Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by cruelspirit
Mount Chicago by Adam Levin
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
This is my first time reading a book by Adam Levin. Seeing as this is a new release I was hearing a lot about it leading up to its release. A newly published, maximalist novel, set in Chicago definitely had my interest peaked.
Unfortunately, I really felt let down by this book. The plot that is described in summaries and other's reviews, really isn't the focus of this book at all. Sure, a sinkhole opens in downtown Chicago causing immense damage and death and the book follows the characters living in the aftermath but that really only takes up maybe 100 pages of the book. Most of this book is long tangents on a wide variety of topics, many mundane and dull.
This is the kind of territory you get into with a maximalist novel but even when you are a fan of this kind of story there comes a threshold of tolerance. One might argue that these tangents and descriptive backstories add to the reader's understanding of the characters, which to an extent is true, but oftentimes I found these tangents of little value and many times just detracting from the overall story.
To get into it, these tangents mainly revolve around the characters of the novel (although some are more so anecdotal or just thoughts from the author directly). I may have enjoyed these tangents if I liked these characters but this book has got to hold some of my least liked characters in any book I've read.
The two main characters that this book focuses on are Solomon Gladman and Apter Schutz. Gladman is a stand up comedian who is an author and teacher as well, his entire family is taken away from him in the disaster this book "centers" around. Apter is an "Except for Palestine" "Liberal" Edgelord Cryptobro who is a big fan of Gladman's work. These two meet throughout the story and their stories intertwine.
Of the two I have less of a problem with Gladman. He's irritating in his own right and overall very depressing. This is understandable and the point of his character since he has lost his entire family and he feels directionless without them. That being said, it doesn't seem like Gladman really had that great of an affinity for this family to begin with. From the backstory you get of him interacting with his family, mainly his wife, you can tell he likes her but doesn't really show much interest beyond what she can do for him and what she symbolizes to him. Overall he is just very defeatist and doesn't really try to see a future for himself after the event. I'm not saying I wouldn't react the same way given his circumstances but it doesn't make for a very inspiring protagonist.
Apter is by far my least favorite character (I now get how people feel when they completely write off the works of of Salinger or Kerouac due to their protagonists). Gladman and Apter share a lot of similarities but I think due to Apter being younger, and closer to my age, I found him to be more bothersome. Maybe it's because being someone who grew up in the same time frame as him I can better visualize someone like him, having met others who are similar.
If you've looked at some of the other reviews, particularly the one and two star reviews, you may notice a lot of people giving up the book after the first 100 pages. This is mainly due to events in the Apter storyline. For 150 pages, readers are subjected to the detailed backstory of Apter, going from his early teenage years to his late twenties (when the events of the book take place).
One of these stories starts in his college years where he is too good for his peers. Judging how they act and essentially offering a very Holden Caufield take on how their level of progressiveness is bad and not like his. This section takes place during the mid 2010's; at the height of the SJW/Buzzfeed era. Now, I get wanting to capture the energy of this time period in a book for future generations to imagine for themselves but this section really came off as a cringy, off base view of what "college campus liberals were and are really like.
The stereotypes you imagine when I mention 2014-2016 Buzzfeed articles about manspreading or whatever are played up to a cartoonish level. I get that this is supposed to be an absurdist book and that not everything is an accurate reflection of reality (I mean we're talking about a book where a sinkhole destroys a defining part of downtown Chicago and the response to it is to create a memorial dedicated to everyone who lived through it) but this felt incredibly out of place compared to most of the rest of the book. This whole section really comes across as a contemporary Tim Allen bit where the joke really tells more about the one saying it than the actual society that is being commented on.
Take this from someone who was attending a university mentioned in this book during this time, no actual college students acted like this. This whole section just came across as Levin showcasing that his only knowledge of college students in the last decade comes from youtube videos titled things like "SJW Owned by Facts and Logic Compilation Part 74". This wouldn't be as much an issue for me except this is a maximalist novel where so much effort is put into knowing about various subjects in order to accurately describe them in almost unnecessary amounts of detail.
Among their other similarities, Gladman and Apter share the trait of having immense wealth placed upon them. This really cuts down the stakes and value to everything they do. Money is pretty much an ex machina for them to get out of having to do anything too difficult, or compromise in any way. These characters pretty much get to do anything they want, which isn’t much, on their terms. This is a small element but it did cut down on my investment in them.
Both of these characters are quite clearly based on Levin; not entirely and he'll be sure to remind you, but it's undeniable to assume otherwise. There are many times where Levin utilizes metafiction and offers his own direct opinions and voice, which to be honest, aren't really that different from Gladman and Apter.
These three are really just shades of each other and it's generally something I just didn't really enjoy reading that much. There is such a judgmental, whiny, and irritating tone to a lot of what is described here and it was directed not just at other characters in the book but also the readers themselves. There definitely is an audience for this kind of thing but it really wasn't what I was looking for. Maybe this is just the drastic contrast of Levin compared to the other authors I've been reading this month (Morrison and Brautigan).
I might as well cover what I actually did like about the book. While I thought many of the tangents were unnecessary or deviating from the actual plot and purpose of the book, I did find some to be enjoyable and well crafted. When these moments hit for me they did really show Levin as a competent writer worthy of the hype I had been presented with prior to reading but unfortunately these sections were few and far between.
I will say that while the subject matter of these tangents might not have always entertained me, Levin has really figured out the structure to maximalist storytelling and can craft rabbit holes that are enticing and exciting to read from a narrative standpoint. I think what really kept me going through the dull moments was the excitement of reading a dense maximalist novel. I really was in the mood for a book of this style and while I felt let down ultimately, I did enjoy spending my time in a deeply vast world.
I read this book in just eight days. I'm not a fast reader and maybe some of this was spurred on by the fact that I only had three weeks to finish this before returning it to the library but I found it to be quite fast paced at times. I also found this book to be pretty straightforward to follow; compared to other maximalist novels. I would almost recommend this as a "babies first maximalist novel" but I'd be more inclined to tell someone to read something more challenging with a greater payoff.
Another thing I have to commend Levin for doing with Mount Chicago is writing a book that feels so much on his terms. This is unashamedly the true work of this man put to page. This is almost to a fault. If there were things that were cut by an editor for straying too far off the path I'd be surprised and almost curious to know what they were. This book really is Levin going in whatever direction he wants and exploring or not exploring whatever he sees fit without regard for the reader or any other potential audience. This is a dangerous game and for me at least, I think it is a big part of my disappointment. Levin puts the reader through a lot, asking for their patience and tolerance without much of a reward for doing so.
This book is often described as an absurdist novel but to be honest, it really wasn't that absurd. Sure there are sections that are full on bizarre and occasionally highly imaginative but most of the time things are pretty straight laced and down to earth. While I do think the contrast between absurd and conventional is important to make that distinction more impactful I felt the book leaded more towards based in a true reality. Maybe it's just that I've read a lot of absurdist works and I have a higher expectation than others or that our real world becomes more and more absurd with each passing day but I felt this wasn't that off the wall.
As a book with Chicago in the title there really isn't that much Chicago. Sure there are moments that hit what I was expecting but many others I didn't really feel like the setting was being fully utilized. If this book took place in another city I wouldn't have liked it as much (although I'd probably not have picked it up in the first place. Some of the places referenced in this book are quite familiar to me as they are quite local and while I did find it amusing the few times they were explored in detail I wish they had been visited more. (you can tell this is a work of fiction because there is no place in Humboldt Park that I know of where it is worth getting in your car to get a milkshake)