Posted by Bel. The time is 4:23pm here in Wellington, NZ.
Wow. So. I finally finished this book. As I closed it, the sticker on the front jumped out at me again: ‘Winner of the Booker Prize 1997’. Was that a bad year for books? Because this really did not spin my dial.“The God of Small Things” is dense, descriptive, detailed and non-linear. I found it hard to follow and couldn’t keep track of whether the characters were children, really young children, or adults. Paragraphs were packed with line after line of similie, draping the plot with layers of description as an plotline made clear from the start was dragged out and doubled up over hundreds of pages.
It also used, time and time again, a literary trick which I find ages incredibly quickly – the dramatic foreboding statement at the end of a chapter. ‘They all looked each other with smiles. BUT LITTLE DID THEY KNOW THEIR SMILES WOULD SOON BE WIPED OFF THEIR FACES.’ ‘With the sun on her face, Jill comfortably rested her head against Jack’s. NOT REALISING THAT IN TIME THEIR FACES WOULD BE WIPED OFF THEIR HEADS’. And so on.
This was #22 off 'This List' and I will give it 2 stars. One because it ended with a sex scene and the other because at least it was a conveniently small sized paperback.
...
I have just checked and other books shortlisted for the Booker in 1997 and I’ve never heard of any of them. Does this reflect badly upon me, or them? Has anyone out there read any of these books? Did they also suck?
Lou says...
I loved this book. And if I'd read it within the last year I would even set about telling you why I loved it, but all I can remember is that I loved the playfulness of the language.
Ruth? *emails this post to Ruth*