Take a photo of a barcode or cover
innatejames 's review for:
The Submission
by Amy Waldman
The premise is so intriguing: What would happen if a nation-wide contest to design the 9/11 Memorial was held and the blind judging panel picked a Muslim winner?
SPOILERS AHOY AHOY
Amy Waldman's story unravels realistically. The media churns out drivel and instigates more controversy. The panel collapse into themselves with over-thinking and uber-PC dialogue. The winner broods and employs lawyers to get a fair shake at the prestige of honoring those that were killed. The racists rally. The liberals worry. It's a very complicated affair.
So, you'd think the book would be more interesting to me, right? I wonder if I would have thought differently had I skipped the author's biography (she's a well seasoned reporter), but for me the writing was as flat as a newscast. The characters were mostly stereotypes. We maintained a comfortable surface level with them: her brow was furrowed like rain on glass; he stewed in his kitchen in a red robe. That sort of thing. And I just wanted to get into the brains of some of the key characters and talk about the complex feelings they experienced instead of what shoes they chose to wear.
I should disclose here that I was in the minority of our book group. Most of us liked it. Praised it. Got behind the characters and seriously connected to one side or other of the causes.
I did not. I felt like the POV should have focused on three characters (Claire, the winner and the (edit) Bangladeshi immigrant). That way the repercussions of the events would have hit home harder. I feel like whoever gave the author the advice 'writing is reporting with adjectives' (because that's very much how I felt it was written)should have expounded a little further.
Amy Waldman has talent for writing. Don't let what I wrote here make you think otherwise. I'm just going to give her a few books before I try her again.
SPOILERS AHOY AHOY
Amy Waldman's story unravels realistically. The media churns out drivel and instigates more controversy. The panel collapse into themselves with over-thinking and uber-PC dialogue. The winner broods and employs lawyers to get a fair shake at the prestige of honoring those that were killed. The racists rally. The liberals worry. It's a very complicated affair.
So, you'd think the book would be more interesting to me, right? I wonder if I would have thought differently had I skipped the author's biography (she's a well seasoned reporter), but for me the writing was as flat as a newscast. The characters were mostly stereotypes. We maintained a comfortable surface level with them: her brow was furrowed like rain on glass; he stewed in his kitchen in a red robe. That sort of thing. And I just wanted to get into the brains of some of the key characters and talk about the complex feelings they experienced instead of what shoes they chose to wear.
I should disclose here that I was in the minority of our book group. Most of us liked it. Praised it. Got behind the characters and seriously connected to one side or other of the causes.
I did not. I felt like the POV should have focused on three characters (Claire, the winner and the (edit) Bangladeshi immigrant). That way the repercussions of the events would have hit home harder. I feel like whoever gave the author the advice 'writing is reporting with adjectives' (because that's very much how I felt it was written)should have expounded a little further.
Amy Waldman has talent for writing. Don't let what I wrote here make you think otherwise. I'm just going to give her a few books before I try her again.