Birnam Wood, by Eleanor Catton.
New Zealander Catton is the youngest-ever winner of the Man Booker Prize, winning it at 28 for her second novel The Luminaries. This is her third novel.
Set in New Zealand, it is centered around a left-wing activist guerilla gardening collective. When a landslide cuts off access to a property in remote New Zealand, the collective see an opportunity - but so too does billionaire Robert Lemoine, a sort of Peter Thiel/Elon Musk figure. Hijinks ensue.
The book is very interested in the psychology of its characters and engages in a stack of Jane Austen-esque omniscient narrator digressions about their states of mind, histories, foibles, motivations and so on. The Macbeth connection of the title clues the reader in that we might be looking at a tragedy here - with some dark comedy along the way - and Catton said in an interview that she wanted to write the book like any of the characters could be Macbeth. The characters are all varying degrees of unlikable and Catton is careful not to endorse any particular political view. She appears to have succeeded in this, because here is a quote from the Guardian review:
It’s hard not to feel a bit disappointed that such a beautifully built novel just tells us the same old, same old: billionaires bad! Leftwing radicals good, if sometimes misguided and hapless!.. Catton is not wrong; she is certainly showing us the world we know. But our culture is already rife with calls for moral simplicity. Isn’t it the duty of the literary novel to go deeper?
The Atlantic had a somewhat different review. Here is their headline and sub-head:
A Biting Satire About the Idealistic Left
Eleanor Catton’s new novel, Birnam Wood, pokes at the pieties of those who want to change the world.
So there you have it.
I had mixed feelings about this book. The fact that most readers won’t like any of the characters makes it hard to get invested and it has some pacing issues; the middle third drags on a bit. I chose this for my book club, which is me and nine women, six of whom were able to make the meeting. Nobody much liked it and one proclaimed it the worst thing she had read in book club. There was debate over who was the most disagreeable character; I really did not like the founder/leader of the collective (who is the closest thing the book has to a protagonist) but a couple of the others chose the know-it-all mansplainer character, who I thought had some good fucking points at times, frankly, and so what if he sometimes put them a bit forcefully? What? Why are you looking at me like that?
I wouldn’t recommend this to most people but i would recommend it to Unstuckers, as I enjoyed its portrait of various activist psychological archetypes and internecine conflict in a left-wing organization. It’s fun kind of recognising some Unstuckers in there.