Quote:
Originally Posted by Irene Wilde
Uh-oh, it sounds like Stewart has a found the equal to That-Book-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Oh was this only The Alchemist bad?
|
No, it's not as bad as
The Alchemist. I suppose I'm mad at reading it because it's a generic, run-of-the-mill thriller: the sort where one man goes up against the system for what he believes in and to put things right. I wouldn't read such stuff through choice, so wouldn't have had a problem with the book. But because the judging panel have put it on the Booker longlist, which effectively categorises it as one of the best thirteen books by Commonwealth writers, I've read it and it's Nothing.
The best way to view it is as a melodramatic monologue. It's third person all the way, but the author is giving you no chance to enjoy it; he has all the details and he's going to share them. Were he up to giving sharp details and good observations, it might have pushed it up a star (from
), but the writing is extremely limp and doesn't move beyond basic, unimaginative details. Dialogue is used to fill in details unrealistically, and the viewpoint jumps about throughout scenes, sometimes within the same paragraph.
It's no surprise to learn that Tom Rob Smith is a scriptwriter, because that's how this book started life. Action Scene 1 links to Action Scene #2 and these link all the way to Action Scene #n. No depth, no questions: no point. I'm reminded of Martin Amis's review of Thomas Harris'
Hannibal where he called it a "snorting, rooting, oinking
porker, complete with twinkling trotters and twirlaround tail". And people actually
buy this? Books like this?