The World According to Garp

Didn't like the aimlessness or these characters, so that made this a tough one. Irving appears to spell out his message part way through, disguised as a descriptor for a novel that Garp has written: "human sexuality makes farcical our most serious intentions." It was just-in-time clarity, at the very moment where I felt so totally lost at sea that I was ready to give up. It took far too long a time getting to that point. Before Garp really entered into the story it was driven by his mother's misadventures, and I had a struggle with not knowing what the book was about or why I should care. Then there's Garp's bumpy ride through growing up, and his bad decisions I couldn't have lived with. At least there was steady Helen to lean on in show more this section, but soon she was made a part of the morass as well and there was nowhere left to turn. I clung to the farce perception to see me through to the end; only to discover in Irving's afterword that he had no clear idea what this novel was actually about, either. His best guess is that it is about a father's fears for his loved ones.

Like another book I've read recently, D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love", I can appreciate the message without appreciating the method. Presenting unrealistic characters making unrealistic choices is no way to teach me about life. It only shows me that stupid people doing stupid things leads to bad ends. The saving grace in this instance (to the limited extent it works) is that Irving is playing for humour in his sly, subtle way. I'm supposed to laugh through the tragedy at the ridiculous situations and outcomes. I'd be more ready to do that if the decisions and the people making them made any sense. There's also the question of whether several instances of 1978 humour are still in good taste almost fifty years on. The elements I appreciated, I found on the periphery: a view on politics that speaks to our present day, and Irving's thoughts on writing expressed through Garp. show less

“[S]o here it is: an epilogue ‘warning us about the future,’ as T. S. Garp might have imagined it.”

Halfway through John Irving’s [The World According to Garp] it becomes terribly difficult not to wonder how similar Garp’s world is to Irving’s. But Garp himself ridicules any autobiographical instinct in novelists, claiming that such fiction writing is the hallmark of a weak imagination. Of course, part of Garp’s story is his own writing, of which the final installment is a novel titled The World According to Bensenhaver – giving a tongue firmly in the cheek feeling to Garp’s ridicule. There is a sense that Irving is reflecting himself through multiple mirrors, his image refracted smaller and smaller through a funhouse show more hallway, as he tells Garp’s story.

And Garp’s story is a doozy – conceived by a nurse who hates sex so much but wants a child so badly that she rapes a brain damaged soldier with a constant reflexive erection; befriended by former pro football linebacker post-operative transsexual; married to a devoted philanderer; father to a one-armed, one-eyed son who paints (and the story of how the boy’s eye is lost is the kind of fiction that argues against Twain’s proclamation that truth is stranger than fiction); and adoptive father of a daughter with no tongue. With his own writing career budding, Garp’s mother writes an autobiography that seeds a feminist movement, forever casting Garp as an interloper. No matter how he tries he can never emerge from his mother’s shadow, seemingly cast in the whites of her nurse’s uniform rather than grays. And no matter how much he runs or writes or worries, life’s violent waves always carry him out into the tide.

Violence and death’s looming presence permeate Garp’s story, just as they do his writing. In describing Gapr’s first story, Irving says of it, “the history of a city was like the history of a family – there is closeness, and even affection, but death eventually separates everyone from each other.” The only thing that remains is memory, which is how Garp views his own writing. For Garp, and you suspect Irving as he is reflected through the funhouse surfaces, sex is just another chaotic tool that violence and death carry in their repertoire. So much of the Greek-like tragedy that befalls Garp starts or ends with sex, as if there is no more destructive force in the word – a perspective largely in line with his mother’s views. Garp’s story is Greek, a comedy in trees but a tragedy when viewing the forest.

As dark and distasteful as some of the events can be, [The World According to Garp] is a world that demands attention. The character’s eccentricity and depth compels the reader along, even if it’s because you can’t turn away, because you have to look. That depth is Irving’s saving grace, and the book’s.

Bottom Line: An eccentrically populated book; even if a little too morose and over-sexed, the characters’ uniqueness is compelling.

4 bones!!!!! show less

The World According to Garp is a work of genius. The characters are bold, colorful, and outrageous. Every word of this voluminous yet entertaining book is important to the story. There are stories within stories that are easily woven together yet outstanding each in its own way. It frequently is laugh-out-loud funny. The relationship between Garp and his mom is wonderful because there are not too many good novels which extol a positive relationship between a son and his mother. This is a truly enjoyable read.

W: sexual assault, racism, death of a pet, death of a child, injury to a child, misogyny, affairs, murder, other stuff I'm probably forgetting.

I WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS. SCATHING REVIEW INCOMING. DON'T AT ME, IT'S A WASTE OF YOUR TIME.
How the hell is this so popular after all these years?! This aged like milk! This book is -awful.- I soaked up John Irving at too young of an age. I was a weird kid who had few friends, thanks for asking, and read at a college sophomore level by the age of ten. I read this when I was no older than thirteen. More than twenty years later, I picked it up again.
I was surprised at how much I remembered, and horrified to realize how much I had indeed understood and processed at such a young age. show more Didn't bat an eye all those years ago, just dove into this book and didn't come out till I was done. I took it so seriously, too. Grabbed it off my dad's bookshelf and refused to put it down.

In the 70s from what I understand, this was probably hilarious. Now, it's--aged milk, I say. The reeking, ugly kind that will probably never turn into cheese but will attract lots of insects. They'll get stuck in the milk trying to get out, flailing uselessly all the while. The smell will permeate the indoors. This book is comprised of three main devices: affairs and bad sex scenes; misogyny fitting for its time contrasted simultaneously with feminism ahead of its time; and novels within novels. Quit PREACHING about how great your writing is, Irving, and quit shoving in old writing projects into a new novel. Perhaps they're new ideas that simply never worked out, whether for your vibe or otherwise. I do not care. I do not connect with novels within novels, and I consider authors making characters writers to be cheap. You're airing your grievances and celebrating yourself whether you realize it or not by doing this, and all I want is a story. I might think you're great. I might hate you. But I want a story. On a connected note, this book had no business being as long as it was. Could have been two hundred fifty pages, tops. Cut BACK on novels within novels. I do not care. A few pages, three max, gets the point across. Twenty pages at a time is excessive.

So...Jenny's aro-ace and has an understandably huge chip on her shoulder. She must have been seen as so weird and bitterly unlikeable when this book came out. I'm so glad for activists and all the work they have done, from which I too have benefited from as a Queer person. Now, American society views people like Jenny very differently. Back in the seventies, they may not have even had a word for her sexuality, and her desire to be a single mom was clearly suspect. Things she did at times really bothered me. Her perspective on the world--fine. I just did not like anyone in this book except maybe Roberta.

The Ellen Jamesians were stupid. Poor Ellen James. Why was that even in there? What a pointless device that adds nothing. Why demonize Pooh for being an adult baby diaper wearer? Ahhh because "weird back then haha." Why portray women in the way Irving did throughout the novel? It's not funny or diverse at all. None of these women outside of Jenny and Roberta are given personalities really, and I often confused several women for one another. Why portray so many sexual assaults and so much misogyny? What did that add? Why pad out your word count that way, Irving? WHY SO MANY AFFAIRS AND SO MUCH SEX? It felt like a morning chore for these people, only sometimes to satisfy a craving and never to connect with anyone. It wasn't about physically expressing an attraction to someone at all. It had all the emotion and interest of wiping down a kitchen table after eating pancakes for breakfast in a rush to get to work, which is a loss of a situation as I like pancakes a lot and enjoy taking my time if I'm eating them at home. I like sex scenes in books, as evidenced by the erotica I read. The way these were written and placed in the novel caused disdain in me, as did so many other things in the book.

What was even the point of the student accidentally having his penis bitten off? Why did his professor nail him if she hated him in the first place? Who seduced who? Nothing was explained, it just happened, and often off-page. SHOW me so I can be convinced of this insulting, wilting attempt at enemies to lovers shoved into a teacher-student pairing. Why have a kid die simultaneously during this? Why injure another one? WHY DIDN'T THE PARENTS GRIEVE? Why leave so many things unexamined? Entire books could have been written about the guilt most parents would have for their affair inadvertently causing so much physical harm. No, not here. Skip to the parent yapping a halfhearted story to the remaining child while the other parent considers another affair. I hate these people. Why did they have kids, anyway? I never got why Garp and Helen even liked each other enough to get married, let alone reproduce. Oh right, the seventies and blah blah it's what people did. Being a single woman was an uphill climb, especially financially. Ugh. Thankful for further progress in women's rights in society nowadays. Genuine question: was Garp seen as a good father for his time, despite sticking his penis into every woman who crossed his path that he wasn't related to?

And the amount of FANTASIES Irving wrote his characters having. So much sex. SHUT UP. Save it for adult stores. Why was this book mainstream? Was access to sexy books narrow for its time? This book is the opposite of sexy, but was probably considered titillating when people weren't laughing for shock value. Was--was Jenny's funeral considered funny? Oh no. When I first read this, I couldn't understand why Pooh killed anyone. Couldn't understand things past that. The granddaughter showed up out of nowhere and I quietly put the book back on the shelf. Now, I maintain these opinions, and returning it to the library was a huge relief.

I didn't understand or like this book at all, and I'm disappointed it's stayed current for so many people over the years. show less

"Garp war von Natur aus ein Geschichtenerzähler", sagt der Erzähler in John Irvings packendem Roman, und meint damit den Protagonisten des Buches, den Romanautor Garp, der mit Irving einiges gemeinsam hat. "Er konnte sich eine Sache nach der anderen ausdenken, und alles paßte irgendwie zusammen." In Irvings Klassiker (so bezeichnet in einer Ausgabe des amerikanischen Verlages Modern Edition und mit neuem Vorwort des Autors) gibt es viele verrückte Charaktere und grotesque Szenen, und dennoch ist jede Szene irgendwie realistisch und jede Person irgendwie lebendig. Zwar finden sich sicher viele Romanautoren aus Irvings Generation, die einen Roman mit einem Romanautor als Protagonisten besetzt haben, dessen Leben und Bücher sich show more sowohl gegenseitig als auch im vorliegenden Buch spiegeln. Transsexuelle Football-Spieler, Revolverhelden, die sich gegenseitig das Hirn rausschießen, mehrfacher Ehebruch, Bären auf Einrädern, wahnsinnige Feministinnen, die sich die Zunge aus Mitgefühl mit dem gefeierten Opfer einer scheußlichen Vergewaltigung abschneiden -- bei Irving jedoch werden sie alle zu Menschen. Selbst der Bär paßt ins Buch. In einer Schlüsselszene verführt Garps Frau gerade einen jungen Mann, als Garp seine jungen Söhne mit einem rücksichtslosen Autotrick erfreut (eine der wenigen Szenen, die auch in der Filmversion auf wunderschöne, unheimliche und herzzerbrechende Weise realisiert sind). Viele Autoren wären schon mit der Situationskomik zufrieden gewesen, doch bewahrt Irving die Ganzheit dieser Szene, indem der Rest des Buches darauf aufbaut. Die Frage, wie es der Autor schafft, mit solch einer tödlichen Mischung aus Slapstick und Horror bei den Lesern durchzukommen, läßt sich nur folgendermaßen beantworten: das Buch spiegelt genau das wieder, was wir tagein tagaus erleben, mit dem Unterschied, daß Irving eine Kunst daraus macht. In den Worten von Garp ist das Leben "eine verbotene Seifenoper", und wer kann ihm da schon widersprechen? Wer Garp zwanzig Jahre nach dessen Erstveröffentlichung liest, ist verblüfft, auf welch elegante Weise Irving seine bizarre und komplexe Geschichte strukturiert. So z.B. die beiden bekanntesten Episoden des Buches, die vom "Under Toad" ("toad" bedeutet "Kröte" im Englischen und ähnlich klingt auch "tow" das soviel wie "Sog" oder auch "ziehen" bedeutet ) und Garps Geschichte von "The Pension Grillparzer", die wie ein bernsteinfarbenes kafkaeskes Insekt durch den Roman hindurchschimmert. Als Garp seinen Sohn vor dem "undertow", dem Unterstrom, des Meeres warnt, stellt sich sein Sohn ein Monster vor, den "Under Toad", eine Art Kröte, das unter den Wellen lauert um ihn in die Tiefe zu ziehen. Dieses eher erheiternde Mißverständnis wandelt sich bald in etwas Bedrohliches, sobald der Leser die Parallele zu einem Traum in "The Pension Grillparzer" erkennt, in dem der Tod prophezeit wird. Garps letzte Worte sind "Es ist wie ein Traum!" Und Irving, der in Wien studiert hat, machte sich die Ähnlichkeit des englischen "Toad" mit dem deutschen "Tod" zunutze. Bei so viel Tod ist Garp dennoch vor allem eine lebhafte Geschichte und gleichsam eine Bereicherung für die Literatur und für unser Leben. Wie Garps stottender Lehrer es ausdrückt: "voll von Wah-ah-Wahnsinn und Trauer". Das Buch ist nicht nur eine Bereicherung für die Literatur, sondern bereichert auch unser Leben. --Tim Appelo show less

the movie changed my world. i was a teenager when it came out and it blew my mind. i’d never experienced a story like that, frank yet humorous and also gut-wrenchingly sad. all the quirky characters to whom unusual and intense things happen. for me, John Lithgow has always been defined by Roberta.

anyway, the book.

Irving’s prose was solid but didn’t quite mimic the richness of the screen version for me. nonetheless, the book was epic in scope and satisfying. i loved being able to see more into the lives of the people in Garp’s life, especially his mother. it felt like a life, a whole life, when i finished the book. like i had witnessed something special and real and meaningful even if it wasn’t profound.

twists and turns show more throughout the novel gave it an interesting flavor that also served to keep it on the verge of tongue-in-cheek to the end. ironies and metaphors abound that reach out into greater philosophies but they only ask questions or make gentle assumptions. i’m not sure if Irving put a lot his own life into this (i’m fairly certain he did) but it seemed like he might have been writing a whimsical bit of fiction in which he could explore some of his own aspirations and write out or publish some of his own “lesser” works like the excerpts and short stories written by Garp.

if Irving had scratched the surface a little deeper, i think something truly great and timeless would have emerged. the meandering story felt out-of-focus fuzzy or tilt-shifted where only foreground objects were sharp and the host context was an impressionist’s painting. still, this story will stay with me in ways that other, “deeper,” novels will not. show less

a character in this book says about a book within this book (a favorite irving device) that "it feels so true." that's how i feel about garp, even while almost all of the circumstances in this book are on the surface farfetched. in the same way, he makes us laugh at things that - when you think about what he's actually saying - are not funny in the least. his main character (garp) is accused at one point of laughing at other people's tragedies - and then as his own tragedy looms so obviously at the reader (although the exact dimensions aren't foreshadowed), you can't help but laugh as he leads up to it. he makes things seem true that shouldn't be; he makes things funny that aren't.

i love what he's done here; he writes about death and show more loss, love, feminism (and anti-feminism), sexism, anxiety and fear, marriage, monogamy, writing, gender, sexuality, sex/lust and more. he manages to more than touch on all of these things and not do a disservice to any of them. (this, alone, is an accomplishment in my opinion.)

i think he makes an interesting point about how radicalization and extremes of an issue can take the intent and turn it upside down, and move drastically away from the original idea or reason of protest. he uses feminism as his example of this and i think he did a great job - and i consider myself (more or less) to be a radical feminist. so that, too, is an accomplishment in my opinion.

(as an aside - this edition has an egregious typo about 3 pages from the ending where an entire line is replaced with a line half a page in the future. luckily, for me, i was reading this at work - in a bookshop - and could run and find another copy of the book to see what it was supposed to say.)

i really, really liked this. it would probably get 5 stars except i don't love the ending, as i often don't love how irving wraps up his books. (although i do theoretically appreciate the recap we get of most characters, to find out what happened to them later. in the end, though, the story's ending would be better without it, or if it was weaved into the ending.) but like i do with irving's good books, i quickly forget that because the rest of the book is so damned good. some other things that came to mind as i was reading:

in this book, garp writes a book that sounds quite a bit like what i remember another john irving book being like (the 158-pound marriage), although it's been many years since i read that one. but it made me wonder, when in this book, the reviews came in and garp reacted to them, if this was the same sort of response that irving's book received. and if garp's reaction was irving's, or if irving wished he had garp's reaction or wished he didn't.

it's neither here nor there, but i *so* enjoyed the character of jenny fields. actually, i rather liked pretty much every one of the major characters in this book.

the way irving writes about rape and violence is kind of staggeringly good, i think. (and could be triggering to any survivors. be forewarned about that.)

i find it funny that the only passage i marked in this book was one that was referred back to later in the book, and one that irving himself quotes in an afterword (not in this copy) about the book that he wrote 20 years later: "In this dirty-minded world, she thought, you are either somebody's wife or somebody's whore - or fast on your way to becoming one or the other."

familiar irving characters join us in this book - two bears (one rides a unicycle and one a bike - or a motorcycle, i forget), prostituted women, wrestling and wrestlers, books/stories within a book, and new england. i'm sure there's even more. but while you find some things you might expect to in a book by irving, you find so so so much more in this book. so very good. show less