I normally like to check out award winners, read reviews on them, and if it sounds interesting, then I’ll buy it. This is dangerous because the literati, writers for the New York Times, LA Times etc, definitely have different ideas about what makes up a good/literary read. I went back in time and did some research on past Pulitzer Fiction winners to see which ones I had read and which ones I enjoyed. I just picked 1948 as my starting point and low and behold, the winner was James Michener’s Tales of the South Pacific, which I loved. From that Pulitzer pick to 2011, I have read 16. I enjoyed all 16. The difference between that 1948 pick and that of the 2011 winner is like night and day, sand and water. One is simplistic and the other is dense, sprawling, confusing, annoying and tries to use so many literary techniques, it makes your head spin. It’s not Tales of the South Pacific. This is not a book to take lightly. Once you start, you need to keep with it and here’s why: The structure of the novel is like a crap shoot. Take two, three, four die and put the name of Sasha on some and the name of Bennie on the others. Then roll. Read more...
