Let me start off by saying, I did not like this book but I'm not sure that's the book's fault. There seems to be a whole segment of 'literary fiction' that involves narratives where nothing really happens. That's not fair, things happen, but there's little to no character growth. It seems like the point of these stories is that the characters prove to be exactly as they were presented. The events of the story are just a way for the characters to double down on whatever their flaws are. If that's the point of a story like this, than this was an excellent example of the genre.
The Museum of Human History is billed by the back blurb as being about a young girl, Maeve, who enters a coma after a near drowning. Soon afterwards it becomes apparent that she is no longer aging. She might be in a coma but physically it's like she's frozen at 8 years old. There is also a miracle drug that doesn't prolong life, but does prolong youth. There's an obvious connection there, right? Most of the story is theoretically about connecting the dots between the two using a host of interesting and well developed characters.
Bergman has a real knack for character creation. They are well rounded with fully fleshed back stories. Each character is heart-breakingly human. There are no archetypes here. However, much like most people, these characters don't really change. They behave exactly the way you'd expect from their descriptions. There's no mystery here, just the tragedy of normal human existance with a somewhat speculative-fiction backdrop.
However, that's my issue. I want characters to grow and changed. I like them to develop into something more than what they started as. And that is a personal preference. This could be a very good read for someone who likes the detail character study narratives. That person just isn't me.
No comments:
Post a Comment