Bridge of Clay by Markus Zusak

Markus Zusak is one of my favorite authors and two of his novels, I Am the Messenger and The Book Thief, are both on my all-time favorites list. Those books were published in 2002 and 2005, respectively, so I was more than ready for Bridge of Clay when it was released in 2018. Of course, since I am always awash in a sea of books I want to read, I didn't get around to picking it up right when it came out. So, at the end of last year when I was formulating my Then Versus Now Challenge, I made sure to put it on my list. I started my reading last week hopeful that I would love it as much as I loved his others.

Bridge of Clay tells the story of the Dunbar brothers, five young boys living on their own after their mother died and their father walked out on them years ago. The story is narrated by Matthew, the oldest brother, but most of the story is centered around Clay, the second youngest and most sensitive of the group. The plot kicks off when their father unexpectedly returns one afternoon, asking for their help to build a bridge on his property outside of town. All of the boys are outraged at his sudden return and presumptuous request, except Clay, who agrees to help him. He leaves within a few days to go build the bridge, an act that feels like a betrayal to his brothers, but is something he feels like he has to do for reasons he does not discuss. He has a secret weighing on his heart, and he sees building this bridge as some sort of redemption for himself.

From there, Matthew's narration begins bouncing back and forth between the story of Clay and the bridge and the Dunbar family's backstory. Chapters alternate between the past and the present, starting with their parents' childhoods and moving through their marriage and early relationship, their growing family, their mother's illness and eventual death, and their father's choice to leave. As more of the family history is told, the boys' current circumstances begin to make sense, as does Clay's decision to work on the bridge. Eventually, when the two story threads connect, we are left with an intricate depiction of a family's struggle with unimaginable grief and their path to reconciliation.

I feel very split about this novel. I appreciated its non-linear structure, emotional themes, and beautiful passages. Parts of the story were very compelling, and the ending was quite moving. However, I also thought that the pacing had significant issues, and that Zusak's descriptive and flowery writing style did not serve this story well. It was unclear in many points and often vague to the point of frustration. What was good in the novel was very good, but its weaknesses were also glaring and disappointing. It certainly does not measure up to his first two novels.

One of my favorite elements of the novel was the jumbled up timeline. Reading all of the background information alongside the current events of the story was unique and like a little puzzle. I liked recognizing little bits of anecdotes or objects from the present as they showed their origins in the past. The structure also did a good job of showing how the past tends to repeat itself in families, and I enjoyed seeing traits and behaviors from the parents show up in the boys as the story went on. Zusak definitely created a distinctive cast of characters with their own little quirks and rituals. The Dunbars felt like a family, with all of their messiness and imperfections. While I can't say that each character felt unique or likable, they did feel like they had a defined family identity. My favorite character by far was Penelope Dunbar, the boys' mother. At the age of eighteen, she escaped communist Eastern Europe and began a new life in Australia. On her own, she supported herself, learned English, and eventually became a beloved special education teacher. Her journey was a pleasure to read, and watching her slow decline was an emotional reading experience.

Much like in Zusak's previous works, the overall story is a mixture of sadness and hope. His themes of redemption and reconciliation come through well in the story. Clay's decision to build a literal bridge ends up building a symbolic bridge between the members of his family, which was nice, if a little too on-the-nose. As usual, his overall messages encourage readers to become better people - to forgive, to cut each other some slack, to stick by your friends and family. He also includes a lot of little references to old literature and movies, which I appreciated.

So while there were many aspects of Bridge of Clay that I really did enjoy, I struggled with what I considered to be its obvious problems. The pacing, in particular, was an issue. This is a long novel, at 537 pages, and the first three quarters of it drag terribly. I think the reason for this is a mismatch between the amount of plot conveyed in the sections that take place in the past versus the sections that take place in the present. The sections set in the past would frequently cover months or years within a single chapter, and they would change to different characters' points of view across sections. This was quick, felt interesting, and was engaging. The sections set in the present would frequently cover a single day or just a couple of hours of Clay's life. This was glacial, felt pointless, and gave the reader the impression that the book wasn't going anywhere. Information about Clay was revealed far too slowly and there wasn't enough of it.

Aside from feeling slow, Zusak's lyrical, signature writing style didn't work well with the unusual story structure he chose for this novel. His descriptions throughout all of his novels have always been more artistic than concrete, and that technique can quickly lead to confusion when you are hopping around to different timelines and characters. His style is vague, beautifully vague, but vague nonetheless, and the lack of specific statements meant that a clear understanding of the story relied largely on the reader's ability to correctly infer what he was trying to say. Judging by all the questions and reviews posted on Goodreads, many, many people were not able to do this. There are several questions posted from readers asking about major plot points in the story, showing that a large amount of readers clearly did not understand some of the most important events in the book. To make matters worse, even some of the answers posted are wrong, and have to be corrected by other people. It's a mess, and a lot of readers ended up abandoning this novel due to either confusion or boredom. I think I got what Zusak was saying for the most part, but some of the events remain hazy to me too.



**Spoilers in the next two paragraphs**


There was one event in the story that really rubbed me the wrong way, and I want to explore it here. One of the major parts of Clay's story in the present timeline is his relationship with Carey, one his neighbors. They love each other deeply, but keep each other at arm's length because Carey is an aspiring jockey, and her training needs to be her main focus in life. Her coach has advised her to give up having a boyfriend at the end of the year in order to concentrate on her racing skills, and this deadline looms over the pair throughout the novel. As this date draws nearer, they finally crack and have sex in the woods one night. The next morning, Carey leaves to go riding and is thrown from her horse in the woods and dies. Clay blames himself for this, believing that he distracted her and essentially murdered her.

I didn't like this, and I'm not exactly sure why I disliked it as much as I did. I think it's a combination of a few things. First, it's ridiculous, at least to me. It's an unbelievable event in a story meant to be grounded in reality. Secondly, I feel like there's an uncomfortable, unintentional layer of sexism here. Carey was shown to be a very promising and talented jockey and she had been training for several years. Why does one sexual encounter undo all that? It doesn't say much about her abilities and plays to outdated stereotypes about feminine weakness. I also didn't like how another woman had to die to further a male character's development. Zusak already did this with the mother character, and there honestly wan't a good reason for Carey to have to die too. Lastly, I didn't like how this affected Clay, because it utterly destroys him. He tells two different people about how he feels responsible, and neither one took him aside and told him how unreasonable he was being. I felt like there needed to be a very clear statement about how this was categorically not his fault, but it never came, and Clay just went on believing he murdered his only love and gave up on his ambitions. I wish this element hadn't existed, or if Carey's death needed to be in the story, I wish she had died in a different way, or for a different reason - maybe in a way that could actually be considered Clay's fault if his guilt was integral to the story Zusak wanted to tell.



**End of spoilers**


Ultimately, I did like Bridge of Clay. It was certainly unique, and often beautiful and touching. It definitely had notable flaws though, that did detract from how much I enjoyed they story. I do still love Zusak's writing, and I will probably always read whatever he comes out with, but this one won't be remembered as a favorite of mine. It was still definitely worth the read though, and anyone interested in character-driven, unusually structured stories should give it a shot.


Challenge Tally
Then vs. Now: 10/27

Total Books Read in 2020: 37