Awkwardly WrittenThe writing in this book can be very awkward, and sometimes can just be plain bad. The narrative voice is also confusing. E.g.: {t'I tell you, one way or another you will be clear of those people. Over population, sir, is the curse of this country.' tAnd it is the truth. }So in the above, 'And it is the truth' seems to come from the narrator. So does the narrator really believe that the disaster of the potato famine was because of over population? Then the narrator seems to switch voice and becomes not fully omniscient but omniscient limited, granting himself or herself access to the mind of the main character, Fergus. But then the point of view seems to randomly switch again throughout the narrative: {tPhobe was nowhere in his field of vision as he was hung over Abner's shoulder like a trussed boar. Perhaps she had left the room. Perhaps she ran upstairs, threw herself on her bed, and covered her ears with pillows so she wouldn't hear his protests as Abner was lugging him from the house. Perhaps she lay very still the way her mother, trying to avoid another rack of coughing, had kept perfectly still on her deathbed, like an tanimal hopelessly caught in the jaws of another, larger animal. }So here we seem to be entering the mind of Phobe now, thinking about how her sick mother was during this scene. It definitely can't come from Fergus's mind, for he wouldn't know the personal details of her sick mother. I think the full omniscient narrator comes back in to this scene. However the author doesn't seem quite confident to bring it back fully, which is evident by the constant use of 'perhaps'. Whoever's point of view it is, it doesn't work. More sloppy point of view shifts: { The other son, Saul, had always had a jeering tendency, but Abner was usually kind, and good at working cattle. Cattle could not be worked by anyone who hated them or feared them or did not comprehend their sensitivity. tYou could have been cattle, or a horse. Or a rabbit. Fox, badger. Anything that lived on the mountain. A stone, a piece of turf, white root of a mustard plant. }I have no idea who is saying or supposed to be thinking the above second paragraph. It almost seems that the narrator has randomly had an idea and just blurted it out. Then you have random italic sentences that are supposed to be the internal thinking of characters. Supposedly they are Fergus's thoughts, maybe, but you're never quite sure since the point of view is thrown all over the place: {tHis breeches were nice yellow whipcord, fresh and new. Beautiful coat and boots and - tYou're no one's keeper now. tPaupers were crowding around the fire like cattle in a storm, the stink of their bodies unfurling in the violent warmth. }Why the italic sentence 'your no one's keeper now' was just blurted out, and who is saying it, I have no idea. Also transitions from dialogue to narrative are done badly: {t'You'll get the relapse, then. I am Murty Larry O'Sullivan. I can sniff the tones to live and ones to die.' t'Which am I?' tBut Warden Conachree came out on the steps, shaking a bell, the sound banging across the stone yard, and Fergus followed Murty into one of the tranks hastily forming. }Then there is figurative language that just does not work: {t'Distinct mind like a polished ax.' }What? { 'Looked like a rabbit with his pink chin and white flecks of beard.' }When does a rabbit have a pink chin? And I wouldn't say they have beards either? Then there is the very awkward:{tHe was standing on warm flags in the farmhouse kitchen, a large room with low beams and a tin-plated range throwing heat that smashed into his chest painfully, as though the last thing he'd been keeping safe had been broken into. tYour soul lived in your chest, did it not. }So above we are told, in a very unskilful way, that Fergus felt heat smashing into his chest and that it broke into something. The writer is then correct that we wouldn't understand what he is talking about, so then adds in the next sentence 'your soul lived in your chest, did it not.' So now we understand that what had been broken into was his soul. Of course it still doesn't make sense and what an awkward way to put something. The plot of this book is decent and seems to be organised quite well. You can tell the author has done his research and uses the language of the time to good effect. Maybe if I read the whole book I might have given a rating of 3, depending if the plot stayed organised. But you really can't give more than that, and, I really can't continue reading such awkward writing.
The Law of Dreams is a reason we read.This was a beautiful book. It describes how a young tenant farmer named Fergus travels across Ireland, struggles to find work in England, and finally takes a ship to America. He experiences very different harsh, real lives, from a group of children turned bandits in order to survive to the ragged, quick-blooded workers building a railroad by cutting through raw earth. Fergus doesn’t just encounter things. He breathes people. He wades through his surroundings. He feels.The narration is very lyrical. Peter Behrens has a great rhythm for interspersing Fergus’s tale with potent but realistic observations. The insights do not seem forced or draw you out of the story. I kept forgetting that Fergus was a teenager, because he had a keen sense of what’s going on without seeming omniscient or presentation. Occasionally the pace got slow or choppy (the ride across the Atlantic was a little tedious), but overall it was easy to keep coming back and diving right in.If you like historical books, this is also a good find. I knew about the Irish potato famine, but the details here are superb. Behrens really gives a sense of what it was like to live at that time and the interaction between classes and countries. He showed what those who had nothing to their name would do to survive. And through Fergus, he showed what they would do to live.A wonderful read. Highly recommended.
What do You think about The Law Of Dreams (2006)?
This is fiction at its most powerful and heart-rendering best. Evocative and atmospheric it breathes afresh - the fetid 'blighted' air of the Great Famine period - adding its own perspective and understanding through an unforgettable main character allowing for as convincing a portrait and fictional representation of a time and place as you might imagine historical fiction capable of producing. Gripping and beautifully written. A modern masterpiece - its spellbinding draw is enough to remake your belief that books are still written as devices to amaze, capture and utterly captivate its readers.
—Keiron Curtis
It's a given that the majority of students learn about Ireland's Great Famine of 1847, the resulting exodus and diaspora, in high school and college history classes. Also, that unless the Famine is part of an individual's personal, family consciousness, much of what is remembered is distilled facts of distant history, despite the staggeringly epic consequences of this tragedy. The Law of Dreams is an original, classic journey story of one man's odyssey from extreme poverty and depridation and the terrors of the Great Famine and typhus outbreak.Fergus is an unlikely hero, a 19th century Odysseus, who battles hunger and bigotry rather than warriors and gods. Peter Behren's breathes raw, lusty, and sometimes brittle air into late nineteenth century Ireland, England, Canada, and the idea of America, without employing tired clichès. In the process of wandering with Fergus, the novel just may prod modern consciences with the plight of the present dayimmigrant searching for a new and better life. A fabulous read
—Danna
This book got some favorable reviews, including one from on-call Irish expert Malachy McCourt... but I had some problems with it. It's set during the Great Hunger in Ireland (circa 1847) when a huge number of Irish people died or emigrated(1 million and 2 million, respectively; it's still the worst famine on record, in terms of numbers), which, believe it or not, happens to be a subject I've read a lot about. I felt the main character managed to slip through things just a bit too easily. Horrible things happen, but he's always just an observer. I suppose it makes sense, the ones who survived managed to avoid all these horrific things; but he manages to do it with fairly little cost to himself. It all seemed too facile. To say more would involve giving away plot points, so I'll stop now. Still worth a look, but not the best I've read on this topic.
—Patrick Lacey
