The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

An excellent novel, that has all the qualities of a good novel. Why didn't this win any awards. It is better than every National Book Award winner and finalist I have read with the exception of "The Echo Maker". Politics, I'm thinking. The author is a doctor, and this is his first novel. He's not part of the "club", so he doesn't win an award.

And he follows a proven, time-tested, format for his novel, which makes it a powerful and dramatic story. It's a job well done.

Gorgeous Lies by Martha McPhee

An exasperating novel. The author has gone out of her way to construct something that destroys her story. Yes, it's literary fiction, and the characters are more important than plot, but does that have to mean that we have to abandon basic story-telling truths? She skips around in time, something that can be done while heightening suspense and story, but not in this case. The third act occurs in the middle of the book, not at the end, destroying the novel, in my humble opinion.

And she uses multiple viewpoints, including omniscient, third person, and first person. In many cases the pov character is not revealed for pages. There is no excuse for jerking around the reader like that.

A proven method of skipping around in time is to use "time streams". Each stream is followed chronologically, while still alternating between streams. The main stream should have been the youngest child as a young adult, dealing with the death of the father. The other streams of the father as a young man, the children as adolescents and so forth, are then alternated with the main stream, but preserve the integrity of that main stream so that the story is not ruined.

OK, so I'm on my soapbox. After reading almost thirty National Book Award finalists I am beginning to believe that this award is based on politics, not merit. I am certainly more impressed with the Pulitzers.

The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen

This author is similar in style and subject matter to Updike and Ford. That's elite company, and I know that a lot of people thing highly of all these authors.

So why is it that I can't stand their books? What's wrong with me, that I find them so boring and even distasteful?

The characters are boring, petty, self-centered, and selfish. After a hundred and thirty pages I would sooner watch old Seinfeld reruns than continue reading about these pitiful people. Of course, there is no plot. This is literary, character-focussed fiction. And my only interest in the characters is to see them get punished for being so insipid.

So I detest the characters, and there is no plot. There's also nothing else to keep me reading. No cleverness, no bit of mystery or suspense. There is a "theme", or message. At a hundred and thirty pages I can sense it looming out of the fog like the prow of an oil tanker about to capsize my small boat. Probably something about the dysfunctional family, parents that are still children, adults that never grow up, and the destructive nature of the consumer society. Blah.

So, yes, I had these same complaints about the "rabbit" novels by Updike and Ford's "Independence Day".

Big If by Mark Costello

One of those books that impresses the reader with the sheer amount of research needed to write it. Also the incredible insight into the characters. It is centered around a secret service team protecting a vice-president running for president, and the families of the team. Multiple POVs that alternate - you know the type.

Of course I was disappointed with the ending. It was another one of those "how am I gonna end this" endings. Lloyd should have been the catalyst at the end instead of the disgruntled programmer, which at least would have wrapped things up nicely. Ask yourself how much more satisfying that would have been? The man (Lloyd) who wrote the procedures for the secret service taking advantage of those procedures to take his own life? With the man that cuckolded him in the detail?

Other than that, it's well crafted and highly recommended.

The Heaven of Mercury by Brad Watson

Sometimes I read a novel and it is so good I just want to quit writing. I will never be able to write as well as Brad Watson. Some of the chapters could stand alone as short stories, they are that polished. I am even at a lose to describe why the writing is so good. I think that Watson is incredibly observant, for one thing, and is able to communicate that to the reader.

The "arch" of the plot confused me, I have to admit that. I would not have had the courage to skip around in time so much, or to bring a character back after death.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

What can I say that hasn't already been said? A great book. You have to admire his courage in writing it and getting it published.

Three Junes by Julia Glass

This might be the best National Book Award winner or finalist I have read. The skill of Glass is impressive. It's about love, family, and children. Don't look for an overarching plot. To write a book like this requires insight into characters and the ability to communicate that insight to your readers. Glass has the skill and talent to do both.

Three viewpoints are used: a father, his son, and a woman they both know. The complex relationships of these three people are examined from both the heterosexual and homosexual viewpoints.

My only nitpicks are that there are plenty of loose threads not tied up by the end of the novel, and the character of the son is not very likable. To me he seems self-centered and selfish, and I wasn't really pulling for him to grow up and get on with his life. The untied threads are only important in presenting a whole, tidy package.

And the novel is written in third person present tense. That's rare, because it is difficult to do well. Glass is an expert at it.