![]() |
Accidents ambush the unsuspecting, often violently, just like love. Opening to The Gargoyle by Andrew Davidson. |
The narrator ought to be sympathetic. We should feel for him. He has no parents. No close friends. He is recovering from a terrible car accident that left him severely burned. So severe that toes, fingers and other appendages were burned completely off. He spends weeks in a coma and months in the hospital recovering. One by one, those who knew him stop buy to visit never to return after seeing how grotesquely deformed he has become.
We should feel bad for him.
But he's repulsive. He made his fortune producing pornography, first as an actor then as a director/producer. He never formed a real relationship with anyone. He was high on cocaine at the time of his accident, so he has no one to blame but himself. He's mean to the hospital staff who try to help him recover. Ungrateful at every turn and angry at the world around him.
We should believe the story. The narration of recovery is exact, detailed. It reads like the author is writing something he once lived. The medical procedures and the psychological states of mind the narrator goes through are harrowing reading, but every moment rings true. Even the fact that its narrator never becomes sympathetic adds to the novel's realism.
Enter Marianne Engel, a former patient in the psychiatric ward of the same hospital. She begins to make regular visits. She claims she knows the narrator, that they share a history he does not remember, that he has been burned twice before. She claims to have met the narrator when she was a scribe in a German convent, sometime in the late 14th century. The narrator was hidden in the convent while he recovered from his first set of burns, received in battle. His cohorts, mercenaries sworn never to leave the group except in death, thought him mortally wounded, but under Marianne Engel's care he recovered. The two fell in love and left the convent together trying to escape the mercenaries and start a new life together.
Hard to believe.
But it all works. Mr. Davidson's The Gargoyle draws the reader into the story the way an excellent thriller does, but without car chases or cliff-hanging escapades. The Gargoyle takes its time. Before we meet Marianne Engel, we have accompanied the narrator through his accident and the early stages of his treatment and recovery. We have come to empathize with him even though we don't sympathize. Marianne reveals her history, or what she believes is her history, slowly, through flashbacks, as she tells the narrator the their life together. He always suspects she is delusional, as do we, but neither of us can help but become involved in her tale. Both his narration and hers could stand alone and hold the reader's interest without fail. Together each tempts the reader to skim one alternating chapter to find out what happens next. Will the couple in the past find safe harbor? Will the couple in the present find a way to life with each other's medical conditions?
Unfortunately, The Gargoyle falls short in the end. Once an author has his readers completely hooked temptations loom. Just how much are we willing to believe? Once everything is firmly grounded in reality, can the book enter the fantastic? Had the novel stopped twenty pages earlier, maybe even ten pages earlier, I would be singing its praises without reservations. But Mr. Davidson just went that little extra step too far. From point A to point N, when he should have stopped at point M. A minor quibble maybe, but endings are as important as beginnings. Whether or not we sympathize, we need to believe.

9 comments:
I loved this book, but was also rather flummoxed by the ending. I agree that the narrator was just an awful human being, but the author was able to make him somewhat easy to relate to after awhile.I have passed this book on to several friends and they have all loved it too. it was such a strange read, but ultimately very entertaining. Great review!
I still can't decide if I should read this book or not. I am always fascinated by the reviews, but ultimately I am afraid that I won't be able to stomach the descriptions.
So I will read this, but stop before the actual ending... :)
It has been a long time since I read this book so I have forgotten the finer details, but I remember having a love/hate relationship with this book. I loved the beginning and still remember those amazing/gruesome burns descriptions, but I seem to remember finding the side stories/historical bits lacking. Unfortunately I can't remember why!
Oh the reviews of this one have run the gammut! Love, hate and everything in between. EW listed it as one of the worst books the year it came out. So I just moved on by. Your review, even though it is really really good, doesn't help me in my decision. Great until the end? That makes me throw things.
Zibilee, We had the same reaction to the book. I loved it up to the very last minute, but the ending struck me as too fanciful for the rest of the book.
Molly, I think you should skip it. The author pulls no punches when describing burn treatments. It's harrowing stuff.
Trisha, I suggest tearing the last five pages out of your book before reading.
farmlanebooks, I enjoyed the historial flashbacks as much as the main narration. If the novel had dealt with Marianne's schizophrenia in a more realistic way in the end, I would be 100% positive in my review instead of 98%.
Sandy, I think you'd enjoy this book. It's very close to Stephen King territory.
There’s been a lot of buzz about this one, and I’m tempted. The problem is that although I love to see operations on TV and have no problem with all the blood, suction and moving about of internal organs, there's two things I can't cope with: burns and broken limbs.
So I’m afraid that the realistic descriptions of the medical procedures will be a bit too much for me :S
Hmmm....this one never sounded like my style, and I think your post confirmed it. A great review CB! :)
It's been a while since I've read this, so I don't remember the ending in any great detail, but I don't remember having a problem with it, and I did like that it didn't end with a huge epiphany/conversion.
Also, I thought your point about empathizing vs. sympathizing was right on, and very eloquently put.
Post a Comment