I wasn’t sure what to expect from this, given that my only previous experience with this author came from ‘Like a Fiery Elephant’, his excellent (and quite idiosyncratic) biography of B. S. Johnson. The only suggestion I’d gleaned was that here was a writer wedded to a kind of gentle experimentalism, a playful innovator in the richly English comic vein of Fielding and Defoe; someone who’d be aware of all kinds of formal literary innovations without being over-committed to any one of them. And after picking this up from my local library, I think I was broadly correct. But though I was pleased to find a few surprises along the way here, this remains at heart a fairly conventional bildungsroman with ideas above its station.The book is set in the early 1970s in England, and follows a group of teenagers through their final years of secondary school and the final series of examinations that herald their entrance into adult life. It has a a broad and somewhat sprawling cast of characters which also includes their parents and older siblings, so we also get a glimpse into various different aspects of working life. The most significant of these is the book’s portrayal of the industrial disputes at the Longbridge car factory, a name which has since become synonymous in the UK with the waning power of the trade union movements. Also featured in varying quantities are the IRA, the frequent power blackouts, the rise of punk, and casual racism; it’s pretty much a grab-bag of various themes and events from the ‘70s. The whole thing is framed as part of a conversation in the early ‘00s between two children of the teens featured in the main narrative. It’s an intriguing device, since it allows the author to play with the reader’s expectations of how dreadfully primitive life must have been back then, but oddly this aspect seems to be forgotten within about twenty pages. For the most part the book then takes a variety of forms, ranging from a conventional third-person free indirect discourse to excerpts from diaries and speeches to snippets from school magazines and, at one point, the transcription of a taped conversation. None of this is done to any particular end beyond being an enjoyable and appropriate way of expressing whatever it is the book wants to do at any particular moment. And it is often very enjoyable, and very expressive.And it is basically a very enjoyable read. Oddly, after a few chapters, the historical setting of the book (which in many ways is what defines it at first) seems to recede into the background, and once the focus is fully on the characters it feels like this could be occurring at any point in time. There’s a constant push-and-pull, I think, between the demands of the novel as 'a way of saying things about life back then', and between the book as an expression of something about youth and creativity and growing up and falling in love and all that stuff. And while I don’t think it ever quite uses its setting in a way that is interesting or new, I do think it basically succeeds in the second aspect: it’s the simple fun of the writing that pulls it through, in the end.The problem with the setting is that it is never allowed to simply exist. Longbridge is invoked because it adds an interesting bit of social colour to the background, as if it were a distant building on fire in a landscape painting. Perhaps the most radical suggestion here is that the punk movement was only a kind of shallow, populist backlash against the perceived preening excesses of ‘progressive’ rock, and that it was the more experimental bands of the time that produced the most heartfelt music; but again, all of this lurks somewhat at the periphery of the narrative. What frustrated me most of all is that two of the most interesting female characters in the book are set up only to be knocked down in ways which seem heartlessly cruel, intended as such perhaps to evoke the dark misogyny at the heart of this decade — except that the novel has them suffer only to again relegate them to the sidelines of the plot, their fates conspicuously unresolved. It’s a book which is so packed full of different themes that it’s hard to know where to start when picking it apart. Probably it shouldn’t be picked apart at all; probably it should be left just as it is: messy, odd, frustrating, alluring, and quaint.
Much to my delight, this held up very strong on the second read. Before I re-read it, I browsed through some of the reviews others had written on this site, and it made me nervous - maybe I just loved this book so much because I was young and it's about youth, so I just connected to it out of a common vim and vigor.Not the case.Not only did I love it the second time around, I think I liked it even more.As much as I don't like to compare authors so much, I can't help but describe this as Rushdie meets McEwan. It's got the scope of Rushdie: ensemble "cast," intersecting story lines, his dark humor and his attention to politics. As far as McEwan, the novel is based around singular events and the way they effect the group of people, and it's got that same sort of darkness (much like McEwan, Coe isn't afraid to let bad things happen to his characters).The lead in is a bit confusing, but it starts off with two youngsters in the year 2000-something talking about the history of how their parents know each other. The girl tells the story she knows - which is basically the entire book. It tells of four young men in grade school in England who are close friends: Ben Trotter, Phillip Chase, Doug Anderton & Sean Harding. Ben Trotter and his family are the focus point for most of the story, but it rotates through each of the characters, as well as a few peripherals - their parents, their teachers, their significant others. It takes us through illicit affairs, politics (the IRA, socialists, unions, riots, terrorism), school rivalries, school crushes, and more.The short of it is that this is a coming of age story, but it's not just that: as I said, the scope of this is pretty huge, and even though character development is the driving force behind the story, there's just so much going on overall, though not enough to be distracting or confusing (he's bested Rushdie in that regard, but his scope is also a little more focused).Coe does a really wonderful job at developing his characters, even the ones who don't get a long time to narrate to us. Someone on this site said they didn't care about the characters, but I can't imagine that. Benjamin in particular is easy to relate to, with his obsessive crush on the most popular girl in school, yearnings to be a writer, confusion about politics and love of music.Coe also has a fantastic sense of humor - it's very diverse, ranging from the dark to the slapstick. Some of the most memorable moments come from it.The only thing that irked me on this read was the end of the "story" section. It's basically stream of consciousness from Benjamin's point of view, so there are no pauses, just one long run-on sentence. It's a little exhausting to read.Otherwise, I fell in love with this book all over again.
What do You think about The Rotters' Club (2003)?
Pe fundalul unei Anglii care se scaldă în mări învolburate, "Clubul putregaiurilor" surprinde în adevăratul sens al cuvântului adolescența. Tipicăriile specifice vârstei îmbinate cu o psihologie conturată fin, fac din cartea lui Coe o combinație surprinzătoare între "Freaks and Geeks" și "The Breakfast Club" din punct de vedere al personajelor. Anxietatea și tensiunile tinerilor par a-și avea originea în niște ani '70 tumultoși. O carte despre frici și temeri, despre eșecuri și reușite, despre tristețe și fericire, "Clubul putregaiurilor" emană aerul dulce-acrișor specific vârstei.
—Adelina Gabriela
A glimpse into the decade in which I was born but never knew. Whether teenage to adult, prog rock to punk, Labour to Tory, racist to tolerant or loner to lover this is a sometimes unnecessarily repulsive but often hilarious story of a group of teenagers and a nation growing up and changing - for better or worse.Some reviewers complained of being bogged down by too many characters and interweaving stories but I didn't find this confusing or offputting at all.An enjoyable and easy read which makes you think at the same time.
—Tom
I feel bad about giving this 2 stars, because I love the way Jonathan Coe writes. But unfortunately I only made it to the three quarters mark before I decided not to continue. It's not a bad story, but it's so slow. I just got too bored. If it was a quarter of the length, I'd probably give it 4 stars. It doesn't help that I'm not interested in politics either, this being a major part of the story. I mainly like the way he writes about relationships and interactions, but affair after affair begins to get tiresome in a plot. Just not engaging enough for me, this one.
—Elisa
