Listen to a podcast of this post, thanks to Talkr I just finished (earlier today) reading
The Sledding Hill by Chris Crutcher, and I went through a range of thoughts about it. First, I was confused (what is the POV in this novel?), but then I figured it out. Then I was confused for a different reason (this isn't your typical Crutcher novel), but then I got over it and let it ride. Then I hit the twist, and I got mad (you can't do this, Chris Crutcher!), and I had to put the book down for awhile. Then I was amused (so self-deprecating and yet also so self-promoting), and, eventually, I just plain realized that I thought this book was really clever and I liked it a lot.
Let me explain:
Confusion about POV: Two main characters in the novel, including the narrator, die withi chapter one. In chapter two, the narrative is resumed by the dead kid. However, he is explaining things as he sees them through the mind of his friend, who is still alive. Got that?
Confusion about format: I've read several Chris Crutcher novels in my time. They are always full of naughty language and themes, and the protagonists always have a multitude of problems. None of these things occur in this novel. I thought old Chris had gone soft on me.
The twist: The main plot of the book, which doesn't crop up until about halfway through, is the
challenging of a Chris Crutcher book at a high school. Talk about a metanarrative! This is where I got upset for a little while. Who does Crutcher think he is, inserting himself into the novel in order to work his agenda? Can you do that? It all seems a little heavyhanded, right?
Amusement: Crutcher's self-deprecation amused me. He shows the challengers perusing his website, commenting about his lack of education and his admitted high-school disdain for reading. Even the characters who defend his novel refer to his as "relatively obscure" and say things about his (fictional) novel-within-the-novel like "I've read better." There also was shameless self-promotion within the deprecation, as characters peruse
chriscrutcher.com and talk about all the "boring pictures" of Crutcher's personal appearances. Funny stuff.
Enjoyment: The book comes to a feverish finish, at a BOE meeting, with a lot to say (obviously) about both sides of the censorship issue. Crutcher himself even makes an appearance, "in the flesh," at the end. But Crutcher never comes out and says book-banners are bad people, though. In fact, through his omniscient (dead) narrator, he reads their minds "objectively" and discovers "
Those are all good guys. They want good things. The principle characters here are mad at one another because of what they believe, so maybe the fact that they look good or bad to one another can take the place of good and evil in this story..." (135). Pretty good stuff. There's also good stuff about how, if people with opposing viewpoints could just sit down and talk about things civilly, compromises would be made and everyone would get along. But, according to our heavenly narrator, that's impossible in the "Earthgame".
Oh, and if you've read Crutcher's autobiography/memoir,
King of the Mild Frontier, you will see that many of the things which happen to the protagonist in this novel are things which Crutcher claims occurred to him in his childhood. So now, taking that into consideration, this book becomes modern Crutcher speaking to all the young Crutcheresque students of the world. This all just makes me head spin.
Anyway, great book. Not your typical Crutcher, like I said, but very entertaining nonetheless and with a great message of tolerance, both from "them"
and from "us". That's something I know I, for one, have a hard time remembering sometimes -- I need to be tolerant of others just as much as they need to be tolerant of me. I'm not sure Crutcher would say that was the precise message of his book, but it's what I got from it. And I'm sure he'd be happy I got something meaningful from it. :)
