| |
|
loomis, i am surprised you didn't think so much of coetzee's moral exposition, especially in michael k. you might also like to read 'waiting for the barbarians', which is from a similar time (the book before?) michael k. also, you might like to read knut hamsun's 'hunger' as an archetype for michael k.
i thought all these three coetzee (and of course the hamsun - the world's best ever writer eva) were fabulous books, as was his 'youth', and am waiting keenly to read the new one. that said, i was v disappointed by elizabeth costello, bit too much of a polemic with little to really say.
i thought he dealt very sensitively yet very constructively with the colonial themes and the ravages wrought on sth african society by the political errors of the aparteid policies in these books. he lives in adelaide, australia now and i am interested to see how life here has coloured his conception of these issues, if he takes them up again.
i greatly enjoy his spare yet poetic style and pace and thought michael k an excellent literary character, as is the protagonist in 'barbarians' - this book is quite allegorical and i assume is intended entirely as such. i should like to be cured of an error if i am wrong in this.
as for the booker, i wonder if the winner is chosen (unconsciously, of course) through a system or a template of sorts, which is why one book the same as another will each win... but then, peter carey has two bookers and no books of worth, methinks! (my own booker winner, in progress, will be a radical departure from coetzee and carey - hmm, mebbe i need to change my surname to begin with a 'c'...?  ) coetzee of course also won a nobel for his canon, though ostensibly it seems for elizabeth costello. carey will never ascend such olympian heights. |
|
|
