The Kitchen Sink

On a recent vacation in Alaska I was in the mood for something on the lighter side, so I picked up T.C. Boyle’s latest novel, ‘When the Killing’s Done’. I’m not a huge fan of Boyle, but his novels do tackle serious issues and are usually fun to read.  I especially liked ‘The Tortilla Curtain’, in which Boyle explores the issue of illegal immigration in California.  In this latest book Boyle directs the spotlight on the politics of ecology and conservation.  The plot turns on the Park Service’s efforts to restore California’s Channel Islands (off the coast of Santa Barbara) to their original state before contamination brought on by human-driven events, and the opposition to those efforts by a radical animal rights group.  Boyle tries hard not to take sides, but I did find his portrayal of the Park Service to be particularly distasteful as well as (at least I hope) somewhat unrealistic.

 

The writing is typical hyped up T.C. Boyle.  He uses a 200-watt word where 60-watts would do just fine.  The result is edgy and sometimes overblown, but that’s his style.  For example:

‘It was only then that she became aware of the height of the waves coming at them, rearing black volcanoes of water that took everything out from under the boat and put it right back again, all the while blasting the windows as if there were a hundred fire trucks out there with their hoses all turned on at once.’

Can a volcano rear?  Do we need fire trucks, hoses, and rearing volcanoes in the same sentence?  Well, it is colorful, but you need to wear the literary equivalent of sunglasses when you read it.  Otherwise all that squinting is tiring.

So is it really possible to turn back the clock and undo the changes brought on by human intervention?  Are humans just part of the natural world or are we somehow to be seen as opposing nature? Under what circumstances is killing animals justified?  For what goals and at what price?  Killing occurs in nature every day, but when humans kill animals is that different? These are fascinating questions and Boyle does a good job of using plot and character to pose them.

Some characters are indeed memorable.  The plot takes many turns, some of which are less than totally believable, but just go along for the read.  By the end there are so many points of connection and resonance in the plot that it all flattens out to something like ‘everything is everything’.  It’s all in there (even the kitchen sink), and that’s exactly the way Boyle avoids taking a stand.  He throws everything possible into the book seemingly to make the point that this is all a big mess, any possible point of view is by definition an oversimplification, and it’s all part of some grand human/natural carnival ride. While that may be entertaining I’m not sure it makes much of a contribution to the conversation except to educate us a bit on the subject. He makes it entertaining but also a bit hopeless.  If we can’t find a tenable position in the debate then where do we go from here?

Well, I did say I was looking for something on the lighter side.