Being bibliophiles almost by definition, authors like to write about books.
From The Name Of The Rose to The Never-Ending Story, there are countless novels in which books themselves play a crucial part in the narrative. This comedy by Charlie Hill is one of them, but there's a flipside to it as well. For, at the same time as celebrating books that open the mind and expand our horizons, he condemns the dull and mediocre, using as his McGuffin a manuscript which is so appalling that reading it can actually kill the brain stone-dead.
The unlikely hero of Books is the independent bookshop owner Richard Anger. Since his wife ran off with a boring suburban kind of guy, Richard has been testing the boundaries of bad behaviour by drinking, taking drugs and womanising, only realising belatedly that he's in danger of becoming a cliché, but that behaving badly to provoke people and make them question society's norms at least has some semblance of purpose to it.
Having witnessed a woman die suddenly while in Corfu, Richard is sought out by neurologist Lauren Furrows, who is investigating the new phenomenon of SNAPS - Spontaneous Neural Atrophy Syndrome - and, in between making pathetic attempts to get off with her, Richard realises that the vector of the outbreak is novelist Gary Sayles, a truly dreadful author.
As the plot gets steadily sillier, and Lauren and Richard try to make their findings public to prevent more boredom-induced deaths, competing views of art begin to clash head-on. For Lauren, who has been trained as a scientist, art is a heady, transgressive challenge. To performance artists Pippa and Zeke, who target Gary Sayles for their own reasons, art has no meaning beyond its value as a commodity.
And Gary, who believes it should reflect the banality of life, is getting so carried away he starts believing he's the people's champion.
None of which bogs down the serious business of writing a pacy, daft little comedy which can be zipped through with ease. It's light, it's fun, but, as a consequence of Hill's evident passion for literature, convincingly eludes disposability.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article