I posted this on the literary trio group in reply to a point being made about 'story' v 'writing ability'. My view is that while there has to be quality of writing, the story is 'king'.


I've just read the Booker winner, 'A Sense of an Ending'. I thought it was a mundane story that lacked credibility, eg why didn't the mc's ex-girlfriend just come out and tell him that their mutual friend had had an affair with her mother, instead of drip-feeding him abstract clues? (Sorry for spoiling it.) I continued to the end only because of its winner's badge and because it was short, cicra 150 pages. Unlike 'The Sisters' Brothers,' which was an excellent read throughout its circa 300 pages.

The Sisters Brothers is both well written and tells an excellent story. Why didn't it win?

Any thoughts?

Michael