|
My response above still applies.
I'll add that one criterion for a literary work where Unbroken fails is the writing style. While the story is compelling, from what I've read, the prose is both overwritten (too many participles and adjectives) and pedestrian. Moreover, whle Hillenbrand has conducted meticulous research, her analysis is lacking. She offers no real insights nor breaks new ground. The result, while a satisfying, even gripping, narrative, ends up being fairly typical of the triumph of the human spirit kind--and she keeps hitting us over the head from the title onward so that we don't forget it.
If I compare it to the beautiful prose of Carlo Levi (which carries through to the English translation) or to the sparer prose of London or Reed (and I haven't read Insurgent, but I've read Ten Days), there's a significant and critical difference in regard to literariness.
I am not saying that Unbroken is a bad book or that it's not worth reading or even that I wouldn't benefit from reading it. I just don't think it's a literary work.
|