Glad News of the Natural World

One after the other I read T.R. Pearson's "Glad News" and "Seaworthy," and in the process I gained a new appreciation for the author's skill as a writer. Ever since "A Short History of a Small Place" I've laughed at the situations and characters he created, but there's more ... in both these books: more skill, more feeling, more of almost everything that matters in literature.

T.R. Pearson employs the language as well as anyone writing today, and uses it for breathtakingly funny satire. Unlike writers who are supposedly funny but are not at all -- yes, I mean Carl Hiaasen -- Pearson will have you gasping from laughter. Don't read this book in public places unless you want to garner funny looks. On the other hand, Pearson's world is easily broken down into three kinds of people: The losers who know they are losers, the losers who do not know they are losers, and the evil. Talk about depressing. You've been warned.

I have missed the small town of Neely with it's wonderful evenings on the porch -- talking about family and the past -- my past too. Glad News follows the life of Louis, the narrator of Pearson's first three novels, as he moves between New York and Neely. But Neely has changed as the South has modernized over the years, and I morn its passing while still laughing at its eccentricities. Meanwhile Louis tries to figure out how to live in a city bereft of his past.

This is quite different from the old T.R. Pearson we knew and loved. A Short History of a Small Place featured Louis Benfield, and the writing was narrative and rambled--no fast-food here, you had to take the sentences slowly and lovingly--brilliant small- town dialogue. The Benfield-less Blue Ridge had some parts that took place in New York, and which lacked the charm and delight of the parts involving small-town life. Glad News is mostly New York:the writing is good, but not great, Louis Benfield is now grown up, sentences are more compact, less rambling. The novel reminded me, strangely, of a non-fiction book "The Last Serious Thing" about a summer of watching bullfighting in Spain. One of the matadors was aging, and no longer very enjoyable to watch--EXCEPT!--that perhaps once every 50 or 100 fights he would have a bull he would like, and you would then see real brilliance and a breathtaking performance. So the afficionados would endure poor perormance after poor performance in the hope of seeing the old unforgettable form. In Glad News the writing is good, but not memorable (as with Short History) until suddenly you see a flash of the old brilliance, a stunning series of passes, a breathtaking faena, to use the bullfight analogy. When you read these, you want to leap out of your seat, scream OLE!! with tears running down your face, so to speak. "Not much trace of the wide world had actually penetrated Neely. We had an altogether deplorable Chinese restaurant on the bypass where they tried to compensate with cornstarch for what they lacked in cooking skill, and there was a sort of a taco shack out near the public pool which got by on corrupted adaptations like pulled-pork enchiladas, dirty chowchow, and refried black- eyed peas." It's passages such as this which make Glad News a fine novel. The ending is downbeat. I realize that not all of life is like Short History, and in real life there must be the downbeat parts--but a lot of the enjoyment in the Pearson novels is to read slowly, savor the writing, let it roll around on your tongue, and escape into a world that helps you forget the downbeat side of real life for a while. Still--the book is enjoyable to read, and there are the raisins in the pudding to nibble on, so to speak.

Pearson's latest offering is one of his best. Louis Benfield is all grown up, and who and what he is today poses a challenge for those who believed they "knew" Louis in Short History. Pearson's unrelenting eye for detail, his knack for the laugh-out-loud turn of phrase, and his ability to render setting its own character have never been more impressive. An initial reading of Glad News seems quick and light, but if one is careful and deliberate, a different novel will emerge. Louis is dark, cynical, and edgy in ways not readily apparent the first time out. Moreover, Pearson's prose has never been tighter; no languid, meandering sentences/paragraphs here. There's not an extra syllable in the entire text, which contributes to the need to read closely and carefully. Louis's actions belie his commentary, at times. Read it twice and see if you don't realize the character within the character and, consequently, recognize Pearson's genius in the process.