Saturday, July 01, 2006

Sammy's Hill

I see our Ana Marie has her claws out again and has written a bubbleheaded review of a Katha Pollitt book. Pollitt - intelligent, funny. Cox - not so much. The real mystery is why the New York Times... oh, never mind. That's no mystery.

Which brings me to the real point of the post. Long ago after her reading her nasty review of Kristin Gore's book I vowed to read Gore's book to see if it had merit, and after Cox wrote her own book I vowed to compoare them.

I finished Gore's book, Sammy's Hill, a few weeks back. It was really kind of amusing to compare them. Gore's book was everything Cox's tried to be but wasn't. Both were basically "chick lit" (and I don't mean that pejoratively) set against the backdrop of Washington. But Gore's book actually provides some insight into what Washington culture is like, has interesting characters that are fully realized, has an unpredictable plot, and most of all is actually frequently funny. Cox's book was a lame attempt to exploit whole "Washingtonienne" thing one more time with a boring plot about a fake blog.

A key difference between the two books is that in Gore's book, the lead character actually gives a shit about something, which makes it possible for us to give a shit, while Cox's book is just a parade of narcissists who don't give a shit about anything.

I imagine it's a key difference between the two authors as well.

So, if you need a fun light summer read from one of the writers of Futurama, go for it.