A critic who dismissed a divorce memoir as a stew of "vague literary blah" has won a prize celebrating the year's most lacerating book reviews.
A critic who dismissed a divorce memoir as a stew of “vague literary blah” has won a prize celebrating the year’s most lacerating book reviews.
Camilla Long’s review of Rachel Cusk’s “Aftermath: On Marriage and Separation” for the Sunday Times newspaper was named winner of the Hatchet Job of the Year Award on Tuesday.
Long acknowledged finding the book – in which Cusk, an award-winning novelist, recounts the breakdown of her marriage – full of narrative gaps and “quite simply, bizarre.”
She described Cusk as a “peerless narcissist” and the book as “acres of poetic whimsy and vague literary blah, a needy, neurotic mandolin solo of reflections on child sacrifice and asides about drains.”
- Whitest big county in the U.S.? It’s us
- Kent family mourns loss of father, two sons in Father’s Day weekend crash
- Mount St. Helens, still steaming, holds the world’s newest glacier
- Ticket prices soar, then drop for World Cup
- Seattle sets heat record for July 4
Most Read Stories
Cusk’s book was published last year to generally negative reviews, although The Daily Telegraph found it “full of beauty” and The Independent praised Cusk’s “honesty, courage, and the ability to depict her experiences in exquisitely crafted language.”
Long said that she hoped the award would encourage “thrilling, wild, exciting criticism.” Her prize consists of a golden hatchet and a year’s supply of potted shrimp from the award’s sponsor, a fishmonger.
The Hatchet Job award was established by literary website The Omnivore to honor “the angriest, funniest, most trenchant” review published in a newspaper or magazine.
Only in its second year, it has attracted wide attention in Britain, a country that loves a waspish turn of phrase.
While it has received some flak for rewarding mean-spiritedness, organizer Fleur Macdonald said the prize was intended “to encourage fearless and honest reviewing.”
And organizers insist they only pick on established writers strong enough to take it.
This year’s finalists included attacks on two of Britain’s most eminent novelists, Martin Amis and Salman Rushdie.
In the Washington Post, Ron Charles’ slammed Amis’ satirical saga “Lionel Asbo” as a “ham fisted novel” full of “blanched stereotypes.”
Zoe Heller’s critique of Rushdie’s memoir “Joseph Anton” for the New York Review of Books lambasted the author’s “magisterial amour propre” and concluded: “The world is as large and as wide as it ever was; it’s just Rushdie who got small.”
Jill Lawless can be reached at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless