Wah. Haven't finished yet due to other things that needed doing. I'll be back...

I am about half way through the book right now. I've had a really hard time getting through it which is unusual for me. I'm actually sort of hoping I might read some thought here that might convince me to finish the book.

My one observation so far: His writing style reminds me a lot of Ayn Rand's style in Atlas Shrugged. I guess both books are about a 50s-60s era world that focuses on industrialiam and is slightly different from our own. But beyond the comparison of the style, both books seem to me to be about some sort of search for meaning using the metaphor of industry. In The Intuitionist , I'm still not sure what the search is for. I guess maybe I could answer this question if I'd finish the book. I'd be curious if anyone else noticed a similarity.

Hopefully, I get a bunch further tonight.

I didn't really enjoy it at all until the last fifty pages or so when I sort of began to get into it (slightly). I'm not sure I got it either. I skimmed a lot of parts, especially all that crap that happened to the reporter. A lot of the events and dialog seemed to be imitations of what the writer thought would sound cool. I'm phrasing this wrong, but there was something about his style--it just felt lacking in passion or something.

Nonian, yes. I had the Atlas Shrugged thought, too, although more in term of the main character and plot than the writing, but I was noticing other things about the writing. The ending was also rather reminiscent of it, once you have the comparison in mind.

I couldn't get past the first seventy pages without the impulse to skim, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion. I'm disappointed because I'd heard wonderful things about the book (and I was one of the people who seconded the suggestion), and while the writing was interesting (kind of dreamy and lyric), I couldn't wrap my head around the world he presented. I've been busy, though, with writing deadlines and the kids, and my only time to read is right before bed, so that's probably part of it. I'll probably lurk and see what everyone else has to say, though, and I'm looking forward to Asher Lev.

Well, the book sucked me into its strange world pretty easily. I loved the humor of a world in which elevators and elevator inspectors are considered to be far more important than in our world. Like Lila Mae going to the most prestigious elevator college in the world (implying there are many others) and the political influence weilded by Lift magazine.

I think the author's creation of a world different from our own worked beyond the humor. The world was familiar, yet not. This allowed the author to focus on issues in a more abstract way. I mean, if the book had been a completely realistic portrayal of the experiences of the first black female firefighter in New York in 1963 (or whatever), the historical specifics of that time and place and the specifics of a particular engine company of a particular fire department would constantly be on the reader's mind. And I'm assuming the author didn't want the historical specifics to distract from the story, the message of the book.

btw, I suck at literary criticism. And I'm bemoaning my failure to use the word "historicity."

I'm another one who had a hard time getting through the book, but I did like the ending.

I'm wondering -- how did people feel about Lila Mae? I certainly admired her, but she holds the world at such a distance that she's a tough point-of-view character. It was almost too hard to get to know her. (I'm not saying all main characters need to be warm and fuzzy, but using someone so remote, and with such high barriers, is a difficult choice.)

here were times (e.g., when describing Lila Mae's hair or the guild's sedans) where I noticed the language more than the image

I definitely felt the same. like the choice of narrator, the language helped keep me at a distance from the story; I was left thinking, "what beautiful writing" more than having any emotional reaction.

I think the author's creation of a world different from our own worked beyond the humor. The world was familiar, yet not. This allowed the author to focus on issues in a more abstract way. I mean, if the book had been a completely realistic portrayal of the experiences of the first black female firefighter in New York in 1963 (or whatever), the historical specifics of that time and place and the specifics of a particular engine company of a particular fire department would constantly be on the reader's mind. And I'm assuming the author didn't want the historical specifics to distract from the story, the message of the book.

Pretty good literary critique as far as I can see. I loved Whitehead's world-building. It reminded me of Ben Katchor's comics which present an urban setting that's familiar and skewed at the same time, with long histories and traditions and little nooks. Same thing I felt watching the beginning of Being John Malkovich with the office located between floors with the low ceiling. This is an imaginary "New York-like" city - known yet strange.

So that was funny and intriguing. Like Anne, I think at first I was tempted to treat it all allegorically. But I don't think it maps that way at all. One of my college professors, said it's a poor sort of metaphor that can only be interpreted one way, and the more I turned it over in my mind I kept seeing the different facets of this world.

At first I was very focused on race and the split between the Empiricists and The Intuitionists. But the more he went on about the elevators I realized, Whitehead kept playing on the elevator shafts as the hollowness at the core of things.

And that one line fairly early on about "verticality having its risks" brought to mind an old black saying about the difference between racist attitudes in the south versus the north: "In the south they don't care about how close you live, as long as you don't get too high. In the north, they don't care about how high up you get, as long as you don't get too close."

Whitehead keeps exploring the metaphorical possibilities of this world he made, turning it over and over in his head and catching different facets. So I think Tom's right - it gave him a freedom to explore notions of integration and how black success is perceived (among other things) in a way that was informed by history, but not bound by it.

I also loved the combination of whimsy and deep research that went into that world building. He really grounded his world in those technical details, so it allowed him some room to treat his characters seriously. Borges or Steven Millhauser are writers who famously riff on ideas like...The Central Importance of Elevator Inspectors and write clever little short stories that are playful brain puzzles. Whitehead takes an idea like that and then really invests some energy in giving it substance and weight.

I didn't like it. I wasn't sure what the author was trying to say with the almost-but-not-quite-real-world, especially set some decades back. The Intuitionist vs Empiricist thing irritated me, because at bottom I couldn't suspend my disbelief long enough to make sense of the Intuitionist approach. Things kept turning out to be less than they were originally made out to be. The guys searching her apartment, the fake-out on whether the journo was off being tortured, the underpinnings of Intuitionism, the significance of Fulton being black (as apparently Reed et al knew after all and didn't care), the whole point of the political race, even the cause of the crash. I couldn't make out what the allegory about race was meant to be, especially since so much of the novel seemed to be explicitly about race (at a certain point in time). I wasn't sure what to get beyond 'race relations sucked before the Civil Rights movement'.

Lila Mae too I found unlikable. I didn't see Intuitionism resonating with her because she turned out to share something with Fulton, I saw it as having more to do with her being as mechanical as the elevators she inspected. (If I can make sense of it at all).

I liked the first line a lot. But ultimately the book left me dissatisfied.

I don't quite know what to make of the book. I liked how it larded its whole world's concerns into a single oddball topic, but I didn't quite succumb to the emotional pull of elevators the way I think I was supposed to. I liked the mystery of who Fulton was, and what that meant to his work, and what his work was really about, but I don't feel as if that mystery was solved at the end.

One thing I really liked was that the Fannie Brooks accident was just an accident, some random thing, and all of its significance was heaped on it by people's interpretations and agendas. That made sense to me, as a feature of how Lila Mae, and everyone else, struggles to make sense of their lives.

But I don't think I ever grasped the point of Theoretical Elevators, or of Intuitionism, so I remained mystified by the end. Anybody care to lay it out for me?