Is there a term for a boring omniscient narrator who doesn't commit to any judgment and hardly knows anything except who did what and when? This is almost pure slow action and I found it mostly uninteresting. Maybe I'm spoiled, or maybe this is dated. It was published in '66, but takes place, by one late reference to a current Korean war, in the early 50's - I was assuming it was the 60's, you can't tell in such a small town setting. It's a pretty insular story, and mundanely told, of a dull Texas town outside of Fort Worth. It might be a dying town, but the only real inference to that is the literal title, besides all the characters being all washed up, too, so it's actually a town that's already dead, and it sure feels like it, but without any artistry involved. I'm surprised because I liked and related to another novel of his much better, All My Friends Are Going to Be Strangers, which I gave 3 stars. Maybe I'm too old for this teenage coming of age tale, but there are characters of all ages, who are also washed up and hung out to dry, and not really very interesting as presented, even though relatable to some degree. Maybe this is too real, maybe I don't like reality, maybe I'm spoiled not only by better novels, but by movies and television too? Maybe it's also that there are no families in this story, they are almost all lonely individuals with broken families, or in marriages that are horrible. It's kind of lopsided that way, everyone circling down the drain.There are two characters that I found not credible - one who is so mentally handicapped that he literally sweeps streets for miles unless he's physically turned around and brought back to the pool hall. Another is a high school girl - in East Butte Lick Texas - that suddenly, virtually in one paragraph, becomes a schemer out of Dangerous Liaisons, at one point figuring to use at least four different boys in succession to get what she wants. The whole book was amounting to nothing until very late, when there's a bit of poignancy, but it comes across as fairly artificial. The author seems to say that his book sums up life, and it might - lost love, lost dreams, and loss of interest. At points I thought of Kerouac and how much more pleasurable and lively his writing made his young characters, even when staring into the abyss. This was drab and without any spark, and intended that way apparently, but he sure made a dull book. I do have one question, though. Was it truly common that small town kids in the 1950"s, or any other century on earth, raped animals? This author makes it seem totally ordinary, and it was without humor. What's a non-Texan to think? No foreplay or sweet talk or nothin'! Mooo
I was compelled to look at this novel in a different light.The presence of craft was too profound for me not to appreciate this text in the light of creative composition. McMurty constructed for us a dynamic piece of writing in the sense that the reader was indubitably drawn into a story “telling”. In the midst of such a huge cast of characters, all rich with their own particular brand of pitifulness, we are presented with fully fleshed characters. They are a rich blend of bittersweet qualities and uncomfortable candor. Their spiritual depravation as well as human desperation is epitomized throughout scenes that explore the laizzez-faire attitude toward episodes of bestiality, as when the boys attack the livestock in a lusty frenzy, to the common community knowledge that Ruth is having a springing affair with Sonny. No one objects; no one intervenes. Even Sam the Lion suggests to Sonny that someone ought to get something out of Ruth. In addition, every scene in the novel coolly possesses rich detail: the deafening creak of bed-springs that afflicts both Ruth while she and Sonny have relations for the first time as well as when Sonny finds himself interlocked with a pregnant under aged prostitute—their common sense of guilt. McMurty compassionately delivers his story and its set characters with objectivity. He makes no judgment, rather, he tells their story. That led me to the next question: Whose story is this? Sonny is our primary protagonist. The novel begins with Sonny feeling like he is “the only creature in town,” in the beginning of his search for self as a human being and as a young man (5). His search, however, is contained by the limitations of the Thalia box that owns him. Likewise, the story ends with Sonny cast in the veil of Ruth’s tender touch as she “stoked his fingers with hers. After all, he was only a boy (220).” Although it might be interpreted that there is little hope for Sonny, and indeed he may always be contained in the cyclical drama of his small Texas town, he is still, never the less, a boy. By the end of the novel Sonny has indeed grown as we see him take responsibility for the body of Billy and revolt against the complacency of the other men with healthy anger. The question becomes, of course, where will this lead him? Given textual variables of what the reader has learned about the sexual climate of Thalia, there is a pattern of futility that runs deep. Salvation for Sonny—the great west Texas hope—may be the greater debate within this story.
What do You think about The Last Picture Show (2015)?
This really should've been a four-star book. There is so much that has stuck with me in the weeks since it's been read: Ruth's beautiful vulnerability, the depth of disparaging competitiveness between Jacy and her mother, the protective love of Sam the Lion for Billy, and Billy's sweeping through the town, like there exists some prayer of cleaning the place up. Even the town itself, its bleak streets, sucking the life out of anyone fool enough to live there...What didn't stick with me about this book? The names (or an ounce of caring for that matter) of the main characters. Wait, I just looked them up: Sonny and Duane. That's right. I remember now.Chronic hard-ons and complete lack of common sense really are a bad mix. Really. And after two hundred or so pages, it becomes laborious. Good thing this book was short. I know, I know Sonny does manage to pull out a few glaring moments of humanity, but because he rarely seems to do anything with what little heart he has, it just kinda makes him seem spineless. So, because of this, I found myself between the forays into bovine gang-bangs and trysts with cheap prostitutes, thinking and wanting more of the ancillary characters. And that right there is the knife that cuts right to the crux of my feelings after reading this book: utter disappointment.Damn you, Larry McMurtry. I wanted to like this so much.
—Whitney
The fact that Larry McMurtry was name checked by no less an intellectual powerhouse than George W Bush as his favorite author, has for years prejudiced me against him.On seeing the revival of 'The Last Picture Show' earleir this year, my interest was peaked and I ordered the source material, the McMurtry novel the film is based on.I have to say it was one of my better decisions because in my opinion it's a rather unjustly overlooked minor classic.I would describe it as beautifully written but when people write that they're normally talking about rather high-flown, self-conscious prose with plenty of literary allusions, which is the very opposite of beautiful.McMurtry's writing style by contrast is conversational, plain spoken, occasionally poetic,often very funny and frequently touching. His prose struggles, not to impress but to communicate the lives of his characters.He also manages to address quite depressing material, from unhappy marriages to death, in a way that doesn't have us reaching for the razor blade.I suppose there is nothing particularly different about the book. It doesn't play with structure or write from the point of view of a bison or something. It's just too straightforward and honest to be feted in the way some far lesser books are.Yet for me it's left an impression and even though I've never lived in a small Texas town, I feel that this book gives me a very good idea of what it might be like.The film is justifably famous but the novel equals it in many regards.
—Nick
I guess you could call this a coming-of-age novel, but 1) I've never particularly enjoyed coming-of-age novels, and 2) it's not for that aspect of the book that I liked it.I loved this book for the way McMurtry vividly painted the setting of one small town (and consequently, many other small towns like it). I didn't find myself identifying or personally involved with the characters, but that's ok. I took the whole cast of characters in as support for the overall characterization and mood of the place and time.I didn't know there were sequels to this, but I'm not sure I want to read them, for fear that knowing too much would subtract from the magic of the dusty little town in my head.
—Chuybacca
