The House of the Spirits by Isabel AllendeMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
An interesting but difficult read. But before talking about the story, a pet peeve: this book has a lot of foreshadowing, which is a technique I don't like. It makes reading very repetitive, leaves the reader thinking "haven't they said that already?".
It’s a difficult read because of how detestable the protagonist, Esteban, is. At times it looks like the book might be a redemption story, or at least a story about a hero in the Ayn Rand mold - bad enough, but pretending to be good. But no, he is truly cruel, stealing, raping and murdering without concern and with impunity. He treat his employees at best like children, but usually like animals. And "employees" is already being too generous, they are like his slaves (for many years he didn't pay them); or more like his serfs from a feudal system, where he is the lord with all rights over their life and death. And all that while placing himself above all, like he is doing everyone a favor, that "job creator" mentality.
Esteban is definitely the central character of the book - some summaries say it’s meant to be Esteban and Clara, but Esteban steals the focus and scene continuously. So it’s a story about a egotistical despicable man, commuting his crimes, abusing everyone around him, and getting away with it - he just keeps prospering! His eventual loneliness at home is hardly justice, and the fact that his descendants suffer due to his own actions is the opposite of justice: it's just one more instance of him getting away with it, with the only addition that now others have to pay the price. I suppose that the good thing about this story is how it illustrates how the rich and powerful get their way, no matter how much evil they cause, and everyone else has to deal with it.
It also illustrates the elite mentality of seeing themselves as innocent victims, and of being truly deserving of their power. Esteban constantly brings up how the poor are lazy, and that he is rich because he worked hard for everything, that he started from nothing like them - never mind the fact that he inherited vast tracts of farm land from his family, and that was the foundation of his wealth and power. He often accuses the poor and the "Marxists" of being criminals and wanting to take things by force - never mind all the crimes that he himself did and all that he took by force. He abuses, rapes, steals, and pages later, says without irony that he "never committed any crimes, except tax evasion". In the end, that is a weakness of the book: he is depicted completely without introspection, and the reader is left with no insight into his mind and his actions. The story ends well for him, he never comes to any realization of how twisted his worldview is. He never shows any regret, goes to the end defending his positions, and only admits that something is bad when it affects him personally. He defends his anti-socialism, his feudalism, his support of the coup, and only admits that perhaps the military went a bit too far - they were mostly right, they could have dialed down the violence just a bit; you know, if they had not gone after people connected to the elites, to himself, then everything would be all right. He is a deplorable person to the end.
Only towards 2/3 of 3/4 of the book we finally move beyond Esteban, and the country itself becomes the main character, as we get to the story of the military coup and dictatorship in Chile. Esteban is no longer the central character, as the focus passes partially to Alba, his granddaughter. It has some romance, personal tragedies, and some very difficult passages at the end. But all that is in service to capturing the events of the coup. It's all tragic and difficult.
Another thing I didn't like was that I thougth that the authors engaged on a lot of what-about-ism and "both-sides"-ness. She does this both at small and large scales. She draws a parallel of the hate of Esteban for Pedro Tercero, for being a peasant (never mind that he eventually is a country music star) daring to love his daughter; to the hate that Pedro Tercero has for Esteban, *for trying to kill him and cutting off his fingers* - right, almost the same :/. She equates the violence of the rebels (fighting to survive) with the violence of the military (fighting to wipe out anyone who might threaten their iron grip on power), which is offensive to say the least. She clearly condemns the military dictatorship, but on the other hand she leaves a lot of (false) criticisms of socialism unquestioned.
In the end, the book as a whole is good for the big picture of the country it presents, adeep dive into the culture, and the molding of its society and its politics throughout the 20th century. If you're not familiar with Latin America modern history, it might be revelatory. This is the biggest strength of the book, and what makes it a worthy read.
View all my reviews
Posts
