A little less learning would have been a wonderful thing: The Children's Book

I was not alone. At least half of the book group found A.S. Byatt's "The Children's Book" impressive but barely readable. It's like a monument. You stand before it in awe of her daunting accumulation of learning, but do you really want to climb the stairs? No, thanks. Perhaps it skewed more toward the women readers, but honestly there wasn't a huge amount of enthusiasm for the novel from any quarter save perhaps Margot's - as she, an artist, loved the descriptions of the museums, the pottery, the techniques. Interesting aspect of the discussion was a reference Barbara brought forward to an interview in which Byatt said testily that she does not write autobiographically. First of all, that's ridiculous, as all writers, whether they admit to this or not, draw from their own experiences and feelings. Is it significant that Byatt lost a son at a young age and writes about "lost boys"? I appreciate her attempt to build armature, but writers put themselves out for public consumption and we can't help but explore these byways. Nevertheless, I think she is a writer who consciously builds her stories on her vast research - in this case, to her detriment. A little less learning would have been a wonderful thing here - as she seems to take refuge in her research rather than explore, even develop, her characters and their interrelations. What about the child abuse in the Fludd family? What does Olive feel about Tom's death? How does Phillip feel living in near imprisonment? What makes Tom tick? Byatt raises these questions - does not answer them. We agreed some of the clues may lie in Tom's reaction to the two plays - Peter Pan and Tom Underground - but they're no more than clues. The answers are elsewhere - or nowhere.