Book review: Master Georgie by Beryl Bainbridge

Master Georgie by Beryl Bainbridge

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is the first book of read by the famous Beryl Bainbridge. While I was impressed with this short historical novel, I did have some reservations and was somewhat surprised it was shortlisted for a Booker.

The story follows several people in the circle of the eponymous Master Georgie. Each gets to narrate for a short time and we learn the intricacies of this group of followers who adore the hero without really understanding him. Like many people who attract little coteries of admirers, Georgie is a charismatic, a bit mysterious, and takes his friends for granted. I found the interpersonal relationships between these people as they orbit Georgie desperate for his attention to be expertly drawn.

I would have liked the book to be longer, however. We don't get to know the characters as much as I'd like to, and we never get to know Georgie at all. While that's annoying with the other characters, in the case of Georgie that's not surprising. In real life, people like Georgie must keep a bit of distance to keep their sparkle.

I was also bothered by a series of anachronisms about early photography and period armaments. Unless you're a history buff you'll miss them, but those who do detect them will wonder why Bainbridge didn't do a bit more research.

Much of the plot takes place in England, but when Georgie volunteers as a doctor in the Crimean War, his gaggle of admirers come with him. As part of the army's retinue, we are treated to the real hardships of war--starvation, harsh elements, and homesickness. Bainbridge brilliantly writes off the war's most famous event with the lines,

"I am at least better off as far as transport is concerned; three days ago over two hundred cavalry horses of the Light Brigade stampeded into the camp, their riders having perished in a charge along the north valley. An auction was held, and I bought another mare so shocked by its recent subjection to bombardment as to have passed beyond nervousness into a state bordering on imbecility."

I found this book a compelling read but not good enough to merit five stars or a Booker shortlist.


View all my reviews

Book Review: The Sisters Brothers

The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This book got my attention because it's the first Western to make it to the Booker Prize shortlist. As other reviewers have noted, it isn't your typical Western. Charlie and Eli Sisters are contract killers sent to hunt down a prospector during the Gold Rush and discover his mysterious Formula. They journey west, meeting all sorts of strange and colorful characters on the way as Eli questions his commitment to the job and his rocky relationship with his brother.

What's most gripping about this novel is its style. It is told almost as a folktale. Nobody is drawn to terribly much depth. They're archetypes and symbols more than fully formed people, yet they manage to jump off the page and seem vividly real. The plot kept my interest and hummed along nicely. It's a quick, not terribly profound read, but comes off to a quite satisfying conclusion. Well worth picking up.



View all my reviews

Booker Prize vs. Literature Prize: how self-appointed guardians of "art" just don't get it

As the entire literary world knows by now, Julian Barnes has won the Man Booker Prize. I haven't read any of the Booker shortlist this year so I can't judge whether his was the best, but he's a damn good writer and many pundits are saying this is more of a lifetime achievement award for him.

Also in the news is the whole kerfuffle over a rival prize being launched, The Literature Prize. Backers of the new prize claim this needed to be done because the Booker "now prioritises a notion of 'readability' over artistic achievement".

The Booker people fired back that they don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive.

The Literature Prize people said that, "a space has opened up for a new prize which is unequivocally about excellence - even if that sometimes means shortlisted books are more challenging and don't necessarily fall under the easy description of readable."

OK, while I may not write for the TLS or be on the Booker shortlist, let me just weigh in here. The purpose of writing is communication! Too much self-styled "literature" these days is overly elaborate prose with no center, no meaning. It's tinsel, pretty but essentially worthless. MFA programs are churning out writers by the thousand every year who have no real idea what makes a good novel, so they emphasize style or substance.  They're poseurs, almost exclusively upper middle class, with little or no real-world experience. Trust me, I've met plenty. I've been to the readings. I've read the books and journals. I gave that whole world a chance. Really, I tried.

One successful travel writer and author I know graduated from a leading MFA program and complained that they never discussed plot in her classes! She had to learn how to do that by actually (gasp!) reading and writing a lot.

I don't care how much your prose shines, if you don't have a story, you don't have a novel. And if you can't make a reasonably intelligent reader understand what the fuck you're trying to say, you're not a writer.

The third interesting thing about the Booker Prize this year was the first Western to make a shortlist. The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt, a fellow Canadian. I'm glad to see a genre I love being accepted by the publishing elite. Here's hoping more great Westerns will be noticed by them in the future. The Sisters Brothers is now on my own personal shortlist of books to read. Expect a review here when I do.