Review of OSLO, MAINE by Marcia Butler (New Release)

 3 Stars

Twelve-year-old Pierre Roy, because of a head injury, suffers memory issues.  His father Claude has difficulty accepting the changes in his son while his mother Celine numbs herself with pills.  Their neighbour, Sandra Kimbrough, teaches Pierre how to play the violin, and he proves to have exceptional talent.  Music becomes his solace while life swirls around him. 

The narrative moves among Claude and Celine, Sandra and her husband Jim, and two other residents in Oslo:  Edna Sibley and her grandson Luc who has intellectual challenges.  All the adults have secrets which the reader gradually learns.  Connections among various characters are also revealed.  Another character who makes periodic appearances and whose perspective is given is a moose who roams the area around Oslo.

One cannot but feel a lot of sympathy for Pierre.  Because of an accident, he has difficulty remembering for even short periods of time.  As a result, he is bullied at school.  His parents are little help; they are more concerned about themselves.  Claude is despicable; when he first appears in the novel, he mulls over “the specific disappointments he felt with regard to his son”:  he thinks of Pierre as weak and hates that his son loves to read and play the violin.  For Claude, Pierre is “an embarrassment.”  In addition, Claude’s illegal activities and his behaviour in the past are deplorable.  Celine is very much an absent mother; she takes pills so she doesn’t have to face reality.  Not only does she neglect her son, but she is deceitful and disloyal to “the best person Celine had ever known.”  The moose’s care and concern for her calf exceeds the care Pierre receives from his parents.

The book touches on a number of difficult topics:  physical violence, sexual violence, adultery, animal cruelty.  My issue is not the novel’s subject matter but its purpose.  What is it trying to say?  A theme could be the power of music.  Another could be the interconnectedness of the human and natural world because every time the two worlds collide, there are major consequences.  If the moose had been left alone, Pierre’s family might not have disintegrated.  Is the message that the natural world has much to teach humans?  Is the message that we need to focus on the present?  Things turn around when Claude takes responsibility for his actions.  Is that supposed to be a moral? 

The portrayal of the moose is not convincing.  I don’t believe in heaven for humans so have difficulty accepting a “risen-animal world.”  We are to accept that a moose would worry about the fate of a dead calf:  “Would he rise?  Would he ever enter the animal world beyond?”  It’s not clear why disposing of an animal in a dump means “her calf would rise.”  And then we are to believe that an animal can commit suicide?  The anthropomorphism just doesn’t work. 

What also does not work is the ending.  The epilogue offers too much of a happily-ever-after ending.  Edna solves everything for virtually everyone?  A moose “brought [Pierre] to understand the beauty of now”?  So the capture of an animal is acceptable if it inadvertently teaches someone to not worry about the past or the future but to see the value of the present?

I enjoyed the portrayal of life in rural Maine; the book is realistic in this respect.  However, the anthropomorphism of the moose doesn’t work, and the development of theme is scattered.  The overall effect is to leave the reader puzzled about what he/she just read.

Note:  I received an eARC from the publisher via NetGalley.