Comments on: Not Untrue & Not Unkind, by Ed O’Loughlin

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:14:59 +0000

Ebony: This would be on the shortlist for “worst books reviewed on this blog”. Good luck at your book club.

By: Ebony

Ebony — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:40:05 +0000

Excellent Review. My thoughts exactly. It wasn’t so much the malaise of the characters that bothered me, it was that the characters were so uninteresting. Kimbofo’s comment ‘I didn’t care a toss for any of these people, and I didn’t care a toss for anything happening in Africa’ was spot on. I think it was also the continuous passive voice of the book that made it particularly mind-numbing for me.
I’ve got some good ammo for my book club now. Thanks!

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:40:14 +0000

Not only very dangerous, but quite inappropriate — I should know better than to start projecting opinions about other reader’s tastes. My apologies and I look forward to your thoughts.

By: dovegreyreader

dovegreyreader — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:27:26 +0000

Dangerous to say it’s not my kind of book Kevin )))
Just turning the final pages so my thoughts will be out and about sometime next week…

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:43:44 +0000

kimbofo: Your sense of disappointment (and your observations) mirror mine almost exactly. And I suspect the fact that both of us are/were journalists might have led to somewhat higher expectations of potential — but I don’t think that in any way influenced how disappointing the book was. O’Loughlin did have a number of roads to pursue that could have been interestiing; the one he chose I “didn’t care a toss” for either.

My hypothesis (and it is a bit of a wild one) about how this got on the longlist is that one of the judges really dislikes journalists who cover African and other foreign conflicts and thought the portrayal of them in this book as shallow, selfish individuals was spot on. I know that sounds like journalist paranoia on my part, but it is the only theory that I can build for why anyone would like this book — in essence, what you and I find to be a complete lack becomes a strength, if you start from that point of view. Obviously, not one I share.

By: kimbofo

kimbofo — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:06:51 +0000

Kevin, I’ve just finished reading the book. A suspected case of swine flu has me confined to bed (and quarantined in the house), so it was the perfect opportunity to bump this one to the top of the queue. Having now re-read your review I have to say that I think you are spot on. I think the real problem with this book is that it lacks emotion. Here we have a team of journos writing about some of the most devastating and violent conflicts of recent times, putting themselves in the firing line, and O’Loughlin makes it all sound as dreary as watching grass grow. While there are passages of quiet beauty, specifically when he’s describing landscapes or weather formations, most of it just lacks ooomph. I didn’t care a toss for any of these people, and I didn’t care a toss for anything happening in Africa. Such a shame, because the book had all the right ingredients for a really powerful, hard-hitting, devastating read.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:09:42 +0000

Tom: I’ve actually made a 10 pound bet (at odds of 14 to 1) on The Glass Room with the online bookmaker I occasionally use. Given my record in predicting Booker winners, this means that I have jinxed Simon Mawer. I should probably be apologizing.

By: Tom Cunliffe

Tom Cunliffe — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:49:49 +0000

My money is on the Glass Room by Simon Mawer. I appreciate your review above – it is often useful to hear from someone with inside knowledge

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:17:19 +0000

Jem: So far I am finding it to be a very different kind of Booker year. There is an unusually large list of titles from previous winners and “names”, some of which (Atwood, Banville) are already out of the running — and those two have not even been released yet. Opinion on most of the others (Byatt, Toibin, Waters, Mantel) seems to be very polarized (love it or hate it), which is somewhat unusual for established authors. Add in three first novels and some lesser known names and it makes for a different kind on competition than in recent years.

Like Colette, I can’t understand how this one made the longlist. Usually with a book that I find wanting, I can at least see what might make it attractive to others — I can build no case at all for this one.

And please don’t hesitate to comment and leave a link on any longlist title that you do pick up. I’m now just about halfway through and looking forward to the rest.

By: jem

jem — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:59:59 +0000

Good to read your review of this one Kevin. I always like to find someone who is trying to read through all the nominated titles. I’m picking and choosing so far this year till I see how I get on. And I have to say I avoided this in my first virtual shopping trip. I can’t say I’m any more keen on it now I’ve read your review.

It’s interesting – I often think there are books about subject matters that don’t appeal, but which can engage me if they are well written, plotted etc. And then there are books which are about a subject matter that appeals and can hold my attention because of that hook even if they are flawed.

But here you have a subject you are interested in which still lets you down immensely. Not a good sign!