros: Chico and Harpo usually function together in a Jay/Silent Bob arrangement.

    2. Newhart: "Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother, Darryl. This is my other brother, Darryl."

    I, too, love video game nostalgia. I really enjoyed Wreck-It Ralph for that reason. Have you ever seen King of Kong? That one's good: a documentary about arcade games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I almost totally forgot Larry, Darryl, and Darryl -- classic. Didn't the silent Darryl talk in the final episode? (That must be part of the trope, too... Silent Bob talks occasionally... and I think Teller sometimes does offstage voice-overs.)

      I enjoyed both Wreck-It Ralph an King of Kong, but they're so different I never really thought of them in the same category -- but duh, yes. :-)

      Delete
    2. I've never seen the final episode of Newhart. I know! Pop culture sacrilege for our generation! I should probably get on that...

      Delete
    3. There's an even better surprise at the very end... though I'd be surprised if you managed to avoid hearing about it over the years. :-)

      Delete
    4. Yes, I know about that one. In fact, that I think is what makes it a pop culture must. And I haven't seen it!

      Delete
  3. I know what you mean about that kind of pairing, but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Which is driving me nuts. This book looks like a good one to skip, but speaking of video game nostalgia: have you read Ready Player One? It seems like it would be right up your alley.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know there must be more, but I can't pin them down, either. There's a Disney cartoon called Phineas and Ferb that may be a cousin of this trope, but the talking one is by no means as flamboyant and goofy as in the other examples.

      I haven't read RPO, but I'll look into it... Thanks!

      Delete
  4. 'Much of the book was built on flashbacks, and they were rolled out kind of haphazardly. Almost as if Grossman was just making it up on the fly, as each new chapter was written.'

    That is *exactly* how the flashbacks felt. And I did read Steph's rec of RPO and really enjoyed it. YOU had its truly beautiful stand-alone moments but RPO was the far more cohesive and satisfying narrative, overall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's two votes -- off I go to check it out. Maybe amazon will have the first few pages up to whet my whistle... :-)

      Delete
  5. "Part of me wants to wax philosophic about how modern literature seems uncomfortable with straightforwardly heroic personalities."

    I suppose it has to do with the fact that heroic characters have been done so much and writers want to explore different kinds of personalities. Plus there's another thing, if the protagonist must go through change, then he must be imperfect/make mistakes, which is hard to do with these very heroic types.

    About the pairing, the only ones who come to mind at the moment are the friends from Bette Midler's film "Beaches"! BTW, I see this happening in real life again and again: a real outgoing person pairing up with a more introverted one who happens to be a good listener. (It happened to me!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you're right about the appeal of flawed characters who improve through difficulties. Per aspera, ad astra! Russell did learn a few things over the course of his journey.

      My wife loves "Beaches" but I've never sat through more than a few minutes of it... we're right on target with typical gender differences there, I think. :-)

      Delete
  6. Mike and Sulley from Pixar's Monsters movies would be another example. Or even Jake and Elwood from The Blues Brothers. Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street. Siskel and Ebert. Robin Hood and Little John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake and Ellwood are pretty close, but for the others, there isn't really a "silent partner." (Maybe some incarnations of Little John, though.)

      For a few years I was wondering why Squidward from Spongebob seemed like such a familiar character... then I realize he's essentially Bert.

      Delete
    2. You're right. I just started naming tall and squat pairs. Then I realized my error.

      Delete
    3. Ha! The tall-vs-squat thing was a total coincidence with the ones I posted. (But is it a coincidence that in each case it's the squat one that doesn't talk?)

      Delete
  7. The "Buddy-Cop-Show" lives from the opposition of the partners. In a kind of reversed roles you see it in "Vera" (Northumbria woman-cop, and her sidekick Joe Ashworth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes... the archetype here in the States was probably Dragnet's humorless Joe Friday and his more emotional partners. Then there's Murtaugh and Riggs from the Lethal Weapon movies. Murtaugh isn't silent, but he simmers over Riggs' craziness.

      Delete