A Town Like Alice

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Book suggested for rating by writeby.

[Jay P 0]

Overall, I liked this book, but I think there's something missing from part of it, and this made quite an impression on me when I read it.

The book divides into two parts: roughly, during World War II, and then after the war.

The first part I loved. The hero and heroine are presented as admirable and principled people who find themselves in life-or-death situations. And they admirably rise to meet them. The emergency situations created by the war end up bringing out the best in these people.

One way I that I can always sum up my reaction to a work of fiction is by noticing whether or not I care about what happens to the characters. Am I on the edge of my seat, rooting for them to succeed? Or could I not care less about what becomes of them? This book fits clearly into the first category for me.

The other thing about the first part of the book is that there's constant conflict. One situation after another comes up, that the hero or heroine has to do something about. Conflict drives the plot.

But then comes the second part of the book.

Warning - the rest of my comments are sort of a spoiler, in that I'll probably give away how the first part turns out.....

And what I remember about the second part of the book is that it's anti-climactic. The important conflicts have already been solved. There is no action like there was in the first part. It's more like a description of everyday events in the lives of the main characters. They do have to make decisions, it's true, but there are no big conflicts. It seems like good fiction should have conflict driving it. Put the characters into really difficult situations and show what they're made of.

The first part was a real page-turner - good romantic fiction, I'd say. But the second part was the sort of thing I could easily put down and come back to later. I'm not enough of a student of literature to be able to characterize it: I would not call it naturalism, because the characters are shown as purposeful people with volition.

It would almost be like if Ayn Rand had written a sequal to The Fountainhead, which was mostly a description of Roark and Dominique's happy married life, and a matter-of-fact description of buildings he did. It would be a pleasant read, but that's it. It's not the sort of fiction she would have written.

Perhaps the first/second part dichotomy is the author's way of showing what a big life-changing event World War II was to the people who were caught up in it. Because that's undoubtedly the way many real people saw it: perhaps the war was such a dramatic, conflict-filled event, that it overshadowed all that came later.

On the strength of this book's first part though, I'd recommend it, and overall, it's a good book.

[A.West 0]

I liked it, but only vaguely remember it (read it once 10 years ago). An Australian friend recommended it to me. I enjoyed the economic development story in the second half of the book, and admired the purposefulness of the lead character.

[softwareGuru 0]

I enjoyed the economic development story in the second half of the book, and admired the purposefulness of the lead character.

Me too. I remember thinking that the second half should be recommended reading for Economics course. It answers the question: "How is wealth created". It does so in a small way, in the sense that it is not a story of (say) a steel titan. Yet, in some ways, this type of story is important as well.

I'd agree that it is like reading two separate books.

Shute seems to be good at the "small hero" character (in the O. Henry mode?)

Stephen, Why not add "Trustee from the Toolroom -Nevil Shute". That's a book I loved.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen, Why not add "Trustee from the Toolroom -Nevil Shute". That's a book I loved.

←

This is one of Betsy's favorites. I'll be happy to add it, but next time it is best to make suggestions in the "Add ..." forum. Otherwise, it is too easy for me to miss it.