I’m trying to read an article about this year’s National Book Award, but the reading is not going well because the article is as follows:
Two of the shortlisted novels, by Washington and Alameddine, explore distance and connection between gay men and their mothers. Rutherford’s and Russell’s books are historical fiction, while Majumdar’s novel spends one tense week with an Indian woman trying to emigrate in the face of a climate crisis.
Several of the nonfiction finalists tackle contentious contemporary issues head-on. Omar El Akkad’s “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This” is about the response of America and Europe to the destruction in Gaza. In “When It All Burns: Fighting Fire in a Transformed World,” Jordan Thomas digs into a destructive six-month fire season sparked by climate change. . .
The other finalists are Kyle Lukoff’s “A World Worth Saving,” which mixes Jewish mythology and adventure in a story about a trans teenager’s efforts to dismantle a conversion therapy program.
These might all be talented books, by the way. They sound moronic because the person The New York Times paid to write the article is a moron who hates literature. She thinks that reading is about familiarizing yourself with “issues.” An intellectual invalid who has no idea how to derive pleasure from reading.
I researched her, and it turns out she wrote a novel. About issues. And fashionable identities.
Clarissa's Blog 