Change
Millennials and Gen Zers (Louis himself is a Millennial) are sometimes derided for being self-obsessed. This assessment dovetails with a common criticism of autobiographical fiction, which holds that such work is inherently solipsistic. Louis’ oeuvre, and Change in particular, offers a pointed response by demonstrating the value of writing about one’s personal experiences. By the end of the book, Louis has achieved a deeper understanding of himself, entirely facilitated by his narrative reorganization of his past. In his characteristically inimitable manner, Louis seems to be asking his readers to consider the radical notion that their memories are theirs to use as they please.
Read Full Review >>
Beautiful politics and beautiful prose tend to pull in opposite directions. Political theory, aiming for totalizing truth, flattens the specificity that enlivens novels, and a bland political and academic pall can dull the spikiness of Louis’s writing ... Too many characters in this novel never become real, reduced to figureheads and helpmeets ... In place of vivid characters, we get unended Eddy, and even his appeal is hazy. ... It may be that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But his cycle of novelistic purgation suggests a double bind: that those who remember it too well are doomed to repeat it, too.
Read Full Review >>
Change’s appeal comes down more straightforwardly to Louis’s knack for dramatising filial strife, an evergreen subject of endless emotional ramification ... I’m not sure Louis is in a position to see that the power of his story in Change ultimately has little to do with its uniqueness. At one point he tells us: 'I hated my childhood and I miss my childhood. Is that normal?' Maybe he’ll find a new subject if he’s able to come up for air to hear the answer.
Read Full Review >>
