In The Fall
Jeffrey Lent
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD! This is a discussion amongst participants of ReadLiterature.Com's reading group. Since they have all read the book, they discuss it freely - including it's twists, turns, and the ending. If you have also read the book, you might enjoy the comments of other readers. But if you haven't and intend to do so, then the following discussion might ruin it for you.
Consensus: 
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 4/11/2001, 12:06:42
Here are some questions and statements (some of them intentionally provocative) to get the discussion of Jeffrey Lent's In the Fall underway. I do not expect you to go into all the statements or to answer all the questions - though you are welcome of course. They are primarily meant to get the discussion going. The statements, by the way, do NOT necessarily reflect my own point of view.
Statements
1. The entire middle section could be removed without any damage to the book - indeed it would be much improved.
2. What the novel shows is that you cannot run from the forces that shaped you and your ancestors.
3. Secrets and secrecy are an important theme in the novel.
4. The portrait of Alex is a magnificent portrayal of evil.
5. Characters like Prue in section 1 and Joey in section 3 speak far too wisely for their age and circumstances to be entirely convincing.
6. The character of Daphne is even worse than Joey's; her presence rather spoils section 3.
7. The ending shows that the author is optimistic about the future of interracial relations.
Questions
8. Why is the book called In the Fall?
9. Why is the landscape (especially in sections 1 and 3) described in such painstaking detail?
10. Horses and dogs both figure rather prominently in the novel. To what purpose?
11. Why is the murder of Marthe the turning point for Leah?
@
Posted by Lale on 4/11/2001, 13:39:18
Dear Anna,
I finished the book last night. This morning when I woke up, I wrote down everything that was on my mind about the book. I wanted to do that before I read anybody else's thoughts. So, fresh out of the book, I have a text of my thoughts and feelings. I will put that in here before I start working on your excellent points. Agreed?
So, here is my review, before reading your posting:
~~~
Secrets. Sex and violence. Suicide, homicide. Bootlegging, little mafia. Rape, incest. Race. War. Torture, murder. Hidden letters, hidden money. Revenge. Love at first sight. Not in this order.
What was not in this book? I remember the movie The Wonder Boys (Paramount Pictures, 2000, Michael Douglas, Tobey Maguire) in which a literature professor/author tells his students that writing a book is all about making choices, and that you cannot put in everything you want to. Then one of his students reads the huge manuscript of his never-ending book-in-progress and reminds him his own words about being selective. Jeffrey Lent ought to have made some eliminations. He has put in everything that crossed his mind. I fear he won't have any material left for a second book.
What was that superfluous part about the old man Henri Ballou killing his old wife Marthe? Because he believed she was murdering baby girls? It was unnecessary and unbelievable. Marthe helped Leah deliver two baby girls and a baby boy, when in fact all that time she was a baby killer, or so her husband thought, and he killed her. A little over the board, I think. There were a few other sub-stories that we could have done without.
The book started with a "hook", a man burying something in his backyard. It turned out to be just money, but that's ok, still a good start. Then we had three parts to the novel. The first part began with the story of Norman and Leah, interesting enough but dragged on and on and on. I thought Leah was far too philosophical for an inexperienced, uneducated sixteen-year-old. The weakest link of this part was Leah talking to herself, and her daughters finding out things about her trip from these monologues in paralytic stance. Survival of Alex and the details of Peter's torture and murder are all revealed through Leah's overheard ramblings. A little unrealistic. I would have preferred a journal, a letter. When people are in unconscious ravings, their revelations are not intelligible, not properly sequenced or detailed.
Then the second part, a clean break from the first part, less interesting but nevertheless carried the book on. During the entire second part I kept on wondering what made a young kid who grew up in a farm, in a decent, loving, caring family, not so much to escape from that life but to buy a knife first thing after he escaped. The knife, the whisky, the cigarettes, the prostitute, all in the first day. And on his second day he tells the restaurant owner that he knows something [illegal] is going on in there and that he wants to be a part of it. A little too in-tune with the underground world for a teenager coming from a farm.
There were also a few poorly explained parts in the lives of Joey and Jamie. One, for instance, is the part when Joey is pregnant and tells Jamie that she had not slept with the Sloane guy she ran away with. Hmmm. Even if we believe the abstinence during those couple of months spent in the company of Sloane's lady friend and in his summer cottage, well, there is still those 4 days she spent with him even before deciding to go away with him. But of course, she had to be pure to secure their future happy family life, so Mr. Lent kindly asks us to go along with Joey's rendition.
Then comes part three. Foster and the dogs. Charming boy. Just like his grandmother Leah, he is also very precocious for a sixteen-year-old teenager raised in near seclusion. A beautiful girl waiting to introduce him to love was a convenient Hollywood touch.
Everything Foster says and does after his father dies is very mature, very measured, very unlikely of a young boy. But we'll go along with that. He is smart, granted. He goes to South to find out about his grandmother. He does. But until he does, Jeffrey Lent tortures us with unnecessary stretches of the story, to build up the suspense I guess. I felt like watching a late night movie on television. The last half hour of the movie there are commercials inserted, getting more frequent and longer. You are tired, you just want to watch the end of the movie and go to bed. The network knows that you are trapped so they plug in as many ads as they can. The end of the book was exactly like that. One distraction after another before we hear the final story.
Speaking of movies, this book was clearly written with a movie in mind. A trilogy. Sort of like The Godfather. It has all the elements of a "successful" Hollywood movie. Jamie can be played by Johnny Depp. Marlon Brando would make an excellent Alex Mebane. I haven't figured out the other characters yet. But I am sure movie makers have already mapped all that out.
The philosophical ponderings, short but frequent, were annoying. "He trusts her. He doesn't. She knows he doesn't. He knows she does but doesn't know. She sees it in him. She sees it in her. She knows he will see it too later. But she doesn't know that she knows it now." Every page is full of analysis, sometimes meaningful, sometimes not but often tiresome.
I think this could have been a great book had the author kept it compact and free of decorations. I give three hearts for the effort. I do not regret having read it but it is just not a book I would recommend my friends. I simply cannot say "you have to read this, it is brilliant!" It is brilliant at times but at a cost. You also have to suffer through redundant parts which the author couldn't part with.
~~~
Now I will move onto Anna's statements and questions.
Lale
@
Posted by Lale on 4/11/2001, 14:44:29
Statements
1. The entire middle section could be removed without any damage to the book - indeed it would be much improved.
Absolutely. If Mr. Lent wanted to tell the story of the middle section, he could have made it into another book. I have never seen sections of a book so disconnected.
It could even have been Jamie who went after his mother's story.
2. What the novel shows is that you cannot run from the forces that shaped you and your ancestors.
I think the point of the book was that past should be left past.
3. Secrets and secrecy are an important theme in the novel.
Are they ever! Some of them even too forced, to the point of unrealistic.
4. The portrait of Alex is a magnificent portrayal of evil.
Yes, indeed. He was very successfully disgusting. The fact that we were even made to feel compassion for him at some points was brilliant.
5. Characters like Prue in section 1 and Joey in section 3 speak far too wisely for their age and circumstances to be entirely convincing.
Too wise, too smart. Everyone is a philosopher. I found Leah and Foster even more so. Merely 16-year-old people are acting/talking as if they are Dalai Lama.
6. The character of Daphne is even worse than Joey's; her presence rather spoils section 3.
Ridiculous. Just put in there for the sensation, for extending the revelation of the end of the book. An unbelievable character. Film makers will like it.
7. The ending shows that the author is optimistic about the future of interracial relations.
I don't know. I will have to think about that. However, I think he did manage to bring a relatively unknown aspect of the slavery: The perpetual mating and incest. I did know that the men repeatedly raped their slave women but I had never thought of this occurring in such close family relations, generation after generation.
Questions
8. Why is the book called In the Fall?
Falling, falling, falling. The truth getting uglier and uglier. Leah falling. Jamie falling. Foster stopping the fall.
9. Why is the landscape (especially in sections 1 and 3) described in such painstaking detail?
Dawn was wet, dusk was warm, grass was cool, air was still; every single day is described. Sometimes it was pretty, sometimes too much. The farm life cannot be delivered without descriptions, so I accepted that. Foster's becoming one with the woods and the dogs... I guess it just have to be described. I wouldn't complain if the book was not that darn long.
10. Horses and dogs both figure rather prominently in the novel. To what purpose?
I will skip this one. Let Dave ponder this ;-)
11. Why is the murder of Marthe the turning point for Leah?
I guess because she (thought she) murdered someone, and Marthe, a woman who made Leah a mom three times and was kind to her, was murdered. Both cases were "murder in the family". Also, she probably put Marthe in place of her mother and when Marthe died she needed to find her real mother.
The trigger didn't have to be Marthe. There was that black boxer/wrestler she met, the first black person she met since leaving home. The Marthe business could have been skipped, I thought.
And the boxer: I thought he would make another appearance later on but he didn't. He had secrets of his own. He was saving his money for something that was purposely kept hidden from us. That never became clear, just one of the money unconcluded details.
What do you guys think of the future career of Jeffrey Lent as an author?
Lale
@
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 4/11/2001, 19:44:32
Well, Lale, I do hope that Dave is going to provide us with some fireworks, because I agree with practically everything you say. I would give the book slightly higher ratings, however, for it does contain excellent passages. But unfortunately I find the novel too uneven to be quite a success. The entire middle part is superfluous. It adds nothing whatsoever, for whatever you need to know about Jamie you find out from Foster in section 3. The women characters I find progressively unconvincing. Leah, Joey and Daphne all act towards men as though they have been on the pill since age 12 and have just read Great Sex for Teenagers in the latest issue of Cosmo. Really. And these are women of my (great-)grandmother's generation.
I do find the secrets theme interesting. I think the book means to show that you cannot run away from your past (as Jamie does) before you have confronted it in its entirety and come to terms with it. This is of course part of the wider theme of confronting the issue of slavery. You cannot even begin to deal with that as a nation, unless you are willing to stare every nasty detail from the past in the face.
The ending is meant to be positive: the impeccably white daughter of cruel slave owners runs off with the descendant of slaves. But to be frank, it is too glib for me: beautiful young hero and heroine set out towards the setting sun for the American West, land of wide open spaces and opportunity not tainted by a history of slavery (we won't mention the Native Americans). Yes, too much Hollywood.
By the way Lale, if they do as you say and cast Johnny Depp as Jamie, I won't mind them pasting the middle section back in.
@
Posted by Michael Sympson on 5/11/2001, 0:17:50
Am I glad that I haven't read it. Thank you to you all.
Michael
@
Posted by Dave on 5/11/2001, 5:24:34
Yuht! It's me! Well, Anna and Lale, I have just read all of your comments and find them very insightful. Lale, your review is so well thought out and I agree with the majority of your comments, yours too Anna. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think overall I rate the quality of the book just slightly higher than either of you. I'm thinking like 4 stars for sure. And yet, for the first 2 lengthy-as-hell chapters I was convinced that the average person could have ate a bowl of alphabet soup and randomly REGURGITATED a better story than this! But I stuck with the thing and actually ended up really enjoying it.
I'll make a few rapid fire comments. Lale, one thing I agree wholeheartedly on is your comment that Jamie seems to flee a relatively "nurturing" peaceful home life and then get possessed of the devil in Bethlehem way too quickly, it does seem overly contrived that he somehow sprouts this seedy gangster-savvy nature overnight. When he walloped that hoodlum guy over the head with the mallet and then shishkabobbed Victor's hand to the table (a scene right out of The Godfather by the way)... I was not only horrified, but thought that this was quite the radical behavior for someone whose previous experiences of violence consisted of... digging potatoes? Could it be that when he saw his dead mother in Norman's arms, something flipped in the young Jamie, later to be exhibited in this violent, forceful nature? Quite possible. Also, when Mebane recounts the scene of Leah's visit to Sweetboro... I could not buy the idea of her walking upstairs so matter-of-factly... I think she would have tried haggling with him somehow for the information she wanted. And then she stays in bed there wrapped up in the sheets as though she'd gladly go another round if he wanted to? Hello? (Granted, Mebane was the narrator of this account, not Lent, so we don't really know if that is what happened anyway). But still.
There are many superfluous parts to this book, but I think they are interspersed all over the place, rather than saying Part II as a whole could have been eliminated. I think "shortening" it would be better than eliminating it. Because (kids, never start a sentence with because)... because I think that Lent wants to put a distance between the Norman/Leah story, and the Foster/Daphne story to show us that it is possible to "break the mold" (I can't think of a better term) of our generational curses. "Family secrets" might be a synonym. But this can only be done by someone who CHOOSES to stand outside of his anger or resentment, and face the past objectively. To stare at the portrait of the past (as he does at the home of Pru and Abby) until those portraits speak to you. To look squarely and rationally at the cause of pain (in this case, clearly personified in Alexander Mebane) and not SHOOT THE GUY, but actually listen to him. Hear him out. Remember the scene where Mebane actually wants Foster to kill him, and instead, Foster says that the meanest thing he could do was to let Mebane go on living with himself? That was the moment when the mold was broken, and Foster was not only free of the past, but in a sense, he "atoned" for his mother's pain in the only way possible. By letting that past live with itself. Everyone in this story seems to have some sort of overly precocious awareness of things... but Foster is the only one that to me was really believable. I felt something deeply special about him ever since he was out tackling that impossible snowbank in the drive while contemplating his mother and sister dying in the house. I pictured the tears freezing on his face. And when Jamie comes out with the news, and tells him he can stop, he continued to dig at the snow "as if into his own bursting heart." Foster is the only character who is properly introspective in this whole story. Jamie tries to run or hide from the past. His end is tragic. Foster purposefully runs INTO the past. His end is at least... hopeful.
Are the Ballous superfluous? I don't reckon I know the straightahead answer to that. I personally felt that Leah's determination to re-unite with her mother began NOT at the murder of Marthe Ballou, but rather, at the time when she was in labor and left alone in the room... and felt "that need a brittle ache, a gorge in her soul: her mother." I thought this was a very realistic time for Leah to think of her mother, and for her own northern exile to stike deep into her heart. From this point on, I think she's obsessed with the desire to see her mother again, and then the death of Marthe is the catalyst that determines her journey. All of it makes sense to me, and seems relevant.
Why did Lent call this book "In The Fall"? Good question. It seems very obscure of a title. In the interview I found on the web, he says he is referring to the fall of man, as in, the book of Genesis in the Bible. But still, he does not explain how that relates to the book. I don't know.
Why are there so many horses and dogs? I think simply because Lent himself is such an avid outdoorsmen, he owns both horses and dogs and spends so much time with them in real life that they naturally ended up in his fiction.
In closing (for now), something must be said about the writing style itself. Seriously, have any of you ever encountered such strange and INCONSISTENT style? Like I said, the first 2 chapters especially were like.... pardon me? Am I supposed to fill in the blanks? Also, (this is a petty matter for sure) but did you notice that he has certain words that he likes to use repeatedly? Like, the word "pellucid"? How about "someways". Or, in the first half of the book I counted three times when he used the word "patina". PATINA: "a green film formed on copper and bronze by long exposure to moist air." Now there's a household word!
Would I recommend this book to anyone else? Yes, but only with disclaimers attached. I would let them know it will be like hiking uphill... early on you will feel like you forgot your boots. In some way that I can't adequately put into words, I felt it was worth the climb though.
Does Lent have a future as an author? Oh ya, I think so. He should limit himself though to something like 250 pages and see what happens.
@
Posted by Lale on 5/11/2001, 12:46:37
: the devil in Bethlehem
: way too quickly, it does seem overly
: contrived that he somehow sprouts this
: seedy gangster-savvy nature overnight. When
: he walloped that hoodlum guy over the
: head with the mallet and then shishkabobbed
: Victor's hand to the table (a scene right
: out of The Godfather by the way)... I was not only horrified,
Totally unbelievable. And this happened in less than a week of his arriving there. He is 18 years old. The other people are seasoned gangsters. I cannot imagine a boy being so "brave" and successfully taking on the other two guys.
: that when he saw his
: dead mother in Norman's arms,
: something flipped in the young Jamie, later
: to be exhibited in this violent, forceful
: nature? Quite possible.
Yes, absolutely. After that day he was always in fights, remember? But he was not the one who started the fights. He was just refusing to give in, to quit.
: scene of Leah's visit
: to Sweetboro... I could not buy the idea
: of her walking upstairs so
: matter-of-factly... I think she would have
: tried haggling with him somehow for the
: information she wanted. And then she
: stays in bed there wrapped up in the
: sheets as though she'd gladly go another
: round if he wanted to?
Yes, that was also very out-of-character for a strong person like Leah. I found that scene unrealistic also.
: something deeply special about him ever
: since he was out tackling that
: impossible snowbank in the drive while
: contemplating his mother and sister
: dying in the house. I pictured the tears
: freezing on his face. And when Jamie comes
: out with the news, and tells him he can stop,
: he continued to dig at the snow "as if
: into his own bursting heart." Foster is
: the only character who is properly
: introspective in this whole story.
Good point. I will allow myself to be convinced to that. Initially I thought Foster was way too smart for his age.
: in labor and left alone in the room...
: and felt "that need a brittle ache, a
: gorge in her soul: her mother."
That's interesting. You have caught something I have missed. That makes sense.
Some other points:
16-year-old Foster takes the fancy car and starts driving across the land without any troubles.
(By the way, appearantly driver's licence was not invented yet.)
How'bout those Amy and Carrick Jeeter people? Jamie custom orders a girl for Carrick, they fall in love, get married, have kids... Then it is Amy who finishes off Jamie.
Anna, your words about the young girls' attitudes towards sex made me laugh so hard. I had thought about the same thing. It is as if everyone is a character right out of an r-rated movie. Jeffrey Lent sure can compose some very steamy love scenes for a man who lives in a farm with his horses and dogs, and writes his book in a barn.
Lale
@
Posted by Lale on 5/11/2001, 12:57:55
: Am I glad that I haven't
: read it. Thank you to you all.
: Michael
:-)
Yes, you were one of the lucky/smart ones. Our dear Chris made a mistake (!) and read the wrong book (and the wrong book happens to be a good wrong book and a short wrong book, he read Camus' The Fall, how convenient :-)
I wonder if Len ever finished the book. He was the first to complain. You have admire his instincts.
Well, all these are half-joke of course, I don't think those of us who did read the book regret having read it. I mean, we learned a great deal about distilling whiskey for instance, you never know when it will come in handy.
And there was a lot of suspense in the book. It was exciting. We are just saying that it could have been a better book.
It did collect close to 4 hearts amonst the three of us.
Lale
@
Posted by Leonard Fehskens on 5/11/2001, 16:11:48
Dave writes:
: Would I recommend this book to anyone else?
: Yes, but only with disclaimers attached.
: I would let them know it will be like hiking
: uphill... early on you will feel like you
: forgot your boots
Reading what happens in subsequent sections, I can't believe we were reading the same book! The stuff I have been slogging my way through seems to have little if any relevance. This is the sort of book that reviewers call "sprawling". It evinces no discipline, no editorial thought, it just vast quantities of words.
len.
@
Posted by Chris on 5/11/2001, 19:17:27
Well, after my initial embarassment at reading the wrong book (by the way, Camus' "The Fall" was excellent), your various reactions have convinced me of my luck in doing so. In the Fall sounds like one of the those books in which the author goes everywhere without going anywhere, and in the end leaves you wondering what the central themes and purposes were.
@
Posted by Anna van Gelderen on 5/11/2001, 20:48:04
I am not entirely sure. I would rate the book three-and-a-half stars, so on the ground of that I do not find it recommendable. But if you read the customers' reviews at Amazon.com and (apparently) some of the professional reviews, too, it seems different people get completely different things out if it. Perhaps if you could just let yourself get carried away by the book, you'd love it, just as countless other people did. Probably we are too critical to simply enjoy the saga aspect - for I think that is what the enthusiasts love about the book. I myself am not interested in sagas, only in good literature.
@
Reviewed by: John Plume Date: 23 September 2004
It took me a few months to read In The Fall because I wanted to savor portions of it slowly and other parts made me stop because I did not want to see the apparently inevitable destruction just around the corner. I did greatly enjoy this book and am glad that I invested the time. The analogy of a Chinese menu comes to mind. I also read Hillerman stories in a couple of hours but am hungry again a day later. In The Fall still keeps me thinking.
I did not find the the language and characters as too contrived or unbelieveable. My primary reference point comes from histories of and letters by Civil War soldiers. Those levels of sophistication and rich description were quite even with Lent's characters. As for the shifts in emotions and violence, that mix seemed a probable enough slice of life in those times.
Finally, writing clearly is tough work and writing fiction is very much more difficult than most critics concede. As critics we strive to write clearly and the comments on this novel are impressive. Who is ready to write a novel?
@
What do you think about this book?
Write a review and give your opinion and analysis!
If you would like to join our reading group, you can write to us
or
you can come and introduce yourself at Talk Literature.