Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
I think the book makes fun of small town life instead of embracing it.
|
I agree with you, although I think it does both. I have a taste for satire of this vintage and while I enjoyed the book well enough and was amused by it, some of it really wasn’t funny on any level. The incident about the judge’s son was nasty and told you everything you needed to know about life in the underclass in the town. I also think with that kind of folksy humor it’s hard to avoid an edge of contempt; it reminded me even of Twain in that respect and I love Twain. Fondness, yes, but you are always aware that the author is putting himself in a position to judge his fellow creatures, and that he knows he’s smarter, if not better, than the people he mocks.
I thought it impossible to escape this, especially as the book was bracketed by an intro and epilogue in which Leacock somehow felt it necessary to parade his academic achievements and make it clear he got out and didn’t go back. I can’t blame him, of course, especially as it’s impossible to deny how stultifying such a town would have been to those with ambition and ability; the upshot, however, is that there’s a sneer in that affection. So this didn’t work for me as pure humor, and as satire it didn’t have enough point. Unlike the judge’s son, he pulled his punches.
Still I did laugh and the understated humor was the best part. One of many funny bits as an example:
Quote:
“I am an old man now, gentleman,” Bagshaw said, “and the time must soon come when I must not only leave politics, but must take my way towards that goal from which no traveler returns.”
There was a deep hush when Bagshaw said this. It was understood to imply that he thought of going to the United States.
|