Scan barcode
bundy23's review against another edition
1.0
DNF.
I'm assuming this was a comedy but as I didn’t even crack a single smile in about an hour with this book I decided that it wasn't really worth continuing with. Plus, all the characters are awful.
The biggest problem with “wit” is that when it goes wrong, all you’re usually left with is a bunch of rich, arrogant fuckwits that I’d never spend a single second in the company of.
I'm assuming this was a comedy but as I didn’t even crack a single smile in about an hour with this book I decided that it wasn't really worth continuing with. Plus, all the characters are awful.
The biggest problem with “wit” is that when it goes wrong, all you’re usually left with is a bunch of rich, arrogant fuckwits that I’d never spend a single second in the company of.
lazygal's review against another edition
4.0
The Patrick Melrose novels have been on my To Buy/To Read list for a while now, but when this book crossed my path I decided not to wait for those to become acquainted with St. Aubyn's oeuvre. And am I glad I didn't wait!
If you aren't familiar with overly pompous English-literature-speak, some of this won't make a lot of sense. But if you are, it can be quite funny reading the arguments about why each book submitted to the Elysian Prize committee is worth, or unworthy. And Benoit! I swear I've worked with him... The problem is, to explain more would be to delve into textuality and satire and all those other pretentious buzzwords, so let's just say I enjoyed the read and am looking forward to reading his other works.
If you aren't familiar with overly pompous English-literature-speak, some of this won't make a lot of sense. But if you are, it can be quite funny reading the arguments about why each book submitted to the Elysian Prize committee is worth, or unworthy. And Benoit! I swear I've worked with him... The problem is, to explain more would be to delve into textuality and satire and all those other pretentious buzzwords, so let's just say I enjoyed the read and am looking forward to reading his other works.
mayarelmahdy's review against another edition
4.0
I was in my bed remembering a scene from my attempt to read Patrick Melrose when I thought "Hey, I have a book by the same author on my phone!". That's how I got to this.
It tells a funny story with over a dozen characters and scenes from other novels some of them have merits to become actual complete ones. It's about a prize that chooses one of 200 books by the help of a panel of judges, each of them has their own agenda.
The process is odd and non-professional and many ways, and the fact that this novel, which discusses the process of choosing a winner, has won a prize is hilarious at its own merits. Talk about irony.
I loved every minute of this book; the character, the choosing process, the novels it... everything was so good.
Can't wait to actually read Patrick Melrose next.
It tells a funny story with over a dozen characters and scenes from other novels some of them have merits to become actual complete ones. It's about a prize that chooses one of 200 books by the help of a panel of judges, each of them has their own agenda.
The process is odd and non-professional and many ways, and the fact that this novel, which discusses the process of choosing a winner, has won a prize is hilarious at its own merits. Talk about irony.
I loved every minute of this book; the character, the choosing process, the novels it... everything was so good.
Can't wait to actually read Patrick Melrose next.
liisae's review against another edition
3.0
I love St. Aubyn's writing, I'm so glad to have discovered his books this year. I really enjoy his philosophies; it feels like every other sentence is giving me something new to think about. At the same time, I never feel bogged down by the philosophy or feel that he's lacking in or sacrificing lighthearted and brisk plot for it.
karencarlson's review against another edition
4.75
I found this book to be a lot of fun - an engaging look at a literary prize, similar to the Booker Prize. Two character ensembles interact: the judges, who all have different agendas and ideas of what literature should be, and writers who are either in the running, or who shoulda-woulda-coulda been.
I see from other comments here that a lot of readers were disappointed, either because this didn't measure up, in literary terms, to St. Aubyn's earlier works, or because it wasn't satirical enough. I find that ironic, since it mirrors, to some degree, the discussion of each fictional book's flaws and merits in the book itself.
Yes, it's a bit formulaic. The plot follows the judges and writers from the initial formation of the year's panel, to the Long List, to the Short List, to the announcement of the winner at the final banquet. There's a lot of politicking, dealmaking, some skullduggery, and bedhopping. I found the narrative drive to be quite powerful; I wanted to see who would make the Short List, who would win, what the consequences would be.
But more than that, there's an interwoven discussion of what the prize should reward: literary innovation? Reader interest? Social promotion of neglected voices? A memorable theme? and there's a final remark that questions the possibility of judging and comparing literature, or any art, at all.
So I liked it a lot more than some others, while recognizing it's not capital-L literature or something new and different. It is what it is. And for that, it's a great read.
FMI see my blog post at A Just Recompense.
I see from other comments here that a lot of readers were disappointed, either because this didn't measure up, in literary terms, to St. Aubyn's earlier works, or because it wasn't satirical enough. I find that ironic, since it mirrors, to some degree, the discussion of each fictional book's flaws and merits in the book itself.
Yes, it's a bit formulaic. The plot follows the judges and writers from the initial formation of the year's panel, to the Long List, to the Short List, to the announcement of the winner at the final banquet. There's a lot of politicking, dealmaking, some skullduggery, and bedhopping. I found the narrative drive to be quite powerful; I wanted to see who would make the Short List, who would win, what the consequences would be.
But more than that, there's an interwoven discussion of what the prize should reward: literary innovation? Reader interest? Social promotion of neglected voices? A memorable theme? and there's a final remark that questions the possibility of judging and comparing literature, or any art, at all.
So I liked it a lot more than some others, while recognizing it's not capital-L literature or something new and different. It is what it is. And for that, it's a great read.
FMI see my blog post at A Just Recompense.
egoubet's review against another edition
2.0
I kind of enjoyed this book - but probably only made it through the whole thing because of the short length. I will try to read some of his other books though.