![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcIn general I’m loathe to jump on the pop culture bandwagon. Often “buzz” for me is like the perennial set of clippers: it’s buzzed short, it’s become inconsequential. I tend to enjoy things when any expectations are wholly self-constructed. Like a new Zhang Yimou film, or Mary Chapin Carpenter CD. When it comes to books, I’m even less inclined to expect things from the word. Very few authors write uniformly excellent books, or even progressively better books over time. I tend to support queer literature, but am no less scrutinous. I won’t offer praise of a book because another pervert wrote it.
So take me at my word when I say Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty is an outstanding book. It’s wholly readable and tells a great tale. It offer insight into a particularly compelling time in (English) history: the ascendancy of Thatcher and the spectre of HIV/AIDS. The characters and dialogue are deftly crafted. This is a believable story.
To tease you a bit: there’s lots of sex, drugs and politics. Infused througout the book are discussions about knowledge, beauty, culture, power, values and carnality. Fans of Bourdieu’s work might see this as a novel about cultural and social capital; I certainly did. Or a brilliant treatise on social climbers; I thought that as well. But it’s a lot more.
Like any literary prize, the Booker can be awarded based on whose turn it is. Atwood’s win for the Blind Assasin arguably is for her entire body of work; I don’t anyone who’s read Amsterdam that thinks McEwan deserved any prize for that. Still Roy’s The God of Small Things, Swift’s Last Orders are among winners that clearly were based on the book’s merits. I would put The Line of Beauty in the latter camp. Hollinghurst is too young (50) and not prolific enough (this is his 4th novel) to be getting a gong for his life’s work.
When it comes to buying queer lit I try (whenever plausible) to buy from queer or queer friendly booksellers. They often carry titles the mainstream stores won’t--and we need that. In Canada, Little Sisters hasn’t just sold lots of stuff no one else will: they fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada against censorship at the Canada Customs agent level (they won on principle, but systemic issues mean the substantive changes haven’t happened yet).
So take me at my word when I say Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty is an outstanding book. It’s wholly readable and tells a great tale. It offer insight into a particularly compelling time in (English) history: the ascendancy of Thatcher and the spectre of HIV/AIDS. The characters and dialogue are deftly crafted. This is a believable story.
To tease you a bit: there’s lots of sex, drugs and politics. Infused througout the book are discussions about knowledge, beauty, culture, power, values and carnality. Fans of Bourdieu’s work might see this as a novel about cultural and social capital; I certainly did. Or a brilliant treatise on social climbers; I thought that as well. But it’s a lot more.
Like any literary prize, the Booker can be awarded based on whose turn it is. Atwood’s win for the Blind Assasin arguably is for her entire body of work; I don’t anyone who’s read Amsterdam that thinks McEwan deserved any prize for that. Still Roy’s The God of Small Things, Swift’s Last Orders are among winners that clearly were based on the book’s merits. I would put The Line of Beauty in the latter camp. Hollinghurst is too young (50) and not prolific enough (this is his 4th novel) to be getting a gong for his life’s work.
When it comes to buying queer lit I try (whenever plausible) to buy from queer or queer friendly booksellers. They often carry titles the mainstream stores won’t--and we need that. In Canada, Little Sisters hasn’t just sold lots of stuff no one else will: they fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada against censorship at the Canada Customs agent level (they won on principle, but systemic issues mean the substantive changes haven’t happened yet).
