The Borrower

*2.5 stars. There is something off about this book. I found Lucy and Ian unlikeable, for the most part, and the drawn out lesson from her insanity is so far removed from the narrative that I was just blah by that point. I get why she was upset and I see a very intriguing story hiding beneath this cosmetic one, but it never got there. It was too on the nose at times and other times meandered into meaninglessness. I liked the book references, obviously, and I don't question Makkai's writing talent, but I did suffer her soapbox approach to all her issue-driven parts of the story arch and it was too much for me. She wanted to show some mirroring between the horrors Ian was facing and the insanity he was permitted to endure by allowing him to highjack an adult for a road trip/escape and it just didn't work. It felt like a millennial railing against right wing ideology but having no chops to back it up or present an argument to the contrary...”Bush sucks. Religious zealots suck. Bigotry sucks...” But I (Lucy, Makkai) also suck because I can't face these real issues like an adult or in a meaningful way or even present a narrative between my two lead characters that does much of anything more than babble. I earn some grace because I fall back on books and the world they create and the lessons they hold and in these moments the story attempts to claw its way out...but, alas, I suck because I end right back in my whining, faux allegorical take. “I did a kinda awful thing, but I had reasons!” Meh.

There is just too much in this book, and also I think a bit too little. Let's start with the too much.

The writing style suffers from an abundance of the narrator's meandering thoughts and conjectures. Like most people the narrator (Lucy) has numerous false starts before she says (or doesn't say) something, but here we are given free access to these stumbles; way too much information. Furthermore, Lucy spins out endless scenarios of what other characters may be doing, which bogs down the flow because the author never does anything with these thoughts, just lets them pile up. A character's conjecturing is like highlights in your hair - best when used sparingly and with careful placement, otherwise it's a hot mess.

And speaking of meandering conjectures, Lucy does a lot - A LOT - of this about herself. And here it would generally work because she is on the run, and imaging the outcomes of various actions is logical. But here's where the too much starts to overlap with the too little: we have pages and pages and pages devoted to Lucy's meandering conjectures about what she could do, but she barely does anything at all! She just keeps driving, and aside from stops in Chicago and Pittsburgh this driving is completely aimless. The contrast between her overabundant imaginings and her complete lack of action is perhaps intentional, but it does not make for good reading.So Lucy's inaction brings us to the heart of the too little portion. Lucy AT NO POINT asks Ian why he is running away! They are together a week, most of that time alone in a car, and she never asks him! She assumes she knows why, but even so a real person would still ask a child for an explanation, would try to talk about it again and again until there was some clarity. It makes no sense at all, and when I realized that she was never going to ask him about his reasons, well, for me the book shattered.There were some bright spots in the book, to be sure. First, I really liked the idea that a kid can force an adult into uncomfortable/dangerous/illegal actions and situations by threatening to lie about the adult to authorities. Kids actually have a lot of power over adults, and this explored that dynamic in an interesting way. Second, I liked the literary allusions and poems the author sprinkles throughout; they were fun and made me smile. Third, I liked that the author took on the damaging (and illegal) practice of " reprogramming" gay and lesbian people to become heterosexual. She does a pretty good job of creating a fun, interesting, smart, happy child whose parents are trying to break him to fit into a specific mold that matches their religion, and to show what can be lost if they succeed. I LOVE that she specifically talks about how the Bible's prohibition against homosexuality is in the same sentence as a prohibition against eating shellfish, which is in itself sandwiched among rules about menstruation and crop rotation, and all the latter are freely ignored in modern Western society while the former is used to justify every conceivable physical and psychological torture. We need more contemporary, popular novels that unmask this dangerous hypocrisy, although hopefully better written.

Since writing reviews of popular fiction is neither my day nor my night job, I'm not sure I can be bothered to spend too much time explaining why I disliked this book so intensely. I will, however, sum up my reaction in convenient list form:
–pick a theme, author, PLEASE. She bounced around from one theme to structure the novel to another, with no transitions and no internal logic. If the chapter headings and some of the plot was supposed to mimic the plots of famous children's books, why not spend a weeeeeeeeeee bit of energy to make sure that remains consistent throughout? Nope–we'll bounce from children's books to Russian revolutionaries and there will be nothing inherent in the characters or their stories to link these things compellingly for the reader.
–if you are an unreliable narrator, it would truly help if I gave half a shit whether what you had to say was true or not, and what your motivations might be. As it is, you are so flat and featureless and unconvincing, I stopped caring.
–librarian? Have you ever met a 26-year-old librarian? Trust me they are unlikely to be this bland. Librarianship these days can be truly revolutionary in a way this narrator never appears.
–why realism? This story line begs on its hands a knees for a bit of magical realism or fantasy. Why weigh it down with reality? You could queer this story so convincingly! Why didn't you??
–speaking of queer. Oy. Apply your politics with a sledgehammer much? Again–potentially interesting story line bludgeoned to death by ham-handed writing.
–and, to be fair to the author, I listened to this on audiobook and the narrator's simpy, dingbat voice as she “read” Lucy was infuriating. Made her even less likeable and believable than the mere words on the page managed to do.
Try again.

The characters in this book had very distinct voices, at least in my head. Fun and easy read. Things were wrapped up a little too nicely for my taste, and the Afterward took the shine off her nice ending.

This is a book of people stumbling through life, suddenly finding themselves in places they never thought possible. A liberal arts grad finds herself a librarian in a small town, befriending a boy whose religious parents forbid most literature. And then she sort of kidnaps him. This was an odd book. I felt set up for disaster, but instead the ending was mild and non-confrontational. Maybe I missed something, but I'm not quite sure what others saw in this book.

I loved this story, especially the message that books can save you.

I am a librarian. I love books. I believe books can change lives.

The main character of The Borrower is a librarian. She loves books. She believes books can change lives.

Why, then, did I dislike this book so much?

I don't like my stories to preach to me. I don't like characters in books to be stereotypes.

This book preached to me. The characters in this book were stereotypes.

So this is a strange situation for me. I agree with everything this librarian character in the book stands for, but I did not like this book. Yes, it is funny, but is mean-funny. No, I didn't like the way the boy's family treated the boy, but I also didn't like the librarian's actions, either. And I didn't like the preachy way this book came across to me.

I'd love to see what others thought of this book. Maybe it's just me.