Bel Canto

I wanted to say a few words about this book because quite a few people enjoyed it and recommended it, and there's been quite a bit of chatter about Bel Canto in the blogosphere.

I gotta say... I didn't like it.

Here are my reasons:
I'm not a big fan of overly romantic, flowery writing, and that's how I found Ann Patchett's writing to be. Her descriptions of music and opera and how Roxanne's voice affects everyone really started to get on my nerves.

The characters were dull, uninspired and two-dimensional. I did not like one single person in that book. But I didn't really dislike anyone either. They were just there. Blah. Other than the fact that yes, remarkably everyone in that house just looooooved opera, what real character development existed? And quite frankly, I thought Patchett portrayed the nationalities of the main hostages in a very cliche manner, which was a real turn-off. I also thought that her knowledge of opera was pretty limited and two-dimensional as well. I would have appreciated more depth in that area, since it was a key element in the novel.

The story was totally unbelievable (Terrorists with hearts of gold? Give me a break). And the ending was ridiculous. Didn't anyone feel that she just kind of threw in a quicky ending just to finish the damn thing? What a disappointment.

I thought that the concept for the novel was intriguing (which is one of the reasons why I read the book), but I just found Patchett's approach to be so juvenile and Pollyanish. I suppose it's the cynic in me. If the book had been harsher and grittier, I might have been able to swallow it.

I recall quite a few people mentioning that this book was based on a true story. Could someone please direct me to this story? I'd like to find out more about the real events and see if they are similar to the novel. Perhaps that will melt my cold, cynical heart.

Comments

[R J Keefe]

"Bel Canto" is indeed based on something that actually happened - at an embassy in Lima, if I'm not mistaken. It was much in the news at the time, and most, if not all, of the hostages were saved.

My inner, a priori critic warned me against this book, despite, as you indicate, its great popularity with "literary" readers.

[bernadette]

Yes, a similar incident occurred in real life and the story is inspired from it. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/peru_12-18.html

I was not a fan of the book either for similar reasons. I actually did like the beginning of the book but by the end I was very frustrated and unsatisfied with it, especially as it shot into a fantasy which became more and more unconvincing with every page.

[patricia]

Thanks, Bernadette. Yes, I too enjoyed the beginning, but as time wore on, the charm wore off.

[eliane]

The unsurpassed Arnon Grunberg has written a fascinating book about the excact same event, but I don't think it's been translated.

[adrienne]

Here's my theory about the ending.

I think her publishers made her write that god-awful epilogue and that's why it seems so trite and contrived. I think it just should have ended with the "rescue."

My sister was annoyed by the fact that you were supposed to begin to feel something like understanding for the hostage-takers, but the book continuously called them "terrorists." They didn't think they were terrorists at all. They thought they were fighting for a legitimate cause. It can of course be argued that anyone with a gun is a terrorist, but if you're meant to be sympathetic...

Anyway, there you have it. This would be why I didn't post when I saw you planned to read the thing.

[adbc]

I haven't read the novel, and now i doubt that i will. I have studied the incident in history class, skimmed through a couple of books written by people who were either hostages or part of the military operation, and remember parts of what was on tv and what my family and people discussed.

It was late 1996 in Lima and at the time, President Fujimori and the operacion "Chavin de Huantar" (named because of the tunnel dug, similar to the passages built by the chavin) were praised very much because there was only one deceased (among the hostages), and a few soldiers. Fujimori's government was the one that ended most of the terrorist attacks in 1992, and the country became somewhat indifferent to how the terrorists were stopped, as long as they were. and he pretty much had (abusing power along the way), so people were shocked when the incident happened, because most of the hostages were important political and notorious figures. after about four months, the military ambushed the terrorists (using the tunnel) while they were playing soccer. in the end, all of the terrorists died in the operation. it can be said that it was considered quite a success and everyone was content with fujimori (at least for a while until his other corrupt dealings were discovered).

i think this page in wikipedia has some information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis

[kimbofo]

I hated this book when I read it too. You can read my review here:

http://kimbofo.typepad.com/readingmatters/2002/06/bel_canto_by_an.html