Monday, August 15, 2005
A Longlist of Books announced for a prize sponsered by a Man
The Man Booker prize long list has been announced. I ain't read any of them, shall I bother? Like the sound of James Meek's one, and I’ve never read Coetzee, so maybe I should start. Ishiguro's? maybe. Never read Zadie Smith, never read any books written by women, why's that? Rushdie, probably won't bother, read Midnights Children instead, looks a chore though. Have you seen his wife? that's what being able to write and a fatwa get you, she's a belter.
As for Tash Aw, well a review of his book reacquainted me with the preposterously pretentious Neel Mukherjee. This man knows no bounds when it comes to pretentiousness, it's as if he spends all day cultivating these convoluted reviews, which are an excuse more than anything, to display his wordiness:
"Where Aw emerges as uncontested winner is in the subtle modulations of the three narratorial voices. From the clunky unreliability of Jasper, through the pellucid prose of Snow’s journal to the intelligent, slightly camp, aesthetic eloquence of Wormwood, Aw orchestrates a graceful ballet of dissonances and congruences, of echoes and discords."
Yeah mate, good one, wind yer neck in.
This reaquantance has more to do with than booker, it's to do with a link to my recent past, and has allowed me to write about it without actually saying anything about it whatsoever, the memories, the laughs had at his expense. Cloud Atlas, that review, fugues. There's another Booker Nominee, and one of only two books I cloud never finish. But the review extracts inside made it priceless, the preciousness of them, hyperbole, made us laugh.
Who is going to win? I don't know. I think that each year the panel should contain a layperson, who isn't a pointy-headed pontificator. Maybe they could win a place on the judging panel by entering a competition on Richard and Judy. That's a better idea, why not have those two on the panel? Imagine the fun and games, the arguing and condescension.
As for Tash Aw, well a review of his book reacquainted me with the preposterously pretentious Neel Mukherjee. This man knows no bounds when it comes to pretentiousness, it's as if he spends all day cultivating these convoluted reviews, which are an excuse more than anything, to display his wordiness:
"Where Aw emerges as uncontested winner is in the subtle modulations of the three narratorial voices. From the clunky unreliability of Jasper, through the pellucid prose of Snow’s journal to the intelligent, slightly camp, aesthetic eloquence of Wormwood, Aw orchestrates a graceful ballet of dissonances and congruences, of echoes and discords."
Yeah mate, good one, wind yer neck in.
This reaquantance has more to do with than booker, it's to do with a link to my recent past, and has allowed me to write about it without actually saying anything about it whatsoever, the memories, the laughs had at his expense. Cloud Atlas, that review, fugues. There's another Booker Nominee, and one of only two books I cloud never finish. But the review extracts inside made it priceless, the preciousness of them, hyperbole, made us laugh.
Who is going to win? I don't know. I think that each year the panel should contain a layperson, who isn't a pointy-headed pontificator. Maybe they could win a place on the judging panel by entering a competition on Richard and Judy. That's a better idea, why not have those two on the panel? Imagine the fun and games, the arguing and condescension.
