Tom Robbins is by means the great writer some people have made him out to be, but all of his books have a gentleness of spirit and a genuine affection for their characters. One can't help liking the people who inhabit his pages no matter how strange they might be.
Another Roadside Attraction is a lot of fun and never takes itself or its plot all that seriously. The gentlemen who have come afterwards with their tales of the nefarious Catholic Church, secret societies, and conspiracy theories, would have done well to have emulated Mr. Robbins a little more and the X-Files and its ilk a little less. Paranoia and cynicism are a lot less palatable than gentleness and humour.
Another Roadside Attraction is almost an artifact of a more innocent time when people considered change and alternative ideas out of a desire to expand their horizons. Our current fascination with sinister plots and conspiracy theories is as good an example as any of attitudes have changed. We'd rather find something out that confirms the corruption of things around us than enjoying the enlightenment that can come with knowledge.
Call me naïve if you like, but I kind of miss that innocence.
Article comments
1 - Nik
I had been thinking about this book a lot myself with all the Da Vinci hoopla. Infinitely better take on a similar idea, isn't it?
2 - Che
I enjoyed the hell out of this book when I first read it. Maybe its time to dust it off for a re-read and give myself a break from all the da Vinci Crud.
3 - Scott Butki
This was my introduction to Robbins and I've liked
him ever since.
4 - Bruce Hoppe
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who made this connection. Until I read this piece. Well done. As a 20 something in the 60's who was somewhat active (civil rights issues, singer/song writer)I grapple with the question inherent in Richard's closing remarks. Were those times really so innocent? Or were we really on to something that, at some level, we sensed we weren't quite ready for?
There are a couple of lines in my new novel up for review here(a shameless plug)that touch on this issue. The character reflects on the dismissal of the 60's as a mildly charming, if naive experiment and wonders, "A crafty ploy, playing this shell game with the past. It has always been the need of the timid to prove passion fatally flawed." Though who "the timid" are can lead to a whole other train of thought, (Not just Nixon's "silent majority." The good guys flinched too.I'm grappling with that one also.) there is a connection here in the character's comment.
And Richard's concluding point hits the nail on the head when he observes there was once a time when people passionately embraced change as an opportunity to grow--not something that preciptates a Prozac binge. And, for me, that's enough. No follow up dislaimers about naivete are required. Though, it certainly is aggravating that, given our collective prevailing pulses, it seems to be a prerequisite, lest we be dismissed as a candidate for May Day soapbox orations in Haymarket Square.