Reasons why it's a good thing Pinter got the lit prize:
1. Some seriously great plays. I don't know why everyone goes on about The Birthday Party, though: it's good, sure, but it's not a patch on The Caretaker, which has more rounded, interesting characters and doesn't flirt with allegory the way the whole Goldberg/McCann/Stanley schtick seems to.
2. He's a Brit. Huzzah!
3. As Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon suggests it's a calculated slap for the Phoney Tony and the Monkey Man.
Reasons why it's not a good thing Pinter for the lit prize.
1. His poetry.
2. The influence of Beckett, that great master of the bleeding obvious. We all know life is meaningless and whatever temporary happiness we might achieve is undermined by petty cruelty and failed communication. Playwrights should give us a good story and a few gags so that the long trudge to the grave is just slightly more cheerful than it might otherwise be. Tom Stoppard manages it - so should Pinter.
3. His politics. God he goes on.
While we're on the subject of prizes, I see that after a few promising years Booker has disappeared back up its own arse. I'm sure John Banville is a lovely chap and all, kind to animals and good with kiddies. But shall we read a few things he said about his own work? Shall we? Hmm?
"It is nice," said John Banville on Monday night, "to see a work of art win the Booker prize."
This smiley little gem appeared in just the second paragraph of his Guardian interview. Having dug himself into a hole, he gamely keeps digging:
"... I feel that over the past 15 years [of the Booker], there has been a steady move toward more populist work. I do feel - and of course I'm completely biased - that this year was a return to the better days of the 80s and early 90s. It was a very good short list and a decent jury; it didn't have any stand-up comedians or media celebs on it, and I think that's what the Man Booker prize should be. There are plenty of other rewards for middle-brow fiction. There should be one decent prize for ..." he pauses, "... real books."
How could someone that small-minded write a great book? What's wrong with being populist, exactly? Isn't Shakespeare populist? And Dickens? Apparently Banville likes flashing his thesaurus around, too. Emma Brocke:
His books plunge through weighty philosophical debates and his language is, occasionally, arcane: "flocculent", "cinereal", "crepitant" and "velutinous" all make it into The Sea....
"Velutinous"? Apparently it means "velvety" or "having a downy covering".
SO WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT, JOHN, EH? WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY FUCKING "VELVETY" AND SAVE US ALL HAVING TO OPEN THE FUCKING DICTIONARY?
WELL???
0 Comments
Published by Earthman
on Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 11:05 PM. 1. Some seriously great plays. I don't know why everyone goes on about The Birthday Party, though: it's good, sure, but it's not a patch on The Caretaker, which has more rounded, interesting characters and doesn't flirt with allegory the way the whole Goldberg/McCann/Stanley schtick seems to.
2. He's a Brit. Huzzah!
3. As Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon suggests it's a calculated slap for the Phoney Tony and the Monkey Man.
Reasons why it's not a good thing Pinter for the lit prize.
1. His poetry.
2. The influence of Beckett, that great master of the bleeding obvious. We all know life is meaningless and whatever temporary happiness we might achieve is undermined by petty cruelty and failed communication. Playwrights should give us a good story and a few gags so that the long trudge to the grave is just slightly more cheerful than it might otherwise be. Tom Stoppard manages it - so should Pinter.
3. His politics. God he goes on.
While we're on the subject of prizes, I see that after a few promising years Booker has disappeared back up its own arse. I'm sure John Banville is a lovely chap and all, kind to animals and good with kiddies. But shall we read a few things he said about his own work? Shall we? Hmm?
"It is nice," said John Banville on Monday night, "to see a work of art win the Booker prize."
This smiley little gem appeared in just the second paragraph of his Guardian interview. Having dug himself into a hole, he gamely keeps digging:
"... I feel that over the past 15 years [of the Booker], there has been a steady move toward more populist work. I do feel - and of course I'm completely biased - that this year was a return to the better days of the 80s and early 90s. It was a very good short list and a decent jury; it didn't have any stand-up comedians or media celebs on it, and I think that's what the Man Booker prize should be. There are plenty of other rewards for middle-brow fiction. There should be one decent prize for ..." he pauses, "... real books."
How could someone that small-minded write a great book? What's wrong with being populist, exactly? Isn't Shakespeare populist? And Dickens? Apparently Banville likes flashing his thesaurus around, too. Emma Brocke:
His books plunge through weighty philosophical debates and his language is, occasionally, arcane: "flocculent", "cinereal", "crepitant" and "velutinous" all make it into The Sea....
"Velutinous"? Apparently it means "velvety" or "having a downy covering".
SO WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT, JOHN, EH? WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY FUCKING "VELVETY" AND SAVE US ALL HAVING TO OPEN THE FUCKING DICTIONARY?
WELL???
Feedburner RSS
0 Responses to “What do points mean?”
Post a Comment