It seems like most reviewers tore through book, just as I did, and I think that is a testament to D'Agata's style, which is tight and lyrical.
The main topic of this book is about the US government looking to use Yucca Mountain, located just outside of Las Vegas, as a storage facility for our nations plentiful nuclear waste. This topic, interesting enough on its own, then spiderwebs itself into tangentially related topics such as linguistics, the strange, modern fantasy that is Las V...more It seems like most reviewers tore through book, just as I did, and I think that is a testament to D'Agata's style, which is tight and lyrical.
The main topic of this book is about the US government looking to use Yucca Mountain, located just outside of Las Vegas, as a storage facility for our nations plentiful nuclear waste. This topic, interesting enough on its own, then spiderwebs itself into tangentially related topics such as linguistics, the strange, modern fantasy that is Las Vegas, ridiculous politics, suicide, Edvard's Munch's The Scream, our moral obligation towards future generations (if there is any), and what the world as we know it will look like in 10,000 years (for starters, it's gonna be 50 degrees colder because the planet's axis is gradually tilting).
This is not your normal non fiction reading experience. D'Agata seems intent on reshaping the modern essay. It can probably be lumped in with 'new journalism' or 'literary non fiction' or whatever you want to call it. One of the things I found most interesting was his bibliography at the end of the book, which were occasionally coupled with little notes from D'Agata, explaining certain sources, and in some cases, plainly stating that this particular piece of information that was used in the book was wrong and that he had misremembered it. But then why didn't he just correct it in the final text? Why leave the misremembered information in the main text? And he did this a few times in the bibliography, stating that "Oh, well this isn't exactly true," or "I thought this was the case but I learned later...".
I am not pointing this out as "Look at what a bad journalist he is." I'm pointing this out to say, "This is interesting, why did he do it this way? What is he trying to tell the reader?" I think it is linked with some of his ruminations of knowledge vs. wisdom, though I'm not quite sure. Or it's kinda like he tried to see if he could do a investigative research project while relying heavily on his own perceptions, experiences, and memories to carry the book. And he even mentions in the book at one point when someone says he's "Press" and he says he's not "Press" and they ask what exactly he's doing and he responds that he's not sure exactly. Which could seem kinda silly but make no mistake, this thing is well researched and drenched in mind-blowing information. This all sounds like an oxymoron but it works and it's interesting and you should read it. This is the type of book you want your friends to read so you can talk it out afterward.
I also found the notes section at the end of the book interesting and am actually writing a paper on the strategies cnf writers use to form a relationship with readers; his admissions seem to be aimed at maintaining the implicit relationship of trust with his readers, a coming clean of sorts by clarifying both his research and writing process and the creative decisions he made for the sake of the story he aimed to craft. I think our truths work the way he described -- he once thought he spoke to the boy on the hotline, so much so that he hung out with his parents...at one point, this was a truth to him and though he later learned otherwise, he chose to craft the story from his initial mind frame. And, I'm OK with this and even moreso because he tells us he did so in the notes section. I think I would have felt differently if I read this information in a review or later interview. For some reason, because his creative techniques are clarified within the work itself, I'm more OK with that. What do you think? And, have you seen any other works of CNF that are forthcoming about their creative process, whether through an intro, appendix, notes, or within the text itself? Thanks!
ReplyDelete