I always write about the books I read, but I struggle to write a good review that other people can see. I've recently been trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that I look for in a book. Because it's not usually genre, or necessarily author, and I used to make a point of never reading a books blurb. What I do, usually, is I read the first line and then a random page (probably 97, depending on the length of the book) as a way of assessing the books readability.
The reason why I don't read the blurb, I think, is because I'm not necessarily interested in what the book in question is about. I'm more concerned with how it's put across; what the writer is really communicating to you about the world (what it means to be human, and what do we do about the big questions?), and that is often something that you will not really find in a blurb, being as they are, a means of selling a product.
However; occasionally a writer comes along like Suddain. I was attracted immediately to his first title: Theatre of the Gods (who wouldn't be?), and I couldn't resist the blurb. I grew up on a diet of sci-fi, but I tend to avoid most books that hint of the genre purely because they are usually so terribly written. Anyway, I could see straight away that Suddain's book was just the right kind of weird for me. I also have come to realise that a book with an unusual premise; that will consequently have a narrower window for general approval (than for instance a book such as Goodnight Mister Tom, with a subject material that is appealing to a wide range of people), will tend to be either really badly written (and probably become a cult classic), or will carry it's unusual premise on the supreme strength of the author's ability to write. As I suspected, Theatre of the Gods was in the latter camp.
So, anyway, I've worked out that what attracts me to a book is not just content (a book that to me is all content: maybe I just wasn't patient enough, but I didn't get on with Sophie's Choice, it was just so packed with information. Reading the blurb it seemed that this book was just rich in meaning. But on reading it, I felt nothing. I couldn't connect with the character, if anything I did feel something, and that was cold.).
In lieu of a more accurate description, I've decided to term the other thing 'context'. This is about how the author says what he says, and what he really means. Because, for readers like me, I don't want to read about somebody who lives in Russia during the Cold War, who falls in love but it turns out to be a long lost brother who then gets tortured...etc, but I will want to read a book that communicates what it really means to be a thinking, feeling, person in this situation.
Another way to illustrate this point may be this: I am a writer myself, and I often feel that what I write doesn't always come from 'me' (sometimes I think of it as coming from the Arcadia - the garden of the poets, that I think all artists walk in), sometimes it feels like I am listening to something that I am then processing into a written form that can be communicated with the world at large (this is also why I believe that all art forms are fundamentally the same). I think, as readers, and in particular those who are also writers themselves (there are a few of us), can recognise whether an author has been inspired in this way, or whether they just decided they liked a particular idea, used a lot of imagination and cleverness, and produced a book rich in content, but consequently poor in context (i.e. the point where you think 'yes, I get that it's about the second world war, and what a horrific event that was, but what is this book really saying? If anything at all?).
OK, so at this point, I'm aware that this review has barely mentioned the book in question. But my point is basically this: Suddain is the real deal. He is a writer. His words mean something, and they are dressed up in the most awesome stories. I'm not saying that he's another Jostein Gaarder, so don't expect to have all the answers to the universe's question served up to you on a plate (if in a cryptic package). But that's not the point, the point is that it means something.
So, having read and loved Theatre of the Gods, I immediately wanted to read Suddain's next book Hunters & Collectors, even without reading the blurb. After reading the blurb, I wanted to read it that very second. In very simple terms, Suddain is a great writer, who writes great books. I would advise anyone to read anything he publishes, whatever the subject matter. I happen to like his subject matter, because I like weird and interesting, and most importantly, different (or original, if you prefer the, ironically, more cliched term).
It is a book that you will just want to read and read, and of course you want desperately to know how it all ends, but you just don't want it to end. Can you really achieve higher praise as a writer? It's topical issues, for me at least, include: What does it mean to be human? When does a machine stop being a machine, and thus gain its right to humane treatment?
And. His crowning glory for a (I'm referring to myself here) nearly 30-year old spinster (and proud): how Jon describes his feelings at the end of the book (spoiler alert), as something 'better than love': 'to know someone, and to want to know them'. I've often wondered why my feelings towards men I've never slept with (or maybe just once or twice), but have had the pleasure of having incredible conversations with, often meant much more to me than other people, who I'd even had long term relationships, and been 'in-love' with. Thanks, Suddain, I finally understand! (I think the Bible, also, unexpectedly, hints at this when the early characters are described as 'knowing' each other (i.e. 'Adam knew Eve') to talk about sex and copulation. Maybe it's a hint that we should (perhaps) only actually sleep with (or more importantly create children with) the people that we can really say we 'knew' in the sense that Jonathon uses at the end of this book. just a thought.)
In conclusion: It's awesome, if you haven't read it yet, then bl**dy well read it.
And if you've read all this, you have much more patience than me, congratulations and thank you.
P.S. I should probably mention:
The central theme/premise of the book is 'finding the perfect meal'. Which, in my opinion, is pure artistic gold. Suddain raises the eating of food (something that is often seen as wholly survival-instinct, with no, or at least not much, higher-level brain activity) into an art form. And, of course, he's right. All artists see their art as their bread and butter. Not in the money-making sense, but in the sense that they actually need art in order to survive, it is as vital to their health as spinach, or an apple. Not only this, but as readers, what do we do? We go through life searching and willing and hoping against hope, that one day we will find the perfect book (some of us also hope, rather unrealistically, that we will be the creator of such a book). The book of books, the book to end all books, etc...
And what can really be more of an art form than the world that we take our sustenance from? In how we create and enjoy that sustenance in all its possible (and perhaps impossible) forms.
P.P.S.
Yes, if you're wondering, I am overweight (but that's not really the point I'm making here).
P.P.P.S
Perhaps the distinction is actually more simple than content/context. Perhaps it is merely intelligence and ability vs.sensibility, where you're hoping for a draw.