Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lizzy Siddal

A Short History Of Tractors In Ukrainian - Orange Prize Winner?

Recommended Posts

The Orange Prize is awarded on Tuesday 7.6.2005 - so will this book be the winner?

As I suggested it for the Group Read, I suppose I should be its staunchest supporter ..... however, this is not the case.

My own reaction to the book reflects the ambivalent views already expressed in this forum.

Initially appealing because of the quirkiness of its packaging and the humour blended with the mix of serious themes, it sounded marvellous. It got great reviews on the BBC Pageturners series and, to be fair, in almost every newspaper review I have read since then. I so wanted to love it .... and I did, for the first half of the book - I even laughed out loud more than once.

Then, the charm faded. I felt the author backed herself into a corner with Valentina so that, in the end, she became nothing more than a charicature. I found her personal happy ending daft and completely unrealistic. (No man can be that devoted!)

The novel was, however, powerful in its portrayal of the humiliations of old age, which at times were heartbreaking. Most fascinating of all was the sibling relationship, and I still find myself wondering how two people from the same background can become such different personages. It just shows the power of childhood experience.

In the final analysis the intention was good and the execution lacking. I do find myself wondering what makes this book deserve the accolades it is receiving. My only answer is originality, because it has that in spades. Is that enough for it to win the Orange Prize? I personally wouldn't think so. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I heard today that it has won the Wodehouse prize.

 

I also believe that one of the prizes is to have a pig (vietnamese pot-belied?) named after the book...Surely I'm imagining that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you mentioned Wodehouse ... I can't bring to mind any comic novel that manages to keep me interested to the end - I find the joke always wears thin long somewhere round the mid-point. This includes some of Wodehouse (if I may make such a heretical statement). If that is the case, then the problem is mine, and "A Short History ...." may well be a much stronger piece of writing than I suggest.

 

... P.S The above does not apply to "The Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde. Thank goodness - I do have a sense of humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we really need a literary prize for women only?

I asked myself the same question when the Orange Prize started out. I decided we didn't and, initially refused to have anything to do with such positive discrimination. We women can stand on our own two feet, can compete with men, etc etc.

 

I also used to believe that women could compete with men at tennis. A little older and wiser, I can see that the two games are not the same. The same is true of writing - there is a world of difference between the male and the female voice, so why shouldn't we celebrate it and have a prize for the best in female writing? (I'd have no problem with a male-only prize either.)

 

The Orange prize lists are also invaluable in another respect. In a market swamped with female chick-lit authors, they provide a valuable reference to quality female writing.

 

Long live the Orange Prize, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also used to believe that women could compete with men at tennis. A little older and wiser, I can see that the two games are not the same. The same is true of writing

I would say the same is absolutely NOT true about writing. Tennis and writing seem a bit apples and oranges to me. There's a physical side to tennis to justify the different sex competitions. Nothing like it with writing, and I think any same sex writing prize is wrong.

 

Just to threadjack, I never could understand why bookshops have separate Black Fiction and Gay Fiction areas either. Why aren't the novels in with general fiction (or whatever genre the book is, crime, romance, historical, etc)?

 

A novel should be read and judged blind ;) ie without any preconceptions about the writer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1987 Virago published Down The Road, Worlds Away, a collection of short stories by a young Asian woman called Rahila Khan on the grounds that this was a different specifically female Asian voice that needed to be heard. They were subsequently embarrassed when Rahila Khan was revealed as a man, not only that but a white man, in fact a vicar, the Reverend Toby Forward. Despite their earlier gushiness about the writing, Virago declined to sell any more copies of the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously I'm alone in my view but I fail to understand the moral problem in celebrating female writing for its own sake.

Hi Lizzy!

 

I'm a bit mixed on this.

 

I believe it was set up because there were very few women getting on prize lists. With 4 out of 6 of last years Booker shortlist written by women, I'm not sure it is relevant anymore.

 

Another thing I have noticed is that, in my opinion, the quality of the books chosen is not as high as that of other prizes such as the Booker. What is that saying about female writers? I think female writers can write as well as men, but I don't think this particular prize shows that.

 

I did like Tractors... though. I thought it was going to be too lightweight, but it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lizzy!

 

I'm a bit mixed on this.

 

I believe it was set up because there were very few women getting on prize lists. With 4 out of 6 of last years Booker shortlist written by women, I'm not sure it is relevant anymore.

 

Another thing I have noticed is that, in my opinion, the quality of the books chosen is not as high as that of other prizes such as the Booker. What is that saying about female writers? I think female writers can write as well as men, but I don't think this particular prize shows that.

 

I did like Tractors... though. I thought it was going to be too lightweight, but it wasn't.

 

Hi Ang!

 

It may be 2 years since my last comment but my view hasn't changed. Leave the Orange alone. Even if the original reasons for its creation no longer apply, it lets the world know there is more to women's fiction than chick lit and it encourages diversity. Every year the lists bring new women writers to my attention - this year I discovered Patricia Ferguson and Catherine O'Flynn. (Or rather I will when I get round to reading the books I bought on the back of the longlists and related discussion/recommendations). It's good for the authors and it's good for the readers. It's not just about the winner.

 

The fact that the winners of the Orange differ from the winners of the Booker says more about the judges than the writers, or perhaps the judging criteria (whatever they may be.) There have been three female Booker winners since the Orange began. (Arundhati Roy, Margaret Atwood, Kiran Desai). They were all shortlisted but didn't win the Orange. I wonder why?

 

The quality issue is very subjective. For what floats my boat may sink yours and vice versa. I find Booker winners very patchy. For every Life of Pi (good) there's a Disgrace (not just a pun - I detested it!) Orange winners are not always great but I've yet to read a poor one. (Though judging from reviews Zadie Smith's homage to Howard's End could well scupper that argument.) And I have yet to read a Booker winner, or indeed anything, superior to either "Bel Canto" or "Small Island".

 

EDIT: inserted the words "Zadie Smith's homage to" and thus removed a glaring error before anyone pointed it out! Phew! Also am mighty impressed by the hyperlinks which have appeared from nowhere. How do you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Self

I agree with Lizzy. Many men are, as Nabokov described himself, exclusively homosexual in their literary tastes and anything that gives more prominence to literary novels written by women is a good thing.

 

I also agree that Small Island by Andrea Levy is superior to anything that has won the Booker in the last ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Lizzy. Many men are, as Nabokov described himself, exclusively homosexual in their literary tastes and anything that gives more prominence to literary novels written by women is a good thing.

It wasn't that long ago (a couple years?) that my eyes were opened. I used to avoid books written by women myself, and I am one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I like books written by women - depends on the kind of literature she writes, though. We had quite a discussion about that already, so I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Flingo
      Rescued Thread When Bill has caught up with some things, please can we have the forum for this back, and then get it moved? Cheers!



      Flingo 8th June 2006 11:06 PM

      I thought in Bill's absense we could start a couple of threads about Holes here and have the discussion that so many people are keen to do before we forget what we want to say. It should be able to be moved once the new board is open, shouldn't it?

      So what are people's first impressions? I know some people have finished it - but please remember anyone could call in here, so spoiler if necessary!

      I really enjoyed Holes. My children's librarian mentor has been urging me to read this for ages but I had never got round to it, and am now really disappointed that I left it so long!

      It's really clever, although it takes a bit to understand where all the threads of the story are going.

      The writing is so easy to read, and you feel drawn in almost immediately. I could felt the heat of Camp Green Lake radiating out of the book - a huge acheivement!



      megustaleer 8th June 2006 11:34 PM

      I read it some years ago, and loved it. I really don't know why it has not been a bigger hit as a 'crossover' book. I thought that the way all those plot threads were neatly tied up was just so satisfying, and so clever!

      Have just checked my reading list, and it is six years since I read it, and I can still remember quite a lot of it; it really made an impression!



      katrina 9th June 2006 06:02 PM

      Hey, this is my second read of this book in a year, as I had to read it at the start of my PGCE course, its a really popular keystage 3 yext. I prefered it this time around, the first time I was annoyed by it, but I can't remember why now.

      Thought the writing was good, and the sense of the lake and the heat were well depicted.



      Momo 9th June 2006 06:20 PM

      I can well imagine that it's six years since Meg read it. My oldest son read it when he was a year younger than my youngest one is now and he is five years older. It had just come out otherwise he would have done it earlier as my younger one has.
      Anyway, even though both my boys had read it, I never did so myself. Somehow it always seemed like a book for little boys. So, I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't that at all. (We even have the DVD and I never watched that either!)
      I will recommend this book to anyone. It's a quick read, yet very interesting and there is a lot in this. More than last month's read.



      katrina 10th June 2006 08:30 AM

      I was wondering if anybody had watched the film version of the book, if I have time this week I'm going to borrow it from school and take a peak at it, I've heard its quite a good adaptation



      Flingo 10th June 2006 10:45 AM

      I picked it up on Wednesday, and will be watching it tomorrow.

      I think we ought to have a thread about the film in this section, so that we can discuss comparisons and similarities? Whoever watches it first can start that!



      megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:56 AM

      belweb says on another thread that she thought the plot was full of holes! I beg to differ! The thing that I like about this book is that there are no 'holes', everything is all neatly sewn up at the end!

      Admittedly a lot of the connections are contrived, but I thought that was part of the humour of the book. My reactions were along the lines of 'Well I Never!! and 'Who'd've Thought It!' , and I thought it was all very cleverly brought to a satisfying (if not necessarily satisfactory) conclusion.

      I wouldn't have accepted the neat conclusion in a serious adult novel, but 'Horses for Courses', eh? And there's plenty of food for thought in there, too.

      The book probably suffered from being read in the middle of reading for an Eng. Lit. degree. I'm sure it wouldn't stand comparison to the other books occupying belwebb's thoughts.



      Momo 16th June 2006 01:45 PM

      I don't know either what kind of holes belwebb saw in this novel. As Meg already mentions, and we all should consider this, this is a children's book. We cannot expect deep meanings that you will only understand after studying English Lit.



      belwebb 16th June 2006 05:28 PM
       
       
       
      Yes, you've made some valid points. However, when you say 'contrived' I think that's the word I should have used - it was incredibly contrived, but then, like you say, I was in the middle of an English lit course!



      elfstar 16th June 2006 06:38 PM

      I enjoyed this book, it had a nice 'roundness' to it,there was no unhappy or unresolvesd ending for the protagonist, the characters were not as deep as they could have been but it is a childrens book and a such it was very acceptable



      donnae 19th June 2006 11:17 PM

      I really enjoyed this book. I loved how the story of the past was neatly interlinked with Stanley's story. Contrived maybe, but very enjoyable still. At least it ties up a lot more ends than last month's read!
       


      As this was a children's story, I liked the manner in which the anti-racialism was dealt with, not too heavy-handed. There were some obvious morals going on in the book, but they didn't overshadow the story.

      There is a sequel to Holes called Small Steps. This follows the lives of Armpit and Xray.

      Holes is a book I will be encouraging my children to read - I think they will all enjoy it. One of my daughters has watched the film and enjoyed it. Flingo, have you watched it yet?



      Adrian 20th June 2006 01:50 AM

      I was thinking the same thing, donnae. It's pretty obvious when you read it.



      megustaleer 20th June 2006 09:34 PM

      Because it is a children's book, and apparantly a straightforward account of Stanley's misadventures, perhaps there is a tendency to whiz through it without picking up the clues?

      Once you know how it all fits together, of course, a lot of it was clearly hinted at in advance.

      Hindsight's a wonderful thing!



      Adrian 20th June 2006 09:52 PM

      I certainly did that, not giving the book its due respect and racing through it. I'll have to re-read it, or maybe listen to the audio version.



      Flingo 23rd June 2006 08:47 PM
       
      I did watch it - though it was really nicely done. Louis Sachar actually wrote the screenplay, which I think helped keeping it true to the book.

      Recommend watching it if you enjoyed the book.
       
    • By Adrian
      This is for people who have read just the first few chapters. If you haven't yet, reading the following will be a spoiler.





      I watched the R&J review and have bought the book. So far I'm maybe a dozen pages into it.

      I'm not loving the double first-person narrative. It reminds me of Kevin Sampson's Outlaws, where the same story is told from multiple viewpoints. I find it just detracts from the story, and makes the book feel a bit gimmicky. Maybe it'll grow on me as I read more, and it certainly won't stop me reading it.

      Secondly, I'm not yet buying into this "Chrono-Displacement Disorder" plot device. It's too Sci-Fi for my liking, and just too "handy" for the author: "I need to have the guy time travel, so here's how I've made it happen." I'm hoping it's resolved later on. If it's a premise I have to swallow just so the book could be written I'll be disappointed.

      As you might have guessed, I'm not wholly convinced just yet.

      What's your first impressions of the book?
    • By Adrian
      I'm about halfway through (he's spending Christmas with her family and has just found out her Mum's a manic depressive - and after reading this book, love, so am I), and unless I get I get some positive feedback here, I'm giving up.

      I posted my first impressions earlier, and I'm afraid it's getting worse.

      Firstly it didn't grab me from the start and I read other books inbetween - always a bad sign. Still, I vowed to stick with it, and once I got past the awkward narrative structure it improved. The enforced double-narrative seemed a little contrived, and I felt whenever the authour switched voices in mid-scene Niffenegger was really forcing the change of voice to make it obvious it was now the other person narrating. Seemed a bit like Kevin Samson writing in Outlaws, where each narrator gets his own unique voice.

      Secondly, the basic premise of the novel, time travel, is mishandled and cack-handedly written. Two versions of himself in the same time frame? (Believe me ladies, if we could do that to ourselves the human race would be extinct). Some evolutionary mishap in the human genome being allowed to rewrite the laws of physics? Those I could live with, but TTW is just an affront to basic common sense. I keep asking myself questions instead of losing myself in the book. Why just appear now? Why just disappear now? More important is the where? How does he go to a particular place as well a particular time?

      Also, the nastiness of the bloke: "I can't help myself so I can do whatever I like." Beat people up? Sure! Rob and steal? Why not! Buy stocks cheap? Who wouldn't! Run naked through the neighbourhood? Well, I tried this, and the police would just not believe my story!

      Most importantly, I don't care about the love story. So he loves her and they love each other, and so forth. I find both of them so insufferable that I don't care about their relationship(s).

      I'm half-heartedly interested in the secondary goings on. I like Kimy, and I like Clare's room-mate, but can't stand the room-mate's boyfriend.

      My current thinking is, "This is not a book to tossed away lightly. It is to hurled with great force."

      I'd like either an incentive to finish it (bearing in mind I have a long list of others waiting on my TBR pile) or, preferably, a precis of the ending. I'm guessing she dies of some disease he can't prevent, and he knows it (of course he knows it, he just can't get involved in any ethical situation that would ruin the house-of-cards plot), but doesn't tell her.

      God, I hate them both. Hey Audrey, try going back in time before Stephen Fry wrote Making History.
    • By Mad Dog & Glory
      Having finally finished The Time Traveler's Wife last night (yes, I know, I'm a bit behind), I was left feeling a little dissatisfied. I loved it for around 200 pages, but then I thought it tailed off badly and left a lot of unanswered questions. Not only the time travel - I had no problems with suspending disbelief, although the most unbelievable part was that they were allowed to lead a 'normal' life, rather than Henry being captured and studied by the US government.

      It's the so-called 'normal' life that concerns me. It seems incredible that I could read a 500+ page novel centring almost exclusively on two characters, and at the end not really have much of an idea of each other's personalities or how they went about their daily lives. At one point, Henry buys a lottery ticket knowing the result and wins several million dollars, so Clare can have a studio. No other mention is made of this. So are they millionaires? They seem to live in normal-sized house, in a normal street. So what do they do with themselves when Henry isn't time travelling? They're not watching TV, as Henry can't. They can't spend all of their time in bed.

      The other huge problem with the novel is lack of conflict, which is essential to all drama. Henry and Clare have this 'perfect' relationship, and are only unhappy with each other over the miscarriages. There were all sorts of potential themes and conflicts that Niffenegger shied away from. Why does Clare never question the fact that this man came into her life at the age of 5 and, as they say, ruined her for other men?
      Niffenegger seems so intent on making this the perfect love story that she misses a lot of tricks.

      My guess is that Audrey Niffenegger will be a one-hit wonder. She came up with a brilliant idea, and also came up with a good structure (although some disagree), and played out every permutation of time travelling possible. But in the end a great idea can get you only so far, and I don't feel she has the skills as a novelist to get as much out of the story as was potentially there.
×
×
  • Create New...