I’m sorry if the questions feel schoolish. That may just be my style. I’ve answered some of the questions myself in the comments, so if you’re interested, maybe have a look again at Tuesday’s questions. They’re all things I’d like to discuss.
Today’s question is all mine. This is a line from a review I read of our book:
Combining an unerring instinct for telling detail with the broader brushstrokes you need to tackle issues of culture and politics,…
What did you think of the author’s “telling detail”?
Do you think the book tackled cultural and political issues? If so, what were they, how were they addressed, and what would you say was the conclusion that was drawn?
Categories: Reading
I went back to Tuesday’s post and made some comments. See what you think.
I think she sometimes told detail with great effectiveness.
Cultural and political issues- not that I noticed.
Telling detail-yes, absolutely. I could fully immerse myself in the setting because of Patchett’s detail. But I definitely agree with Becca…not much detail about cultural and political issues at all.
I really hate ragging on books, but if I’m honest, the telling details sometimes annoyed me. I found too many details to be boring, irrelevant minutiae. Take the VP and his attraction to his nanny, for instance. The whole stitching up of the eye. The nanny wasn’t important to the story; the VP’s attraction to her wasn’t important to the story; even the VP wasn’t all that important to the story. I thought that attraction/relationship was built up for a reason, but it never went anywhere.
I also don’t think the book tackled issues of culture and politics. So what’s with that review comment? Shame on the reviewer.
I find book reviews difficult to write, and I know they’re based on subjective opinions, but that comment seems false and misleading.