I liked it. :-)

I also was impressed with how well Martin kept my interest. I've bumped into the sort of isolation and despair that Mirabelle battles, and there were some uncomfortably familiar bits there.

That said, I'd love to know if anyone else was as irritated by Martin's "tell, don't show" narrative style. I don't know if this is the way he always tells stories (I need to read more of his stuff now), or if he chose that style on purpose to distance the reader and enhance the sense of detachment the reader feels from Mirabelle's and Ray's states of mind. Still, the English major in me was screaming. :-)

Rich | March 24, 2003 7:59 PM

What good timing for us to read this novel, especially after the Oscars last night. Thanks, Kate.

I say it's good timing because for me much of the experience of reading the novel involved thinking about its author. Until I got into the story, I was unable to not here Steve Martin's voice reading to me. I guess that's just because it's so familiar. This wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily, except for two things. The first is trivial: I basically heard him reading it the way he spoke during the Christmas wish sketch (I'd link to it but apparently HTML doesn't work here).

The second is that the book is written in this deliberate, almost surface voice. Although the third person dives into the characters, it seems like it's just gliding over top of them, and it's almost maddening (especially when Steve Martin is reading it to you in that voice; see above).

That faded, eventually, and I was able to get into the novella. But it definitely took me a while, and I'm still not entirely sure I'm satisfied with the voice.

Andy | March 24, 2003 8:08 PM

Holy crap, I think Rich and I agree.

Andy | March 24, 2003 8:09 PM

I enjoyed it even though I didn't really like any of the characters. (I'd say more, but I've been goofing around since I got home and still have to plan tomorrow.)

marydell | March 24, 2003 9:23 PM

This was also my second time reading Shopgirl. I enjoyed it even more this time. Poor Andy. I can see where it would be horribly distracting to keep hearing Martin... I am glad I did not have to deal with that.

The "detached," "surface" voice seems perfectly appropriate as it reflects and reinforces Mirabelle's and Ray's inner disconnected-ness. (I don't think disconnectedness is a word, but I would like it to become one - starting now) M & R are not exactly self-aware. M is living in a tranquilized haze most of the time, and Ray is, at age 50 something, finally entering emotional puberty. Besides, if Martin wrote in the first person, I think you would lose too much of the other characters.

My only difficulty was with Mirabelle's helplessness. That aspect of her character truly tried my patience. But I think Martin wants us to feel some level of sympathy for her. So, ok. I'll cooperate.

Mary...how could you not like Lisa? The personal grooming and coifing scene? C'mon. That was so YOU.

barbara | March 25, 2003 10:46 AM

Barbara, for one, I think "disconnection" is the word you're searching for. :-)

For another, I don't have a problem with detachment per se, but the whole telling-versus-showing thing still bugs me. It's almost universally better to show how deeply something affects someone (by narrating their reaction, perhaps) than to say, "this affected her deeply," which is what Martin did for pretty much the whole book.

Rich | March 25, 2003 11:41 AM

None of the characters is self-aware, probably because of the telling-rather-than-showing narrative. That's precisely why I didn't like any of them. (Barb, Lisa is so not me. I'd never swirl a razor in the toilet followed by using it on the holiest of holies.)

I especially disliked Jeremy because his change into someone who could be good to Mirabelle was so shallow. (Again, the fault of Martin's storytelling.)

But I did like the book overall. Because of it's brevity and ease to read, I was in and out of the story before becoming annoyed. It was like a taking a quick peek into a window. You got to see the occupants and furnishings but not the dust bunnies under the couch.

marydell | March 25, 2003 6:00 PM

Andy, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Everyone's bound to agree with Rich at some point, but we shouldn't make a habit of it. :)

marydell | March 25, 2003 6:03 PM

Why Mary, I hardly expected to be considered the paragon of rectitude with which someone like Andy could blunder into agreement by accident.

I am abashed, nay, chagrined at the flattery. :-)

Rich | March 25, 2003 10:59 PM

OK, time to jumpstart the discussion a bit?

One of the things I liked about Shopgirl was how Martin played scenes of complete absurdity against things that *just* touched on being hauntingly beautiful. Example: Mirabelle's and Jeremy's first sexual encounter -- so pathetic it was funny -- contrasted against M's exploration of her family's fractures, and against the pictures M created, it's a fascinating exploration of what's meaningful from character to character.

I always find it interesting when a person reknowned for silly comedy reveals depths of understanding like this. (Though this is hardly Martin's first tipping of his hat, and arguably comedy requires this sort of understanding.)

Rich | March 26, 2003 5:15 PM

Jeremy and Mirabelle's first sexual encounter may have been pathetic, but frighteningly common in the real world. (Or maybe stuff like that only happens to me.)

In my opinion, good comedy requires a good understanding of the human condition. We wouldn't find a comic funny if s/he didn't know a thing or two about what might make us laugh, which is a way of tapping into our emotions.

This, by the way, is our second title by a comic. Fry also managed to engage us in his novel. Anyone notice similarities/differences between Revenge and Shopgirl?

marydell | March 26, 2003 9:53 PM

first reading: gobbled it up sitting in an easy chair at the store with a latte in one hand.

with that out of the way, the most interesting parallel I find between fry and martin is the tone of the books. They both remind me of sterile grey, soothing yet cold at the same time. It seems strange to me that both books, which tend to deal with a heck of a lot of deep seated emotions left me so detached from their experiences. (listen, I still can't read LOTR at night. too scary) There seems to be a pervasive cynicism in both books that is not competely unrelated to the comdeian's role as a detached observer of human foibles.

I also agree with Mary in that some of modern life is pretty damned ludicrous to begin with. So maybe being a bit cynical about sexual encounters in this day and age can't be helped for anyone with the vaguest sense of humour.

do-hee | March 27, 2003 12:04 AM

You're right, Do-Hee. The writing style in both books is pretty dry and cold. It surprises me a bit for Steve Martin since he seems to be a more animated person. However, such coolness is exactly what I'd expect out of Fry based on the bits I've seen of him on TV.

marydell | March 27, 2003 8:56 PM

I read Steve Martin's prose as sort of dry humor and Fry's as detached intellectualism. But that has to do with my impressions of the authors and their other careers, not their actual work, and that's not a really great way to approach a piece of literature.

Anyway, both authors were really able to craft scenes that worked as these really great revelatory moments, but overall I felt a lot more weight in Fry's book than in Martin's, and I'm not just referring to the number of pages.

Andy | March 27, 2003 9:14 PM

Shocker of shockers, I agree with Andy on this one! Fry definitely felt like a more weighty and important work, but then it tried to be. Martin's is actully very lighthearted in its way. For example, the bit on page 21 in my copy:

"But that night, the voice does not come, and she quietly folds herself up and leaves the bar.

"The voice is to come on Tuesday.

...and the next chapter name is "monday."

Subtle but IMHO jocular.

As for the two comics' both turning out books in which the palette used is rather drab, I imagine that your typical funny person sees it as part of their job to contrast with the world's drabness, or perhaps use it against itself. Thus a background of blah becomes a useful device in front of which to tell their stories.

Rich | March 27, 2003 10:56 PM

Kate, thank you so much for selecting this book and bringing Rich and I together. I suspect this moment may not last, but we will always be able to look back and reflect and remember. That is, assuming the world continues to spin.

Andy | March 28, 2003 11:35 AM

LOL Andy - I know.. I think you two have shocked me into silence... ::grin::

Kate | March 28, 2003 11:48 AM

Kumbaya, my friend... Kumbaya...

All this sharing and caring going on... Who wants a hug?

(As the very continents begin to crack, and oaths issue forth from the abyss about the elevated heating bills in Hell...)

Rich | March 28, 2003 11:35 PM

Please, stop the love in right now. Tension is precisely what makes most situations interesting and I'm not going to allow BookBlog to jump the shark because the two of you found common ground. Someone sling some mud already.

marydell | March 29, 2003 9:36 AM