This book was a real ragbag of elements. I think I can see what the author meant to do but it didn't really come off.

On one level it is a portrayal of early 20th century North America among the privileged. It deals with the racism, misogyny, social injustice and downright nastiness of a lot of the people in power, centring around the feud between the president of Princeton University and the dean of the university. I recognised the name of Woodrow Wilson as a real life president of the USA, and the narrator (supposedly a son of one of the participants in the events, who was only a baby at the time and frequently inserts asides about rival historians who have also produced books on the events of the time) confirms that this is Wilson before he became the actual President. Other names, more well known to me as literary figures - Mark Twain, Jack London, Upton Sinclair - also crop up and eventually appear as minor characters, although there is quite a bit of material from the viewpoint of Sinclair. That material in particular came over as rather dragging down the pace of the book, though there was the irony that a socialist writer who deplored exploitation of the poor apparently is unable to see that he is exploiting his own wife. However, I have no idea if that bore any relation to the real-life author.

It is soon apparent that the historian-narrator is unreliable in the extreme. He sets out scenes in detail, where the main character often died soon after with no opportunity to tell what had happened to anyone else, and although many of the characters left journals, he tells us that quite a few were destroyed - and he eventually confesses to destroying one diary himself, an unforgiveable offence for a real historian to commit. It is quite clear that he can't possibly know what really happened and the confessions of certain characters to actually be devilish can't therefore be taken on face value. Also his harping on about things being 'unspeakable' and therefore his refusal to spell out what happened becomes rather tedious.

In the main plot, set against the political rivalries of Wilson and his circle, a series of murders or unexplained deaths occur, which are eventually indicated by the narrator as being caused by certain characters who have the ability to take on any appearance they wish in order to misdirect others. These characters are literally devils, or perhaps one devil in particular, who rules over a God-forsaken land called the Bog Kingdom. A great deal of violence, especially against women, is portrayed, and many of the female characters are shown as self deprecating and as going along with the general misogyny which insists, among other things, that it is pointless to allow women to have the vote. And certain men, one saintly one in particular, supposedly hide dark secrets although, as the only evidence of this is provided by the same unreliable narrator, it is anybody's guess if any of that is true either.

I did like a few of the characters, but soon learned this was the sort of book where it didn't do to become fond of particular characters due to the accelerating body count; however, there was a pleasant surprise about some of them near the end of the story. The book is well-written, but too rambling and frustrating on the whole, with sections inserted just to provoke a sensation in the reader, such as Sinclair's long narrative of the Carnegie Hall debacle and drunken meal afterwards, and in the end served to irritate rather than entertain. So I can only grant this an OK 2 stars. ( )

Loved the first ¾ of the book. Very intricate, intelligent plotting. Good subtle suspense. I don't want to give anything away, but the plot became a bit contrived at the end. I lost interest for the last 50 pages. ( )

Well written I believe, but I just couldn't get interested in the story line.
I did learn a bit about Princeton history that surprised me (and disappointed me), and the picture of Woodrow Wilson made me wonder how he ever made titto be President of the USA, let alone Princeton.
SO, read for Oates rich, textured language. The plot only you can judge.
I ended up doing a lot of skimming.
( )

Oates Responds to D.W. Griffith

In 1901, Princeton professor Woodrow Wilson published "A History of the American People". Ten years later (1905), Wilson's long-time friend Thomas Dixon Jr wrote the play "The Clansman". Ten years thereafter (1915), DW Griffith turned that play into "Birth of a Nation", using quotes from Wilson's book as occasional captions. Upon its release, US President Woodrow Wilson screened that movie at the White House, the first film ever so honored. Today, a century later, Princeton professor Joyce Carol Oates has responded to all these works with "The Accursed", an attempt to bury the demons of this country's antebellum past.

Her book is a long discursive Victorian-era novel -- presented as the work of an elderly Princetonian amateur historian -- with elements of alternate history, supernatural fiction, political treatise and social commentary. It has two major story arcs: (1) the exploration of a supernatural curse visited upon the heirs of Winslow Slade, fictitious Presbyterian minister, once president of Princeton University and Governor of New Jersey, now a wealthy and distinguished member of the Princeton elite; and (2) the sociopolitical awakening of Upton Sinclair, the historical author who becomes a socialist revolutionary, and who lives near Princeton while he attempts to make something of his budding career, and un-wealthy family.

Much has been made among online reviewers about the evils lurking in the background of this story. Racism is the most obvious, but the abuses of capitalism are central to the tale as well. Oates presents Upton Sinclair as an idealist trying to lead the United States away from both evils, but why does she choose the setting she has? Why is Winslow Slade made an ex-President of that University, as well as a clergyman, and an ex-Governor of New Jersey? Why does she use Woodrow Wilson, as the current president of Princeton, soon-to-be Governor of New Jersey, later-to-be President of the United States? What is the connection? And why does she push and pull upon American history like a taffy, bending facts here and there -- ever-so-gently -- to make Sinclair's story dovetail Wilson's? (Not to mention Mark Twain's and Jack London's.)

I think Winslow Slade -- and perhaps Princeton itself -- represents America's past, with all its inherent social ill. Wilson represents the reactionary old guard trying to protect this unhealthy past. And Upton Sinclair represents the socialist future. While "Birth of a Nation" took this country's racist past as grounds to justify rise of the Klan, "The Accursed" takes the same past -- and the same intellectual starting point in Woodrow Wilson -- as grounds to justify the rise of anti-capitalism.

As to the sub-story about socialism, Oates was extremely careful to place the novel in the years before the Soviet Revolution, before all those horrible attempts at latter-day imperialism in the name of "workers' rights". Which is to say that it is not necessary for anyone -- least of all Oates herself -- to believe in socialism, or to disdain capitalism, much less organized religion or old wealth. This novel is specifically about the abuses of our past, and the way those abuses flowed from those three qualities of America, and the way socialism was an attempt to redress it all. All that is required is to believe our past contained abuse, and that we should still be vigilant in addressing it.

I have no idea whether or not Oates had DW Griffith's film specifically in mind. I did not find anything in her text that might suggest either way. It only seems fascinating to me that the storylines are somewhat parallel, and begin in the same setting, but lead in exactly opposite directions.

It has also been said many times in online reviews that this is an extremely long novel, whose length is not justified by the plot. I agree. But I think there's a good reason for it. The plot of this novel is extremely simple. It doesn't require much explanation. In fact there are plenty of times when facts and anecdotes are repeated, sometimes multiple times. I think Oates is telling us to stop worrying about the plot. She'll hold your hand through all the details of who did what, and who's related to whom, and whose name is what. You should instead pay attention instead to the atmosphere, the environment, the currents moving through the book, under it and over it.

Pay attention to the bubblings of the past, represented by men and women of Winslow Slade's era, protected by the men and women of Woodrow Wilson's present, and combated by the men and women of Upton Sinclair's future; and while Oates goes on at length, use the entirety of your mind to think about what you're reading, reflect upon the truths and lies of the past, and be inspired to the thoughtfulness which this novel promotes. It was a good read, and I'm glad I read it. ( )

I am happy this book is done. I know that I have not read the best novels of Joyce Carol Oates. I have, however, read many short stories and I like her writing...a lot. Sadly, however, not this book. I am not even sure why I finished it. I think I just kept on hoping it would get better.

It was disjointed and hard to follow and, in the end, just plain boring. On to something more worth my time. ( )