Mao II: A Novel
WINNER OF THE PEN/FAULKNER AWARD • A profound novel about art, terror, masses, and the individual, from the National Book Award–winning author of White Noise, “one of the most ironic, intelligent, grimly funny voices to comment on life in present-day America” (The New York Times)
“This novel’s a beauty. A vision as bold and a voice as eloquent and morally focused as any in American writing.”—Thomas Pynchon
Bill Gray, a famous, reclusive novelist, emerges from his isolation when he becomes the key figure in an event staged to force the release of a poet hostage in Beirut. As Bill enters the world of political violence, a nightscape of Semtex explosives and hostages locked in basement rooms, his dangerous passage leaves two people stranded: his brilliant, fixated assistant, Scott, and the strange young woman who is Scott’s lover—and Bill’s.
An extraordinary novel about words and images, novelists and terrorists, the mass mind and the arch-individualist, Mao II is the work of an ingenious writer at the height of his powers.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
This is my 4th or 5th Delillo novel to read. I feel like I formed some unhelpful expectations going into it. First, it was often listed as among the trio of his classics (beside Libra and White Noise). Second, it was described as being a 9/11 novel that was more apt than his actual 9/11 novel, Falling Man, and as being a statement about terrorism.
The book is broken into 4 sections more or less - a prologue, two main parts, and an epilogue.
The prologue was very interesting, though it didn't seem to have much to do with terrorism, so I was a little confused, though its focus on cults seemed at least logically and thematically relatable.
Then Part 1 - This appears to have nothing to do with terrorism except for one or two brief paragraphs. Looking back, I can now see more relationships paralleling the hermit writer Bill with the terrorist Abu Rashid. But when you are reading the section, at least I found myself thinking - what is this book about? It also features the White Noise satirical dialogue style where characters speak in aphorisms of hit or miss quality, and often speak past each other in totally unrealistic, immersion breaking tones.
Part 2 is much more focused and you start to see more parallels as well as to recognize themes that were not mentioned in the pre-reading material - especially the metafictional commentary (the uncontrollable nature of characters, the focus on crowds and group-minds, the tyranny of the image replacing the tyranny of the word. It, along with the epilogue, are much better and feel more focused. Part 1 ends up feeling like a backstory chapter that got a little out of hand.
Even so, you get vestigial characters from part 1 - namely Karen and Scott and to a lesser extent Brita - that seem like they are hanging around without as much purpose. Karen works as an example of the ideas in the novel, but doesn't really stay involved in the plot. Brita just doesn't have anything to do in Part 2 but she is needed in the epilogue. And Scott is much the same except that he is needed for a thematic resolution.
All this is just to say that as usual the ideas in Delillo are far more important, but he unfortunately still ends up trying to service the characters when they stop being all that relevant.
So I felt it was a very uneven novel with some really strong passages right up front, and then starting in Part 2 until the end - also getting better as it goes along. Libra is way better. White Noise is way better. Players is better. Underworld is better.
The book is broken into 4 sections more or less - a prologue, two main parts, and an epilogue.
The prologue was very interesting, though it didn't seem to have much to do with terrorism, so I was a little confused, though its focus on cults seemed at least logically and thematically relatable.
Then Part 1 - This appears to have nothing to do with terrorism except for one or two brief paragraphs. Looking back, I can now see more relationships paralleling the hermit writer Bill with the terrorist Abu Rashid. But when you are reading the section, at least I found myself thinking - what is this book about? It also features the White Noise satirical dialogue style where characters speak in aphorisms of hit or miss quality, and often speak past each other in totally unrealistic, immersion breaking tones.
Part 2 is much more focused and you start to see more parallels as well as to recognize themes that were not mentioned in the pre-reading material - especially the metafictional commentary (the uncontrollable nature of characters, the focus on crowds and group-minds, the tyranny of the image replacing the tyranny of the word. It, along with the epilogue, are much better and feel more focused. Part 1 ends up feeling like a backstory chapter that got a little out of hand.
Even so, you get vestigial characters from part 1 - namely Karen and Scott and to a lesser extent Brita - that seem like they are hanging around without as much purpose. Karen works as an example of the ideas in the novel, but doesn't really stay involved in the plot. Brita just doesn't have anything to do in Part 2 but she is needed in the epilogue. And Scott is much the same except that he is needed for a thematic resolution.
All this is just to say that as usual the ideas in Delillo are far more important, but he unfortunately still ends up trying to service the characters when they stop being all that relevant.
So I felt it was a very uneven novel with some really strong passages right up front, and then starting in Part 2 until the end - also getting better as it goes along. Libra is way better. White Noise is way better. Players is better. Underworld is better.
It’s really hard to write a book that is both literary and has a good plot. This is literary only. It’s about human groups, God, politics, and terror, and how these things relate. It’s also about writing, writers, and the importance of art.
But in my opinion, the actual plot is awful. I don’t care about any of the characters except maybe Karen but I want to read a whole book about Karen’s adventures (as a Moonie and beyond) and thoughts. I didn’t care for Karen’s self-objectification though. And then the characters have sort of random unrelated actions that don’t unify into a narrative.
But in my opinion, the actual plot is awful. I don’t care about any of the characters except maybe Karen but I want to read a whole book about Karen’s adventures (as a Moonie and beyond) and thoughts. I didn’t care for Karen’s self-objectification though. And then the characters have sort of random unrelated actions that don’t unify into a narrative.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.