Thoughts on Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief

First: See "Adaptation", the film written by Charlie Kaufman that emerged from the book. One of the best movies about writing--and passion for life--out there. And it's hilarious.

As for Susan Orlean's book, The Orchid Thief: A True Story of Beauty and Obsession:

She blew me away with the first 60-some pages. She had me whole. Stunning description of Florida's peculiar life and consciousness ... I admire Orlean's willingness to make bold, sweeping judgments. As well, she has a knack for the sharp simile, the unexpected metaphor. And with a vat of scientific, natural, legal, and political history teeming at the base of this book, Orlean translated jargon into sweet prose. (For all the realms she tracks orchids into, though, I was surprised their was no mention of Georgia O'Keefe's paintings). I learned a whole lot, easily, and was catalyzed to look more clearly at the shocking, absorbing plant that has resulted in centuries of mania.

But.

Orlean's got to get grip on her run-on sentences. She relies on the long sentence, using 'and' and 'or' as a chain of beats at least every other page. All power of such a sentence's rhythm is diminished with overuse; I came to wonder if her use of the device as a rhythmic crutch didn't indicate a lack of comfort with long-form nonfiction. Because on a macro level, The Orchid Thief diminishes as it goes forward. By the end, Orlean claims writing as her passion, akin to John LaRoche's orchirds, but after her knee-weakening opening, her passion comes in spurts--a few paragraphs here, a surprise image there. It's certainly implied in her willingness to doggedly follow LaRoche, hike in a swamp that horrifies her, and to follow this story through with admirable thoroughness. But she does it all like a duty.

Her passion, not her quiet perseverance, should've been the unifying pull of the novel. Instead, what holds The Orchid Thief together is simply the intriguing facts and anecdotes she uncovered. I read through with curiosity and interest, but the book rather had the feel of paging through a magazine (Orlean's home genre)--worthy distractions are all around, but they are discrete and lack common cohesion.

I don't mean to give the impression that this is a bad book--it's not. It's fascinating, enjoyable, and I found myself reaching for it again and again, despite the two other high quality books I was moving through. I simply feel that it fell short of the promises it made to the reader.

Comments

[Liam]

I did the first step. I saw Adaptation at the Brattle Theatre tonight. Now I just have to read Orlean's book about flowers. I can't imagine they have a lot in common.