Comments on: Snowdrops, by A.D. Miller

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:39:27 +0000

David: I certainly did not object to reading it but I would have to say that it is one of those books that has “shrunk” rather than “expanded” as time has passed since reading it.

By: David

David — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:57:23 +0000

I liked it a lot, and if I were to compile a list of my ’13 best reads of 2011′ which you mentioned above (although I’m not sure why I’d pick such an arbitrary sum!) then Snowdrops would definitely be up there. I reckon it’s worth a few hours of anybody’s time.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:15:31 +0000

Alison: I do think you read it in the perfect circumstances and agree with your description. We know enough about the Russia of the time that the various elements of the story make sense and Miller is a good enough writer that he keeps them in play. And, as long as expectations are not too high, he does deliver — your final sentence is one that I can fully endorse.

By: alison

alison — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:02:57 +0000

I like crime books and thrillers and so when I read the description of this book on the Booker longlist, I was intrigued (as well I should note that I lived in Eastern Europe and wrote a book about just after the Wall came down, so the setting hooked me). I ordered Snowdrops from the library and that may be its saving grace. It often takes a while for my requests to come through (usually there are many holds ahead of me) so frequently I pick up books at the library I had forgotten I had ordered. This one didn’t require a particularly long wait, but timing was such that I picked it up just before a trip.
I would never describe this novel as a thriller, it doesn’t work the suspense hard enough to merit that, it’s a moral fable of sorts. It’s an easy read, it takes you into a world we have all read about in news reports, and I liked it for that (it portrays Russia after my time there, and so I was quite fascinated). He is good at atmosphere and at depicting an amoral scene. His characterization, as noted, is not deep and I did have trouble believing the character would act againts his knowledge for so long.
I had completely forgotten it was a Booker longlist and so enjoyed it for what it was: an entertaining read that is perfect for a trip – if that sounds like a criticism it isn;t, there are far too many so-called airport books that aim too low. This entertains and engages, and suffers for its longlist status

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:52:26 +0000

More promise than delivery, unfortunately.

By: Guy Savage

Guy Savage — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:03:56 +0000

amorality play sounds promising, actually.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:29:55 +0000

If I was looking for a descriptive label, I think I’d opt for “amorality play”, but that’s a little too cute for a blurb.

By: Guy Savage

Guy Savage — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:09:18 +0000

So is the term “psychological drama” a bit misleading then? What is it with blurbs? They either give away too much or miss the point. Grumble. Grumble.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:07:50 +0000

Kim: I had the same response as you when I first saw the list: the judges had put together a longlist of populist novels (“thumping good reads” was Lee Monk’s description here) that put paid to the Booker reputation of favoring “difficult” literary novels. As you probably noted from my earlier post, by the halfway point in my reading I’d adjusted that notion to the “dog show” approach — let’s pick examples from a whole slew of different types and put them into a “best of show” competition.

I’m midway through novel 10 now and while I still hold to a version of that mid-read theory, I’m even more confused. With a couple of exceptions (The Sense of an Ending and The Sisters Brothers for me), the list is generally very ordinary even when judged by genre. The debut novels are acceptable but no more, many of the genre ones only remind me that others have done it far better (Snowdrops is a good example of that — if you want gritty crime, read Chandler; for Moscow crime, try Gorky Park). None of the 10 are dreadful (partly because they are all very “safe” as opposed to experimental), most just are not very good. And I also would not call the list populist — if an infrequent reader who wanted a good vacation read asked me for a recommendation from this list, I’d have to say they would be better off looking elsewhere.

By: kimbofo

kimbofo — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:32:05 +0000

I saw Trevor’s review of this one, and in my comment I pointed out that I had seen this book everywhere (it was published in January) but had no inclination to read it — I like crime novels and thrillers, but this one just didn’t pique my interest. Your review has only cemented that opinion.

Interesting that you think this year’s Booker longlist is filled with “ordinary” books. My first thought was that the judges were going for “entry-level” literary fiction (does that make sense?) or opting for populist fiction that everyone can enjoy rather than just us literature connoisseurs. It’s an admirable approach, but surely there’s enough awards out there for that type of fiction, and the Booker should set its sights much higher?