#22 - "Falconer" by John Cheever

My 22nd book from The List, is also the first book I've stolen.  Well, maybe stolen is too strong of word.  But I did 'borrow' it without permission from a tiny Newheart-esque Inn, near Markdale, Ontario. I was hoping the element of danger associated with reading a sto--borrowed book would make for some exciting reading sessions, but no luck; not once did I look over my shoulder to see if the fuzz was on my tail.  Falconer was yet another book I didn't really know anything about the story, but like Tropic of Cancer, I was aware of its' existence, thanks to "Seinfeld."  In the episode where Susan finds out here dad had an affair with John Cheever (The Cheever Letters), George is later seen reading Falconer (however he erroneously refers to it as The Falconer).

Ezekiel Farragut is serving a life sentence in Falconer State Prison for killing his brother.  Farragut is, or rather was, a university professor and heroin addict, living in a loveless marriage and a loveless life.  The book follows Frragut as he struggles to live with his addiction, with his loneliness and with his loss of freedom.  For whatever reason, when I started reading this book, I thought it was going to be like The Shawshank Redemption. I'm not sure if I was expecting a sequel, or the novelization of the movie, but I really had that type of prison story in my head.  My ideas were seemingly confirmed too, as the story started out describing the prison, an old stone structure, and then describing the various inmates and prisoners.

After I was about a quarter through the book however, I more or less forgot about The Shawshank Redemption, and was simply enjoying a good read, as the two stories seemed to head in different directions.  With Falconer, I was being pulled in only by the writing, and literally couldn't put the book down (by 'literally', I mean figuratively, as I was able to put the book down, but didn't want to, because I was enjoying it so much).  But now that I look back, despite having completely different stories, there were a lot of similarities between the two.  Both used hope as their main theme, which I suppose isn't an odd theme for a prison tale.  In Falconer, we see Farragut adapting to his surroundings, sort of accepting his fate and trying to make the best of his situation.  But slowly, the 'good' things in his life start to fade, and hope seems to disappear, until the end of the book, when a set of, how shall I say, fortunate circumstances fall into place, allowing for hope and even his freedom to return.  If you think back to the above mentioned movie, you'll remember that Andy Dufresne goes through pretty much the exact same roller coaster of emotions.  This isn't to say Falconer is exactly like Shawshank or vice versa, but I see a lot of similarities in the themes the two explore and only use it as a comparison, not a barometer.

What I liked about this book was its' ability to involve me with the emotions of the protagonist.  I found I enjoyed the book more at the beginning and the end, when times seemed to be going well for Farragut, while in his low times, I found my attention waning.  I like to think this is because of Cheever's writing being so effective at making the reader sympathize with the character.  Hopefully it isn't because I only like 'feel good' stories that don't effectively deal with realistic situations.  I'll go with the former.


Read TIME magazine's original review from February 28, 1977 right here.



I currently have eight books from the library, so I`ll select one to read next, but right now I`m not sure which it will be.

If you swear, my lord, you shall not be forsworn.

I'm about half way through Tropic of Cancer now. It's not bad; but not exactly what I was expecting. This seems to be a reoccurring theme for me. I guess when I'm reading through a list of books I haven't read before, I should expect to be surprised.

Originally published in 1934, in France, it was banned in the United States (another reoccurring theme) for being obscene. Now, I wouldn’t use the word obscene, as I don’t really find anything to be obscene, but I can definitely see why prudish Americans would be up in arms in the 1930’s over this novel. The language used throughout is of the ‘R’ rated variety, and one of the predominant themes, prostitution, would have been something that wasn’t discussed in inter-war America.

The word ‘cunt’ is used so frequently in this book; you’d almost think you were reading a story from Penthouse Forum. (However, Miller has yet to mention that he attends a large mid-western university and never believed the stories, until last weekend, nor has his name and address been withheld.) While the sexual situations aren’t terribly detailed, there is discussion of douching, masturbating, condoms (the long fish skin variety?), and menstrual issues, including possibly the first ever use of the idiom ‘the wound that never heals.’ While none of this is very shocking today, in the United States in the early 30’s, you can imagine these topics all being very taboo. I mean, this book was published five years before the US was sent into a frenzy because Clark Gable removed his shirt in Gone With the Wind and used the most evil of words; ‘damn.’ I can’t imagine what a passage describing a whore using a bidet before being fucked would do to that same nation.

I’ve also been thinking about the language in this book compared to Naked Lunch, which was also quite liberal in its’ choice of words. While I found Naked Lunch to be using offensive words and situations almost for the sake of being offensive, Tropic of Cancer is using them to accurately reflect real dialogue. I mean, most people use ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’ constantly throughout the day, yet it’s never heard on TV, and usually not seen in books.

Having said all this, the book is much better than I might have let on. It’s isn’t on this list for its vulgarity, but rather its descriptive brilliance. I’ll go back to reading now so I can finish it this month and perhaps summarize it a little more in depth.

Come, and take choice of all my library,

I headed to the library today with a couple of things in mind. First off, I need to read a couple of books that I know nothing about. While I haven’t read the vast majority of the books on the list, I might have seen the movie (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) or I might be very familiar with the story (Lolita) despite not having read it or seen the movie. However, most of the books on the list don’t fit into either category. Let's face it, I haven’t even heard of most of these books. So instead of finding myself with thirty books to go, none of which I know anything about, I’ve decided to make a point of tackling some of these novels.

I came out with two selections from today’s trip; Beloved by Toni Morrison and Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller. I don’t know anything about Beloved or its author, and the only thing I know about Tropic of Cancer is that it’s supposed to be quite racy. And I only know this from that episode of ‘Seinfeld’ where Jerry has a 25-year overdue library book.

I think I’ll start with Beloved as it would come first alphabetically. Written in 1987, this will be by far the newest book I’ve read so far, the next one being The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, written in 1964.