We live in time – it holds us and
moulds us – but I’ve never felt I understood it very well.
Is this Julian Barnes’ year? This is his fourth Booker Prize
Shortlisted novel. He lucked out to Anita Brookner’s “Hotel Du Lac’ in 1984
with “Flaubert’s Parrot”, was shortlisted in 1998 with “England, England”
(lost to Ian McEwan’s “Amsterdam”)
and again didn’t win the gong in 2005 with “Arthur and George” when John
Banville’s “The Sea’ took home the prize.
If you are like me, it is only every ten years or so that
you come across a “masterpiece”, well I think 2011 is the year I came across
another. But can I recall the last book
that moved me so much?
We live with such easy
assumptions, don’t we? For instance, that memory equals events plus time. But
it’s all much odder than this. Who was it said that memory is what we thought
we’d forgotten? And it ought to be obvious to us that time doesn’t act as a
fixative, rather as a solvent. But it’s not convenient – it’s not useful – to
believe this; it doesn’t help us to get on with our lives; so we ignore it.
There are numerous reviews out there which will give you a
high level sketch of the plot of this novel, so there’s not much point in
replicating the précis here. Needless to
say at 150 pages and with not a single word wasted, this could be knocked over
in a single sitting. I took much longer, re-reading passages, stopping and
dwelling for sometime, allowing the whole concept of time and memory slowly
sink in, rather than be rushed by.
I shall live as people in novels
live and have lived. Which ones I was not sure, only that passion and danger,
ecstasy and despair (but then more ecstasy) would be in attendance. However…who
said that thing about ‘the littleness of life that art exaggerates’?
A wonderful lament on time, memory and ageing and as I have
heard someone else recently say "Julian Barnes’ most accomplished novel to date".
When I got to the last page I immediately wanted to turn
back to page 1 and start the journey all over again.
In my opinionated view this is an absolute moral to take
home the Prize. I used to believe this was a prize for literature but looking
at a few of the recent winners it has become a prize for “good books”. At long
last there is a novella that is worthy of the award. Please don’t take this as
a criticism of the other shortlisted books, most are great reads, they’re just
not stand outs.
Disclaimer. I am in my late 40’s, male, went to a boys only
school – yes I share a lot in common with the Tony is this book? Add to that
the fact that I have been a fan of Julian Barnes for years, and I’m going to
give you a slightly biased view of this novel. Not all the judging panel fit my
demographic (if any!!) so I could well be disappointed with the announcement of
the winner. Having said that, I’m going to leave you with a few of Barnes’
previously shortlisted opening lines?
Six North Africans were playing
boule beneath Flaubert’s statue. ‘Flaubert’s Parrot’
‘What was your first memory?’
someone would ask. And she would reply, ‘I don’t remember.’ ‘England, England’
A child wants to see. It always
begins like this, and it began like this then. A child wanted to see. ‘Arthur
& George’
Ahhh!! What memories they bring back….or am I remembering
something that didn’t really happen?
Cross posted to my blog.
Cross posted to my blog.
Great review, Tony. I've read so many excellent reviews of this book. I use my local library much more than the bookstore, except for "special" books. I think this is one I will actually buy.
ReplyDeleteOK - I haven't gotten to any of the Julian Barnes yet - which do you suggest I start with? This one?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this is the best of his, followed by "England, England", "Flaubert's Parrot" and then "Arthur & George" (which does have a few flaws). Their Englishness and maleness may not appeal to all though.
ReplyDeletewow, glad you loved it so much! I can't wait to read it.
ReplyDelete