I hate that I loved it. However, I’m happy that I finished it. It was not very good. John Irving was 25 when he wrote this novel as a master thesis while being a student of Kurt Vonnegut at the University of Iowa between 1965 and 1967. Both of them wrote about the Second World War as if they were there, although only one of them actually was. The detail and storyline of German and Russian occupation is a beautifully depicted chaos in Irving’s Setting Free The Bears, however, that is the word I would use to describe Mr.Irving’s first novel: chaotic.
The novel is broken down into three parts. Unlike the rest of John Irving’s novels that I’ve read, the chapters in this book are usually only one to five pages. This can be a good thing and can make it easy for central ideas to move a story along quickly, but the problem is, the first part is what I would describe as ‘over-edited.’ I am certain that in his head, the first 100 pages of this book sung to John Irving. However, that is not the case with the average reader. The main problem with this book is that the language is confusing, not-straightforward, complicated for no reason, and oftentimes hyper-intellectual. It’s as if a British person was writing in English as a second language (Not to point out that it takes place in Vienna where I don’t think they speak English). I don’t feel like I’m reading a book but instead an over recited encyclopedia of types of animals, fragmented thoughts and actions, and the occasional glimpse at a concrete story. There are plenty of anecdotes that are worthy of reciting, such as, ” Good habits are worth being fanatical about”, poetry and even moments that will relish the reader, however, this has to be sought after and often time re-read in order to enjoy.
The first chapter is effective at making you want to read on, describing the one character that is not generically bland, Siggy. The story is about two young men (Siggy and Graff) who decide to ‘leave it all behind’ on a motorcycle but get sidetracked by visiting a zoo. It’s enjoyable but he makes such a simple storyline complicated. It’s just overwritten. There is a major plot point that happens that I didn’t digest until a hundred pages later. The depictions of women are chauvinistic but are passable for the time period it was written. I have a rule with writers, especially first novels, that the beginning of any book is where the writer is worst. You gain experience through writing a novel, and by the end, you are 300 pages better than you were when you started. This book is a perfect example of that theory. It gets better. Often times I didn’t know what was happening in part one and I don’t think it’s because I’m stupid.
The second Act is about Siggy’s notebook in which he depicts scouting out the zoo to release all the animals and a recount of his family’s biography during the war. It sometimes feels like two books squeezed into one. A war novel and heist, but then again, Vonnegut managed to make a war novel and a science fiction work seamlessly, so it’s not unforgivable. The characters are questionable, but a few of them break the ice enough to be remembered. It is John Irving’s storytelling that rises above and is able to convey intimate moments that leave the reader a better person. I had no idea what was going on during the war and it was an intrusive backdrop. If I had a better grasp of the occupations I might have had a better experience, but the story of Siggy’s past is commendably said. It could be written better, but sometimes things don’t need to be written perfectly to convey human flaws and choices. He does a great job of observing a character degrade into madness. This part is occasionally fun and I did enjoy reading it even though I don’t feel like I got half of it.
The final part was the opposite of the first, rushed. There is a lot of ‘action’ during this part but it often falls flat. I was able to close the book in the middle of the climax and go to bed. It never gets simpler to read, and he had not grasped the ability to write action yet. The book is not boring. As he wrote, “detail is the difference” I again think he could picture it in his head, but I had no idea what 9/10 of the animals he wrote about were. What is wrong with Monkey, Bear, Chicken, Snake, Elephant? I do not have time to look up an animal that will be mentioned once and I will never hear about it again for as long as I live. The romance in this story is good, he is always very good at that and its G-rated nature only adds to the imagination (Not a single frotting swear in the whole book).
I heard one review calling Irving ‘a master storyteller’ from the start, but I am honestly surprised that he wrote such compelling stories such as The Cider House Rules and A Prayer For Owen Meany by what he started with. We all have to start somewhere, and it gives me hope that his next novel will show improvement. I am trying to understand his process of growth as a writer and it appears that there is a lot of room for that in his first book.
A quote from the book to sum it up, How incomplete. How funny. How simple. And also, a great pity.
59/100
Ben Bonkoske 