I haven't read Solar, although I suspect I will sometime soon. Walter Kirn, no slouch as a novelist, thinks I better not though:
According to the perverse aesthetics of artistic guilty pleasure, certain books and movies are so bad — so crudely conceived, despicably motivated and atrociously executed — that they’re actually rather good. “Solar,” the new novel by Ian McEwan, is just the opposite: a book so good — so ingeniously designed, irreproachably high-minded and skillfully brought off — that it’s actually quite bad. Instead of being awful yet absorbing, it’s impeccable yet numbing, achieving the sort of superbly wrought inertia of a Romanesque cathedral. There’s so little wrong with it that there’s nothing particularly right about it, either. It’s impressive to behold but something of a virtuous pain to read.
That's either brilliant or nonsensical, I'm not sure which. The full review is here.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Walter Kirn disses Ian McEwan
Posted by Tripp at 1:17 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Kirn's oeuvre pales when compared to McEwan's: it is as if the younger Bush were to have criticized Jefferson. And "Solar" is really rather funny, nasty, and acute. I have not yet been able to finish anything of Kirn's.
Concur, in my mind there is no doubt that McEwan > Kirn. I did like Up in the Air though. I have yet to see the movie.
Post a Comment