This applies to movies and music as well, people nowadays, most.of them shape their tastes around how it would make them look in the eyes of others. We lack lot of authenticity in this age of highly inflated egos
Spot on as far as I am concerned! I think I've read 2 books because they won a prize and it did not pay off for me. From now on I only read prize winners when I myself was the jury that gave the prize.
Ha! I love that - yes, absolutely, we should all be our own judges. It's a lost art, but we really do know what's best for ourselves most of the time. I was reading a certain book prize list in reverse chronological order and, like you, had to abandon it after a handful of books!
I agree with this to an extent. I’ve found that reading “classics” definitely has a higher hit rate, i.e., a greater portion of the classics I’ve read have been genuinely great compared to the portion of contemporary books I’ve read (which include a lot of these “prize” books). In that way, picking a classic is safer. You’re much more likely to avoid wasting your time. This makes sense because when you read classics in 2022 you’re reading the greatest hits of the past-the stuff good enough to stay popular for decades or centuries-whereas when you read contemporary you’re presented with *everything* without the junk filtered out yet. But man, there are some contemporary books that are damn good. I keep coming back to Rachel Cusk’s Outline trilogy, which are definitely “walking around” books but are so packed full of interesting little asides and musings that I find them endlessly readable. Some genuinely sublime moments are mixed in there too, along with a sprinkling of dry humor. Reading those books is like sitting down to have a fascinating conversation with a stranger. I love them. I also love a lot of George Saunders’ short stories and there are some other absolute gems, like Don DeLillo’s Underworld or Helen DeWitt’s The Last Samurai, if you’d call those contemporary. And I’m sure others I can’t think of off the top of my head. I’d put all these on the same level as the classics.
I mostly agree with you. There are a few exceptions. I loved Booker prize winners The Life of Pi and Lincoln on the Bardo. I think they had merit. But your point is well taken….which is why I am reading Jane Austen with the Hardcore Literature Book Club.
You've named two books I absolutely adore :) I studied Life of Pi at school and fell in love with it. And I read Lincoln in the Bardo the day it came out (I have a gorgeous hardback first edition I cherish) and listened to the audiobook simultaneously. One of my favourite books in recent years and so poignant! How are you enjoying Austen so far? :)
Hello! Loving your videos and insights. I'm starting Anna K. In a few days and taking the summer to really read and live it. You've inspired me to finally start it after having it on my shelf for 20 years.
Thank you so much :) I'm so happy to hear you're embarking on AK and doing it slowly. That sounds like a lovely summer to me :) Let me know what you think of it!
Hi Ben You and I have discussed a recent 'Winner' on the HCLB and we are in agreement that the hype often leads to disappointment. A book isn't a 'winner' just because a handful of people say it is, especially when that claim is unsubstantiated with any specific reasoning or evidence. By the time the winner is chosen, both the short and long list have been in the public domain for many months which automatically [and conveniently] gives rise to more sales. Are these books being bought because they're great or because they're on a list? Is it just a big publicity stunt to promote book sales? A book is a real winner if it's still around thirty or more years after publication; if it nourishes your soul and expands your horizons; if you read it and then come back to study it because it has something more to offer you than just a story. I've not seen many authors published in my lifetime that have gone on to become a household name or a subject worthy of literary study. There have been a few from the 1960's but most of the books that we consider to be vintage or classics were written many years before we were born. Longevity among the plethora of writers (and there are some great ones) that are out there today seems unlikely, but the posthumous competition is stiff and undeniable and outlives/outranks most of the current 'successes' year on year. I now try to only buy books that I think will travel on with me, not things I'll discard after one read. We should ‘grow’ libraries that will feed us for the rest of our lives. Great discussion. Sharon xx
Hello Sharon :) Thank you so much for yet another insightful comment! I can only imagine the beautiful and nuanced commentaries and analyses housed in your journal. I completely agree with the unsubstantiated criteria. There is one book prize, which shall remain nameless, that does give a sentence or two describing the winner after they've won. I kind of liked that, but also found myself a little lost - it was never clear what these works were being measured or judged by. I swear, if we ever do a HLBC Prize, there will be comprehensive and fully explained criteria for the awards! It can be done :) And as you say, the books that stand the test of time are the winners. In the same way that the love which remains constant across time is the heavenly, pure, and genuine thing. No short-cuts, unfortunately. I wouldn't be able to confidently wager which works of today would still be read in a century's time. Historically, so many great works were ignored, and so many lacklustre works praised. Like you, I want a library that grows with me. I had a revelation yesterday as I was boxing up books for house moving ... "I have too many books". I need to cut some away, and embrace the ones I cherish most. This is done out of love. Thank you, Sharon. I treasure your comments!
I enjoy you so much! I’m joining later today. A couple of prize winners that appeal to me (and that I’ve read and reread) are Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall trilogy … and I must say that Anita Brookner’s grim novels saved my life, during a particularly difficult time. Your remark about grabbing a protagonist and wanting to slap some sense into them was often my reaction to Anita. “Get out of the house! Talk to someone … ANYONE! Having lunch with another human being once a year is not sufficient!” Again, I love your podcasts and your attitude. Thank you SO much!
Preach!...something I never thought I'd be compelled to exclaim. That said, I'm afraid I did enjoy such books as Anna Burns' "Milkman", Ernaux's "The Years" and Olga Tokarczuk's "Primeval and Other Times". I think it's fair to say that one should neither choose, nor altogether exclude a work of contemporary fiction, solely on the basis of it or its author having received an award. And perhaps, no more than ever before, where a surplus of "content", including books, is constantly battling for our attention, there is a need to cultivate discernment.
Literature and literature prizes have and always will be political. Politics is why Tolstoy never won a Nobel Prize in literature despite being nominated for 5 straight years, so I don't really see complaining about politics as particularly productive. Rather think of who judges these awards, and what do they value in literature. Do you as a reader have those same preferences? If not you're probably not going to like every book they award. Are critics of any art always right? Read what suits your taste. You're not going to like every book you start
Your suggesting that art is subjective (or the quality of it). Political orientation should not be the main trait to judge a piece of art by, but rather how they present that orientation. I believe what Benjamin is saying is that today books win prizes because they are explicitly of the popular politics, rather than having politics woven into their stories with skill. And your point on Tolstoy kinda disproves your argument? Either way Benjamin (I'm almost positive) believes that art is objective and there is good and bad art, what makes that is perhaps up to debate, however it has already been debated thoroughly, and there's only a few schools of thought that are held with any respect still.
Cool to see Time Out in the background! It's a great record. I think music and literature are alike in many ways. I would be curious to hear you talk about your favorite music and how literature influences your taste in it, and vice versa.
I have over the decades for the most part read something by the winner of Nobel Prize in Literature. Thd Arthur C Clarke (sci-fi) winner is also generally top drawer. The rest are touch and go. Last year I decided to read the Booker longlist. It was a good list in 2022. My two favorites, however, did not even make the shortlist: Audrey Magee's The Colony and Maddie Mortimer's Maps of Our Spectacular Bodies. As I have just joined the Hardcore Literature Group I will not be reading the next Booker longlist.
Also, as a librarian I really relate to this video...the quality of ideas and thought in the majority of books published today is terrible. I prefer the classics and a few select contemporary writers.
If we're defining post-modern as anything post-1965, then Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49, Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, maybe some of Don Delillo's stuff. I love Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections and David Foster Wallace is also good.
Perhaps I am a religious preacher or politician... ;) High praise indeed. I'm sure you and I could both be very dangerous, Florian. Thank God the good guys have us on their side.
Australian Colleen McCullough it's been said was ignored by her peers and by 'awards', yet I think she wrote some marvellous books and I'm not just thinking of 'The Thorn Birds' but she wrote 'The Rome' series which was and is an incredible canon of works, Bittersweet a book about four sisters, others include Morgan's Run, The Ladies of Missalonghi and others. I think she deserved much more than what she received. But that's also like the classics, so many applaud certain novels as classics, yet you can just hate them when you try to read them, even question there place in the classics mould. I've worked in libraries for over 30 years and the fact is that there are so many millions of works that I would so love to have eternity to read. But I know, as we all do, that life is just so short. My library shelf at home holds my childhood favourite authors, Enid Blyton, Elinor M Brent Dyer, Beatrix Potter, May Gibbs, some Little Golden Books, Anne of Green Gables and other Montgomery works, Little Women, Good Wives, 'Readers Digest' classics my grandmother used to buy me for birthdays, oh and some Girl Almanacs. I also have Anne McCaffrey, Colleen McCullough, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen etc . . . I have had to move to eBooks as living space is sparse. I find your commentary so interesting and full of good guidance Brendan, thank you. I hope you have some young readers following you and listening and thinking about literature.
Hey Benjamin. Art and aesthetics is an wholesome experience. It's the essence which we feel and see not. I too have had my struggles reading these prize-winning people. Their work are, of course, pretentious, devoid of any soul.
I definitely resonate with this sentiment. You only have so much time to waste in life, why spend it trying to conform to some arbitrary standard of excellence that doesn't appeal to you? I think some prize winners are good reads, but they are by no means the only good reads out there, and if the ideas expressed in them are not moving you to think more deeply about an issue or are just plain unenjoyable to plod through, then you might as well abandon it for something that does.
Like what you said about Gusto! A Big Prize winner this year comes to mind. Tho a fine writer, many are, and lacks Gusto! Yet these tame writers do show a life finely, sturdily lived. Life often seems slow, or a grind, till one hits a certain decade then Hang On! It's a roller coaster to the end! So good advice! Use little time her on quality and Gusto!
I've been really appreciating your videos this last month, thank you! I'm personally wary of contrasting the classics as non-political compared to modern literature, but I very much resonate with your descriptions of a tired trend in contemperary literary fiction. I see few prize winners with the ambission to grasp 'the whole' or tackle big themes beyond the theme of how that very thing is impossible. My favorite book is probably war and peace, which then can exemplify the opposite; the heartfelt attempt to contain real people in a world of massive scale. I doubt any person with the same creative gift and intellect, will trust the powers of the novel-form enough to write something like that again. This informs how i understand the 'ideological' bent of modern writers - if a book is ambitious (and any good) it will contradict itself, by having characters argue, or in ambiguity and irony in the prose or narrative. Books that don't attempt this panorama dont have that ambiguity, and for my part often feel blunt or meaningless. Many novels of the traditional ilk are published, but grand plot-driven narratives are not typical prize-winners as you say. snobbery is probably a part of it, but also I think, the general crisis of the form in this time; do we believe a modern author when they tell of us 'the whole'? Have you read any of Olga Tokarczuks work? She won the nobel recently, and i've enjoyed her a lot this year:) I feel she tries to tow this line. "drive your plough over the bones of the dead" has a narrator that wanders about a lot - but does so in a striking setting, among characters i remember well, and she's the centre of a plot concerning some grizzly murders. "Flights" does the 'fragments' thing, but threads it's themes through the science of conserving the dead, and introduced me to fascinating historical figures and events. Currently reading "the books of jacob", following the rise of a sect in the 1700-hundreds, impacting christians and jewish people of all standings, through some 900-pages.
It would sadden me to believe that there are no contemporary authors worth reading. Are there any you enjoy? Im working my way through the classics but would love to move around and also read some newer age authors. Would love some recommendations
I completely ignore book awards I’m afraid. For a start, book prizes are awarded by a handful of judges, each with their limitations and prejudices. I’d lay money that 100 years from now the vast majority of Booker winners will be forgotten. The true test is time and the collective judgement of the human race. Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Milton, Blake, etc have been admired by the best minds of each generation. They have never gone out of fashion. And there is a reason for that. To make it worse, books are now awarded prizes (and published in the first place) not because they are great but because the author ticks the right boxes. I have completely lost faith in the literary establishment. I no longer trust them. Just the other day, my university sent me an email informing me they are “de-colonising their library.” This is the insane, politicised climate in which we now live. The literary establishment didn’t even protest when Roald Dahl’s actual words were edited and re-written!! To hell with them. I will make do with the 3,000 year old canon. And I’ll stick to people like Harold Bloom as guides.
I remember trying again and again to read The luminaries of Eleanor Catton, it was so boring, even the miniseries was boring, I couldn't see why the book was so applauded, but a thick book wrote by a women of 25 years old ...I often have this impression they give the prize because the gender, the race, the thickness of the book, even more if the book is thick but the author is young... And I still don't get it why people loves so much Beloved and Toni Morrison...its such an unpleasant and confusing reading, not because the topic, but the style of writing... And don't start me about auto-fiction...such a narcissistic trope
This applies to movies and music as well, people nowadays, most.of them shape their tastes around how it would make them look in the eyes of others. We lack lot of authenticity in this age of highly inflated egos
That's so true. I love the way you phrased that - we lack authenticity in this age of highly inflated egos. 100% agree with you!
Spot on as far as I am concerned! I think I've read 2 books because they won a prize and it did not pay off for me. From now on I only read prize winners when I myself was the jury that gave the prize.
Ha! I love that - yes, absolutely, we should all be our own judges. It's a lost art, but we really do know what's best for ourselves most of the time. I was reading a certain book prize list in reverse chronological order and, like you, had to abandon it after a handful of books!
I agree with this to an extent. I’ve found that reading “classics” definitely has a higher hit rate, i.e., a greater portion of the classics I’ve read have been genuinely great compared to the portion of contemporary books I’ve read (which include a lot of these “prize” books). In that way, picking a classic is safer. You’re much more likely to avoid wasting your time. This makes sense because when you read classics in 2022 you’re reading the greatest hits of the past-the stuff good enough to stay popular for decades or centuries-whereas when you read contemporary you’re presented with *everything* without the junk filtered out yet.
But man, there are some contemporary books that are damn good. I keep coming back to Rachel Cusk’s Outline trilogy, which are definitely “walking around” books but are so packed full of interesting little asides and musings that I find them endlessly readable. Some genuinely sublime moments are mixed in there too, along with a sprinkling of dry humor. Reading those books is like sitting down to have a fascinating conversation with a stranger. I love them.
I also love a lot of George Saunders’ short stories and there are some other absolute gems, like Don DeLillo’s Underworld or Helen DeWitt’s The Last Samurai, if you’d call those contemporary. And I’m sure others I can’t think of off the top of my head. I’d put all these on the same level as the classics.
I mostly agree with you. There are a few exceptions. I loved Booker prize winners The Life of Pi and Lincoln on the Bardo. I think they had merit. But your point is well taken….which is why I am reading Jane Austen with the Hardcore Literature Book Club.
You've named two books I absolutely adore :) I studied Life of Pi at school and fell in love with it. And I read Lincoln in the Bardo the day it came out (I have a gorgeous hardback first edition I cherish) and listened to the audiobook simultaneously. One of my favourite books in recent years and so poignant! How are you enjoying Austen so far? :)
A distinct flicker of smartness in a dumbed down and darkening world. Shine on. Bravo.
Hello! Loving your videos and insights. I'm starting Anna K. In a few days and taking the summer to really read and live it. You've inspired me to finally start it after having it on my shelf for 20 years.
Thank you so much :) I'm so happy to hear you're embarking on AK and doing it slowly. That sounds like a lovely summer to me :) Let me know what you think of it!
Hi Ben
You and I have discussed a recent 'Winner' on the HCLB and we are in agreement that the hype often leads to disappointment. A book isn't a 'winner' just because a handful of people say it is, especially when that claim is unsubstantiated with any specific reasoning or evidence. By the time the winner is chosen, both the short and long list have been in the public domain for many months which automatically [and conveniently] gives rise to more sales. Are these books being bought because they're great or because they're on a list? Is it just a big publicity stunt to promote book sales?
A book is a real winner if it's still around thirty or more years after publication; if it nourishes your soul and expands your horizons; if you read it and then come back to study it because it has something more to offer you than just a story. I've not seen many authors published in my lifetime that have gone on to become a household name or a subject worthy of literary study. There have been a few from the 1960's but most of the books that we consider to be vintage or classics were written many years before we were born. Longevity among the plethora of writers (and there are some great ones) that are out there today seems unlikely, but the posthumous competition is stiff and undeniable and outlives/outranks most of the current 'successes' year on year.
I now try to only buy books that I think will travel on with me, not things I'll discard after one read. We should ‘grow’ libraries that will feed us for the rest of our lives.
Great discussion.
Sharon xx
Hello Sharon :) Thank you so much for yet another insightful comment! I can only imagine the beautiful and nuanced commentaries and analyses housed in your journal. I completely agree with the unsubstantiated criteria. There is one book prize, which shall remain nameless, that does give a sentence or two describing the winner after they've won. I kind of liked that, but also found myself a little lost - it was never clear what these works were being measured or judged by. I swear, if we ever do a HLBC Prize, there will be comprehensive and fully explained criteria for the awards! It can be done :) And as you say, the books that stand the test of time are the winners. In the same way that the love which remains constant across time is the heavenly, pure, and genuine thing. No short-cuts, unfortunately. I wouldn't be able to confidently wager which works of today would still be read in a century's time. Historically, so many great works were ignored, and so many lacklustre works praised. Like you, I want a library that grows with me. I had a revelation yesterday as I was boxing up books for house moving ... "I have too many books". I need to cut some away, and embrace the ones I cherish most. This is done out of love. Thank you, Sharon. I treasure your comments!
I enjoy you so much! I’m joining later today. A couple of prize winners that appeal to me (and that I’ve read and reread) are Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall trilogy … and I must say that Anita Brookner’s grim novels saved my life, during a particularly difficult time. Your remark about grabbing a protagonist and wanting to slap some sense into them was often my reaction to Anita. “Get out of the house! Talk to someone … ANYONE! Having lunch with another human being once a year is not sufficient!”
Again, I love your podcasts and your attitude.
Thank you SO much!
I appreciate your honesty and I whole heartedly agree!
Thank you :)
Wow!! You are like my ideal best friend. Keep it up👍👍
Thank you, my friend :)
Preach!...something I never thought I'd be compelled to exclaim. That said, I'm afraid I did enjoy such books as Anna Burns' "Milkman", Ernaux's "The Years" and Olga Tokarczuk's "Primeval and Other Times". I think it's fair to say that one should neither choose, nor altogether exclude a work of contemporary fiction, solely on the basis of it or its author having received an award. And perhaps, no more than ever before, where a surplus of "content", including books, is constantly battling for our attention, there is a need to cultivate discernment.
Literature and literature prizes have and always will be political. Politics is why Tolstoy never won a Nobel Prize in literature despite being nominated for 5 straight years, so I don't really see complaining about politics as particularly productive. Rather think of who judges these awards, and what do they value in literature. Do you as a reader have those same preferences? If not you're probably not going to like every book they award. Are critics of any art always right? Read what suits your taste. You're not going to like every book you start
Tremendously insightful comment. Thank you, Teddy ;) This is definitely something to keep in mind and great advice all round!
Your suggesting that art is subjective (or the quality of it). Political orientation should not be the main trait to judge a piece of art by, but rather how they present that orientation. I believe what Benjamin is saying is that today books win prizes because they are explicitly of the popular politics, rather than having politics woven into their stories with skill.
And your point on Tolstoy kinda disproves your argument?
Either way Benjamin (I'm almost positive) believes that art is objective and there is good and bad art, what makes that is perhaps up to debate, however it has already been debated thoroughly, and there's only a few schools of thought that are held with any respect still.
Cool to see Time Out in the background! It's a great record. I think music and literature are alike in many ways. I would be curious to hear you talk about your favorite music and how literature influences your taste in it, and vice versa.
I have over the decades for the most part read something by the winner of Nobel Prize in Literature. Thd Arthur C Clarke (sci-fi) winner is also generally top drawer. The rest are touch and go.
Last year I decided to read the Booker longlist. It was a good list in 2022. My two favorites, however, did not even make the shortlist: Audrey Magee's The Colony and Maddie Mortimer's Maps of Our Spectacular Bodies.
As I have just joined the Hardcore Literature Group I will not be reading the next Booker longlist.
Also, as a librarian I really relate to this video...the quality of ideas and thought in the majority of books published today is terrible. I prefer the classics and a few select contemporary writers.
That's really interesting to hear the same opinion from a librarian - you would know better than anybody :)
Me too now we have those "Tik Tok" books which are like just to "type" a story. They're still not tellin' a story but typing it
Do you have a few favorite post-modernist authors who you believe provide fresh material to the table?
If we're defining post-modern as anything post-1965, then Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49, Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, maybe some of Don Delillo's stuff. I love Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections and David Foster Wallace is also good.
Thank you for your words on politicized literature/art (2:20-on). Gutsy.. and spot on!
Thank you, Audrey! :)
Verve, spirit, spunk! And gusto. I’m glad you aren’t a religious preacher nor a politician. Your eloquence, so rousing, would be dangerous.
Perhaps I am a religious preacher or politician... ;) High praise indeed. I'm sure you and I could both be very dangerous, Florian. Thank God the good guys have us on their side.
Australian Colleen McCullough it's been said was ignored by her peers and by 'awards', yet I think she wrote some marvellous books and I'm not just thinking of 'The Thorn Birds' but she wrote 'The Rome' series which was and is an incredible canon of works, Bittersweet a book about four sisters, others include Morgan's Run, The Ladies of Missalonghi and others. I think she deserved much more than what she received. But that's also like the classics, so many applaud certain novels as classics, yet you can just hate them when you try to read them, even question there place in the classics mould. I've worked in libraries for over 30 years and the fact is that there are so many millions of works that I would so love to have eternity to read. But I know, as we all do, that life is just so short. My library shelf at home holds my childhood favourite authors, Enid Blyton, Elinor M Brent Dyer, Beatrix Potter, May Gibbs, some Little Golden Books, Anne of Green Gables and other Montgomery works, Little Women, Good Wives, 'Readers Digest' classics my grandmother used to buy me for birthdays, oh and some Girl Almanacs. I also have Anne McCaffrey, Colleen McCullough, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen etc . . . I have had to move to eBooks as living space is sparse. I find your commentary so interesting and full of good guidance Brendan, thank you. I hope you have some young readers following you and listening and thinking about literature.
* blows a hundred kisses* You are so right!
Hey Benjamin. Art and aesthetics is an wholesome experience. It's the essence which we feel and see not. I too have had my struggles reading these prize-winning people. Their work are, of course, pretentious, devoid of any soul.
I definitely resonate with this sentiment. You only have so much time to waste in life, why spend it trying to conform to some arbitrary standard of excellence that doesn't appeal to you? I think some prize winners are good reads, but they are by no means the only good reads out there, and if the ideas expressed in them are not moving you to think more deeply about an issue or are just plain unenjoyable to plod through, then you might as well abandon it for something that does.
You've put it perfectly. Beautifully summed up my thoughts exactly :)
Like what you said about Gusto! A Big Prize winner this year comes to mind. Tho a fine writer, many are, and lacks Gusto! Yet these tame writers do show a life finely, sturdily lived. Life often seems slow, or a grind, till one hits a certain decade then Hang On! It's a roller coaster to the end! So good advice! Use little time her on quality and Gusto!
5:33 spot on!
Ha! :)
I've been really appreciating your videos this last month, thank you! I'm personally wary of contrasting the classics as non-political compared to modern literature, but I very much resonate with your descriptions of a tired trend in contemperary literary fiction. I see few prize winners with the ambission to grasp 'the whole' or tackle big themes beyond the theme of how that very thing is impossible. My favorite book is probably war and peace, which then can exemplify the opposite; the heartfelt attempt to contain real people in a world of massive scale. I doubt any person with the same creative gift and intellect, will trust the powers of the novel-form enough to write something like that again. This informs how i understand the 'ideological' bent of modern writers - if a book is ambitious (and any good) it will contradict itself, by having characters argue, or in ambiguity and irony in the prose or narrative. Books that don't attempt this panorama dont have that ambiguity, and for my part often feel blunt or meaningless. Many novels of the traditional ilk are published, but grand plot-driven narratives are not typical prize-winners as you say. snobbery is probably a part of it, but also I think, the general crisis of the form in this time; do we believe a modern author when they tell of us 'the whole'?
Have you read any of Olga Tokarczuks work? She won the nobel recently, and i've enjoyed her a lot this year:) I feel she tries to tow this line. "drive your plough over the bones of the dead" has a narrator that wanders about a lot - but does so in a striking setting, among characters i remember well, and she's the centre of a plot concerning some grizzly murders. "Flights" does the 'fragments' thing, but threads it's themes through the science of conserving the dead, and introduced me to fascinating historical figures and events. Currently reading "the books of jacob", following the rise of a sect in the 1700-hundreds, impacting christians and jewish people of all standings, through some 900-pages.
Well said.
Thank you, John!
One of the best prizewinner's in recent memory is A Confederacy of Dunces, it's great.
It would sadden me to believe that there are no contemporary authors worth reading. Are there any you enjoy? Im working my way through the classics but would love to move around and also read some newer age authors. Would love some recommendations
I completely ignore book awards I’m afraid. For a start, book prizes are awarded by a handful of judges, each with their limitations and prejudices. I’d lay money that 100 years from now the vast majority of Booker winners will be forgotten. The true test is time and the collective judgement of the human race. Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Milton, Blake, etc have been admired by the best minds of each generation. They have never gone out of fashion. And there is a reason for that. To make it worse, books are now awarded prizes (and published in the first place) not because they are great but because the author ticks the right boxes. I have completely lost faith in the literary establishment. I no longer trust them. Just the other day, my university sent me an email informing me they are “de-colonising their library.” This is the insane, politicised climate in which we now live. The literary establishment didn’t even protest when Roald Dahl’s actual words were edited and re-written!! To hell with them. I will make do with the 3,000 year old canon. And I’ll stick to people like Harold Bloom as guides.
I remember trying again and again to read The luminaries of Eleanor Catton, it was so boring, even the miniseries was boring, I couldn't see why the book was so applauded, but a thick book wrote by a women of 25 years old ...I often have this impression they give the prize because the gender, the race, the thickness of the book, even more if the book is thick but the author is young...
And I still don't get it why people loves so much Beloved and Toni Morrison...its such an unpleasant and confusing reading, not because the topic, but the style of writing...
And don't start me about auto-fiction...such a narcissistic trope