Scan barcode
A review by karencarlson
Lost for Words by Edward St Aubyn
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.