This book is definitely a reader's book, or maybe a writer's book? I'm never really sure what the difference is, but either way it's a tome that really pushes you to focus on what you're reading as there are quite a few heavy philosophical arguments and references within the novel, and it pushes you to question what is and isn't real with the protagonist acknowledging that he's had previous stints in a mental institution and the varying 'ghosts' to which the title refers.I bought this book in 2011 at the Boston Book Festival and it's just sat on my shelf since. I'm glad I read it, but at the same time I'm not sure why I bought it at the time as I'm terrified of ghost stories, but you'll have to read on to find out how this one affected me. Since it's been on my shelf for almost two years it counts for my Mount TBR 'extra' challenge. It took nearly two weeks to read and that's from the denseness of the book. seriously, scroll down and read the first line—it's a PARAGRAPH—or any of the quotes for that matter!The hardest part of this book, surprisingly, wasn't all the philosophy. You can pretty much ignore it and the book is still great. I'm sure if I understood the philosophy more the book would have that much more of an impact, but I was never good at philosophy and the book was just fine. For me, the only thing I didn't like about the book was the protagonist's helplessness. I felt like he was avoiding taking responsibility for anything and from this arose all of his problems. I have very little patience for this type of person and just kept wanting to slap him in the face and say WAKE UP TO THE REAL WORLD and sort out your shit. But if I did that, then the best part of the novel wouldn't have existed.Click here to continue reading on my blog The Oddness of Moving Things.
Despite some terrific portions, this got to be a real slog. Gardner includes stage direction down to the minutest detail. Sounds like a small issue to launch a critique with, but it's a huge obstacle to enjoying the book. Reading Mickelsson's, you may not know whether or not the ghosts are real, but you're never in doubt as to whether it's a character's right hand or left being used to light a cigarette or lift a cup of coffee. Every facial response, every eyebrow tic, is painstakingly, Proustianly recorded. For some this may be sweet molasses; for me it was tar. And I LIKE big wordy books. I like Gardner too, at least in Grendel and in his writing about writing.Mickelsson's descent into madness (or emotional entropy, really) is convincing, yet ultimately more wearying than riveting. It doesn't help that he more or less takes the ghosts for granted -- as in the actual back-from-the-dead, the mournful, angry, malevolent spirits -- and spends more time weighing Nietzsche v. Wittgenstein. (Though who am I to declare his escapism dull and unlikely? My post-divorce distraction of choice was computer solitaire. Then again, had my apartment produced poltergeists, I wouldn't have shrugged it off and wondered if it all boiled down to something regarding Wittgenstein.) Anyhow, M. refurbishes his house (self or fortress? oh, ambivalent symbolism), regrets and recollects (there are ghosts of all sorts!), writes bad checks (we are each of us debtors), and generally behaves atrociously but still manages to attract the winningest woman around (unlikely redemption's always kinda hot). I won't spoil the Friedrich v. Ludwig suspense, but rest assured Mickelsson makes many expressions in the process and his hands are always very busy.
What do You think about Mickelsson's Ghosts (1989)?
If I were living in Dickensian London and my only distractions were Dickens, hookers and the occasional debilitating flu, I think I could probably finish this book. As it stands, however, this is my third effort at a Gardner book and my third failure. There is nothing here to prevent me from recommending it other than the fact that it seems to me that the book is wildly too broad. As in, overwritten. As in, just could use to some old-fashioned scissoring. It's well-written, yes--but every second of Mickelsson's day does not an engaging novel make. Probably a spectacular ending that I missed.
—Parker
John Gardener's Mickelsson's Ghost was so very strange and wonderfully haunting on many different levels. Peter Mickelsson is a middle aged professor of philosophy teaching at SUNY Binghamton.His life is a hugely complicated affair with an ex-wife who is taking a large amount of a not so huge salary and a past history of mental illness.It is this and his consequent stay in an institution that forced his resignation from his previous college. Many factors and relationships combine to turn his already confused life into more when he buys a farmhouse in need of work in the mountains. The house already has its own resident ghosts and mystery involving Mormons.The sheer complexity of Peter Mickelsson's life and his philosophical musings made for a very thought-provoking and thoroughly interesting read.
—Amy
Brooding, roaming, but often snapping adventure into the inner spiral of Peter Mickelsson, a philosopher just beyond his prime and family man severed from not only the individuals constituting family but every circumstance affirming that role. The structure of his descent struck me like a shotgun marriage of Thomas Pynchon and John Updike, which I guess fits into the rubble of patriarchy beheld by this book. I liked it lots, only thought a few of the looser plot elements lacked both the verve of real artistic chaos and the consistency that made so much of the book fly well. God rest ye, Peter Mickelsson, and thank ye, John Gardner, for the legacy of this bigass book.
—Shauna
