Customer Reviews

Frog: A Novel

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a compelling, engrossing novel that chronicles the past, present, and possible futures of a highly disjointed consciousness. Dixon's voice is an inimitable reflection of the self-doubting, over-thinking mind. Many of these interlinked stories contradict each other (e.g. the wife's name changes), and this leads one to suspect that perhaps Dixon was assembling a stew of his stories in an almost randomly novelestic form, regardless of their contextual suitability with each other. That's too bad, and it's sure to frustrate readers seeking consistency and continuity in their books. It might be best to suspend your expectations of novels and just appreciate Dixon's amazing storytelling skills. Even if the novel is appreciated simply as a collection of often interrelated stories, it's still a fascinating trip through one individual's consciousness. This is one of my all-time favorite books. If you like unique voices, you won't be able to put this one down. Dixo! n is America's best-kept secret.

It took me two months, but I finally finished Frog. This is one heck of a book. Not for the faint of heart or the casual reader. It's not necessary heavy in content (although it can be a heavy book because of it's almost 800 pages...ha, ha..yeah), but Dixon's writing style can leave your brain in a fuzz. Basically, he's a stream of thought writer who does not believe too much in dialogue or sentences or even paragraph breaks. This can be tiring for even the most avid reader. Once you realize the style is not going to change, and what the paragraph breaks mean (more towards the middle / end of the book), then you can easily get along with Frog.

My favorite parts of Frog is "Frog's Sister" and "Frog Fragments." I found these part more interesting than any others. While the writing style is the same, the stories are more coherent. "Frog's Sister" is about his sister, which you will meet here and there before you get to her own chapter. I found it really sad, sometimes disturbing, and a bit funny at the same time. "Frog Fragments" contain stories about past loves (one as a teenager and one as an adult) plus a mix of other subjects. The only way you know that you've moved onto another vignette is that the paragraph ends. This is not the case of all Dixon's writings, however.

I will say that Frog is definitely worth the time. It's a great read for those that read throughout the day but may not have the time to really sit down and read. You read about the same people over and over, and while you'd think this gets tiring, it doesn't, it merely helps you as you plow through the 700+ pages of Frog.

this is the only dixon book I have read, but I will certainly be reading others. At times this book shows its debt to joyce, but certainly not in a way that distracts from its overall beauty. it is hard to write after joyce and still come off as relevant. it seems one of the best ways to live in Joyce's shadow is to acknowledge it and then sit beneath it - telling stories that work because of their simple beauty and humanity rather than their status as opuses or classics (which Joyce's are).

dixon's greatest innovation in this book is his ability to capture the workings of the imagination and its power over the human experience as a whole. he reels off possibility after possibility in hypnotic sucession, leaving the reader wondering what actually took place. There is a chapter, "Frog fears" which alone justifies Dixon's technique, which I've seen described as pretentious. The act of writing a book is pretentious to begin with, and so is every choice of word and action which must be made by the author. The results justify what is done, and in this chapter fear is captured almost perfectly.

this story is very human. it deals with the human experience with compassion, and it feels very good to read.

This is where I'm supposed to tell you what I thought of the book. I'm afraid it will take more than one paragraph, though. I like to keep my paragraphs to no more than four sentences. I just realized that was the third sentence, so this must be the fourth and I guess I'll have to use a semi-colon or dash; this is a very strangely written book.

There are 769 pages like the above paragraph; better written though. He writes sentences that are days long and his paragraphs run on for about a month. Some of them even make some sense.

If you like in-depth character studies then immediately scroll to the top and click on the "Order" button. Howard Tetch is the most insecure person in the world and you will learn about every minute of his life (and several versions of each to boot).

I have no idea how to rate this book. Dixon obviously wrote the book he wanted since he had hundreds of pages in which to change if he had been so inclined. I liked it. I didn't like it. I liked it again, I think. I'm glad to have read Dixon and perhaps will try some more. So, four stars for inventiveness and stamina (his and mine).

I discovered Frog after reading Interstate. In both novels, Dixon plays with the possibilities afforded characters by way of choice and fate. If this sounds overly experimental or postmodern or tricky or whatever, be reassured: Dixon cares nothing for funny stuff or flashbang. Page by page, he is about the business of exploring what it is to live inside a single head, and line by line we track the progression of life through the mundane, and surprisingly, we find that we become as fascinated with the seemingly mundane events of his characters' lives as they do. It's no magic spell he's casting. It's that rarer thing, at least in contemporary fiction: the reality spell.

What to say? This book will come to be revered by scholars in the same way Joyce's works are. It is a big, complex book, not for the average reader. Plot, piled upon plot, piled upon subplot may make this book seem directionless. Dixon doesn't offer us anyway easy out, never brings things to a neat close. There are more loose ends than answers, and some scenes are downright puzzling (for example: the concentration camp scene). The main character himself seems amorphous (or polymorphous??) Dixon seems to sort of "super-impose" him onto other characters... if that makes any sense. It is easy to become disoriented, as chapters veer between past, future and present, the names and specifics of characters subject to change. For me, it was worth the challenge. When Dixon get rolling with is extreme-stream-of-though stylings, it reads like nothing else ever written. Certainly one of the 5 best novels of the 90's. Unfortunately, not many people have heard of this book or read it. You won't find it on many syllabi, which is tragic. I'd like to contact other people who are enthusiastic about this book and discuss it. As I said, I'm still really puzzled and troubled by the concentration camp bits, and I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts. Great novels shoudl inspire great dicsussions.

Dixon's 'FROG,' is the one he will be remembered for. I read the novel years ago, when moving into a more dense part of the city, going through it and taking my time. I had a lot to do during that move, but 'FROG,' deserved my time. Depth, I think, is the key word for this book. Large, many pages, slim cover and stories within stories. I feel that Dixon put all of himself in the novel, and even though when I re-read the book today I never see Dixon's face. I still imagine the characters, whatever the characters face might look at the time, male or female. Mr. Dixon publishes a lot. But this book is one that I will never sell or leave at the side of the road with a FREE sign written on the box.

this is a decent book. ok. i mean, its alright, i just dont want to go overboard. started it. read it some, got going, got a little bored. intriqued, is that how you spell that word? not that you know what word i mean if it's misspelled. or maybe you do. anyway, got reading this book, thought of gass or maybe a cross between gass and saunders, not that that is necessarily applicable because the tunnel was after this book and so is saunders but gass started the tunnel a long time ago but who knows when dixon started this but probably not that long ago but usually when talking about comparisons one would mention(one?) the publishing or is it published date. the date it was published. that's what you'd mention. no you, per se, but maybe me. or maybe you, who knows?
anyway, its certainly a nice quick-to-read book, kinda wished it were shorter, not because i hate length, heck i love proust(nice name-dropping there) but because much of it bored me. some of it funny. some parts funny, yes. much of it seemed to me written on the cuff and not as easily edited if edited at all but no insult intended to the author. decent book. decent book that i read and i thought of other authors and said maybe he is like those other authors. maybe he is like them even though he is like himself although the two are not exclusive or whatever. maybe. actually 3.5 stars i guess dunno.