This is the only Irving novel I've read so far, but I plan to read more in the future. I read "A widow for one year" about a year ago, and I picked it unknowingly in the bookshop without knowing anything about the author, his style or the story. To be honest, I picked it up just because:

a) It was long and it was summer
b) It began with the sentence "One night when she was four and sleeping in the bottom bunk of her bunk bed, Ruth Cole woke to the sound of lovemaking -it was coming from her parents' bedroom".

You can beat a beginning like that one, but it's gonna be hard.

So I did what I'm not used to do: I entered a literary work without any clues whatsoever. It was great.

John Irving is a story-teller, in the widest sense. He takes a character and builds a story around him, normally adding loads of special characters to accompany him. He tells the story with slow, careful writing, paying the right attention to details (the brother's stories and how Ruth memorises the stories through the photographs, just genious) and keeping the reader interested. His stories are long, and he might get a bit tough from time to time, but it's worth it. What I loved the most was how true, how honest, how real his characters were. Neither good nor bad, just people living hard situations and not always taking the right road.

I preferred the first part of the book, which focuses on Ruth's parents relationship, rather than the second one (when Ruth is actually old enough to have her own relationships). That might have been because I liked the parents best, and I found both of them appealing and intriguing, I wanted to know what was wrong with them.

Vandaag stond er een artikel in de krant over dikke boeken, en hoe dat nu weer "in" is. Ik heb nogal vaak de wenkbrauwen gefronst (wie leest er nu een dik boek omdat het een soort statussymbool is?!) maar in één bewering kon ik me helemaal vinden: als het een goed boek is, blijven dikke boeken ons veel langer bij, omdat we er nu eenmaal een tijdlang helemaal in ondergedompeld geweest zijn.

Ik denk dat de dikte van zijn boeken juist de kracht is van John Irving: hij is een rasechte verhalenverteller, die uitgebreid de tijd neemt om over zijn personages te vertellen. Het is een geheel eigen universum waarin de vreemdste gebeurtenissen kunnen plaatsvinden, en de meeste personages wel enkele bizarre kantjes of gewoontes hebben. Naar ik begrijp hier uit Goodreads-reviews, is hij een haat-of-liefde-schrijver, maar om eerlijk te zijn begrijp ik niet goed hoe het nu geen liefde kan zijn.

Vooral het eerste deel van dit boek is typisch Irving, het is dan ook niet verbazingwekkend dat dat deel verfilmd is geweest. Daarna wordt het boek wat rauwer dan ik van Irving gewend ben (en eigenlijk is een Irving-lezer al wat gewend) en een stuk gewelddadiger en wreder (die scène naar de luchthaven met haar vader!). Even had ik ook mijn twijfels bij die ene gebeurtenis ("Gebeurt dit écht?") en vroeg ik me af of die echt nodig was.

Maar Irving slaagt er toch in om het verhaal terug op de rails te krijgen, en meer nog, op het einde moet je concluderen dat het allemaal mooi tesamen past, alsof het niet anders moest zijn.

Het feit dat dit boek zich voor een groot deel in Amsterdam afspeelt, is wel leuk voor een Nederlandstalige lezer. Irving blijkt grondig zijn research te hebben gedaan, al vond ik het wel bizar dat in dit boek zoveel Nederlanders geen woord Engels verstaan (de zin "I did not have sex with him" lijkt me vrij universeel verstaanbaar). Maar hey, misschien praten de Nederlanders in Amsterdam alleen maar Engels tegen Vlamingen.

Zoals gezegd, het derde deel knoopt alles mooi tesamen en uiteindelijk eindigt Irving het boek op dezelfde manier als hij het boek begon. Het is een cirkel en tegelijkertijd een gans leven.
En zo sla je als lezer het boek met een zucht dicht, omdat het nog zo veel langer mocht zijn.

There are few things as seemingly untouched by the real world as a child asleep.

I had read about 60-70 pages and couldn't continue beyond that. I had to push myself to past page 30, but only because my phone was completely dead, and I didn't have access to any of my e-books, and this had been in my physical library for so long.

Let's see...what did I hate about this book? The characters were mostly annoying, and story focused so much on the two dead sons that it seemed as if their names appeared on every page. Extra-marital affairs, masturbation, sex, unhappy marriages--all of these things could be written in a hypnotic, if not, interesting way, but they were not. I understand that the characters' lives were mostly monotonous, but is that what readers were supposed to feel about this book?

I regret having kept this book in my library for so long. I regret having dusted off it so many times when I could have read the first few chapters years ago and chucked it upon realizing how little I would enjoy it, thus saving space in my library for something worth reading and keeping.

Hi hauria d’haver una lleixa per als inacabats.

Irving escriu indubtablement bé, però aquesta novel·la no m’ha enganxat i, a estones, se m’ha fet feixuga. És aquella sensació de voler que l’autor no divagui amb pensaments redundants i vagi al gra que he tingut amb altres obres seves. Que molts personatges siguin alhora escriptors i reflexionin sobre el sentit de les seves obres tampoc hi ha ajudat.

La traducció, molt bona.

This book goes on and on forever. I hated all of the characters. The plot was absolutely rediculous and melodramatic. People kept dying and I just didn't care. I was so relieved when the book ended that I made myself a drink to celebrate.

I’d forgotten what an intoxicating writer John Irving is. His compelling prose has a clarity and starkness that manages to entertain your brain and soul while permanently incorporating his characters and stories into your memory and being.

Irving is not one of those writers who kicks out a new novel every year. His novels are too carefully crafted, too (dare I say it?) literary to be anything less than an evolutionary process. After reading A Widow for One Year, I suspect his books are touchstones in his life, each representing a period in which he explores an idea or a philosophy.

Three in One

Irving divides A Widow for One Year into three major sections. Don’t be misled though. None of the three are meant to stand on their own and each would be meaningless without the others.

Book one takes place in the Hamptons in 1958. It is in this book that the events which will forever mold all of the characters take place. Irving also includes enough foreshadowing to clue us in on what will take place in the next two books. Somehow though, the spoilers he gives us in the first chapter do nothing but enhance the reading experience and when the events unravel, they still manage to be fresh and surprising.

In this first book, Eddie falls irrevocably in love with Marion, Ruth learns to live with death and abandonment, Marion shuts down her heart, and Ted shows himself unable to change despite the traumatic events swirling around him.

In book two, Ruth and Eddie meet as adults in 1990. We meet Hannah, Ruth’s best friend and other interesting characters. Irving takes us on a book publicity tour to Amsterdam and forces us to witness that which we would otherwise avoid.

Book three takes place five years later (in 1995) and is a book of resolutions. Irving wraps up everyone’s plot lines very neatly. He very nearly gives us a “happily ever after” ending for each person. Happy ending or no, there is definitely an ending with no strings left to unravel.

Characters

Perhaps one of the most amazing things about Irving’s writing is his intense characterizations. There are no perfect heroes in Widow for One Year and very few villains. Even those people with whom we have the greatest exasperation show themselves in some aspect to be sympathetic.

Irving’s characters are filled with quirks. They defy any sort of “norm” or stereotype. Indeed, perhaps some of the strength of Irving’s writing is that just when he’s gotten you to believe that a character is a stereotype, he shows you a different side of them or makes them act in a way that is unexpected, yet consistent with the character.

Even the dead have a role in this novel. Marion and Ted’s two sons die four years before the novel begins yet they have a presence that is more than ghostly that permeates every page.

Techniques

Irving uses foreshadowing better than any other author I’ve ever read does. He tells you in first chapter how the book will end, yet no one will want to leave before he finishes telling the tale. Indeed, you’ll hang on every page to figure out how he will get to the ending he has foretold.

Irving also frees his writing from the shackles of chronological time. For all that each book is “set” in a particular year, he freely moves back and forth using both character memories and foreshadowing, making the actual “when” almost irrelevant. A Widow for One Year is a nearly seamless picture of a lifetime. It doesn’t necessarily cover from birth to death, but you do feel you know everything you need to know about each person.

One of the real treats in this novel are the stories-within-the story. Nearly all of the main characters are in the publishing industry, primarily as writers. Irving includes their writings as an integral part of the novel. He includes the complete text of two of Ted’s children’s books and summarizes the plots and themes of the novels of Ruth, Eddie, and Marion. We even get a slight peek at Hannah’s writings.

A Writer’s Life

A Widow for One Year is a book that absolutely resists being summarized in a banal statement such as “This book is about writing.” Or “This book is about sex.” The book is about many things, and is complex enough to have different meanings for different people. However, the complexity of the plot is not reflected in complex writing. It is a very easy book to read and nearly impossible to put down once you’ve started it.

Having made that disclaimer, let me say that yet another delightful part of this book is the comments Irving makes on writers and writing. Irving tells us that writers are creative—they create what they write, and yet, even the most original writer draws on his or her experiences and knowledge. I can’t help but wonder whether some of the book tour scenes, interviews, and articles weren’t drawn from his own experience. At the very least, I think he enjoyed poking fun at some of the publishing industry’s foibles.

Irving’s books have long ranked as some of my favorite novels. The World According to Garp is a must-read, and A Prayer for Owen Meany affected me like no other fiction book I’d ever read. While A Widow for One Year does not surpass A Prayer for Owen Meany, it comes very close.

Man ļoti patīk Ērvinga stils. Lēnām izbaudīju grāmatas lapu pēc lapas. Stāsts bija labs un ik pa laikam bija pārsteidzoši momenti. Neskatoties uz to, ka stāsts sākās ar Marionu, Ediju un Tedu, man tas visu laiku bija stāsts par Rutu un daļas par deviņdesmitajiem man patika vislabāk.

I don't much know how I feel about this one. The first section of the book is completely brilliant. As is the last line. But in between is rushed, contrite, and full of coincidences that seems like cheap ways to move the story along. Irving gets around conflict in the second part of the book by killing people off. Don't want to deal with the Ruth/Ted conflict? Kill him off! Don't want ruth to have to face her husband about what happened in Amsterdam? Kill him off! And apparently, having a baby solves all internal conflict. (Didn't we learn at the beginning of the book how untrue that is? Shouldn't Graham's resemblance to Timothy have some affect on Ruth?) It's particularly frustrating when a book that takes such care to develop its characters and relationships throws them into over the top plot devices and removes their complexity of emotions. The description of Ruth's feelings about widowhood are quickly jumped over and given half-ass descriptions when contrasted with the loving detail given to Eddie's desire, Marion's sorrow, and even the hilarity of Ted's mistress/gardner scene (which is wickedly funny). I keep trying to justify it by thinking that perhaps the different parts are supposed to be reflective of the novelists in the story, the careful character development of Ruth's style, the crime caper of Marion's style. In the end, though, it feels more like an Eddie O'Hare, deeply and painfully realistic when it sticks to the good stuff, but ultimately fake-feeling, forced, and unsatisfying.

This was a great story, with even better characters. I found myself thinking, at several points, how well this male author was able to write the thoughts of a female character, and a very strong one at that. I'd like to read more about his process for doing that. I was a bit disappointed that the story wrapped up so quickly in the last couple of chapters, but perhaps that is because I didn't want it to end. Only just now did I find out it was made into a movie, and I don't think I'd want to see it. It would probably ruin the story for me.

Voluminous but interesting.

So I actually uhhhhhhh dnf'ed this book because of

1. The first page (really?)
2. The second page
3. The chapter that has the word 'masturbating' in it

I've READ worse books than this but it's just, this one feels too uncomfortable for me to continue., I mean THAT TOPIC ALREADY?!?!? on what... THE FIRST PAGE ??? I gave up right then and there.

John Irving always writes characters which annoy me, possibly because they're more human than I'd like, and the sense of humor he has often leaves me uncomfortable. The only other author I can say this about is possibly Nicholson Baker. What they have in common is that nothing is truly sacred but everything is respected and revered in a sense. I loved the characters but wished they were wiser, I loved the story but it felt incomplte in a way and the book didn't end as I would have liked - but I WAS HOOKED ALL THE WAY THROUGH. What can I say, I like John Irving.