|
Home |
About |
Send Me Electronic Mail |
Book My Face |
Fiction Review Korner: The Dictionary |
|
"We
take our work very seriously and did not appreciate your joke review." |
|
The Concise Oxford Dictionary Editor: Della Thompson (Warning: If you haven’t read The Ninth Edition and plan to, the following review contains a plot spoiler) Unlike the hugely successful fiction novel we have come to know and love, the original dictionary was quite a different story. Written in 1604 by a Robert Cawdrey, it is odd to think that the book was essentially no more than a tool in order to help people better their language, or as Cawdrey himself put it, “for the benefit & helpe of Ladies, Gentlewomen, or any other vnskilfull persons”. However, before Oxford University Press polished it up, the workmanship was rather shoddy; aside from Cawdrey’s awful spelling (‘wordes’), which simultaneously makes it laughable that he should have felt able for the project and reminds writers worldwide the importance of a spell check, he also doesn’t seem to be aware of any words beginning with J, K, U, W, X and Y.
As we all know, when Oxford University Press saw the potential in Cawdrey’s work and decided to take it along a fiction route it was one of the smartest business moves in the history of literature (if we disregard God’s 'The Bible', which was bound to be a global bestseller when you consider the author's talents). However, is the press’ insistence of rehashing what is essentially the same novel worthwhile to us as readers? Sadly, the answer is a resounding ‘no’. Currently speaking we are up to the twelfth in the series, but it is widely accepted that the Ninth Edition, edited by Della Thompson, is the worst in the Concise Dictionary saga. Despite the fact that its cover screams out ‘major new edition!’ and fans will be hard-pushed to find much different to the prequels, the main problem lies in Thompson’s story telling. The old adage ‘show, not tell’ has been broken on many levels here, and the reader is rarely left to figure things out for themselves.
Whilst the ‘journal entry’ format has
been done many a time in the fiction world, it is admittedly done well
within these pages and suits the style of the prose amicably.
Unfortunately, Thompson seems to find it difficult to get to grips with
this format, repeatedly writing journal entries about the letter ‘A’ at
the very beginning of the novel. Why these superfluous entries, which
pretty much state the same thing over and over, were not removed before
being sent to the press is left a mystery (especially considering that
Thompson is herself an editor by trade). On a positive note, the rather outlandish story line and provocative descriptions (to quote a line from the unforgettable vomit entry: ‘Eject violently, belch forth.’) encompasses a wide range of ideas and sub-plots with effortless ease, if a little hard to follow at times. And while the beginning is somewhat lacking, to her credit Thompson has crafted a marvellous and unpredictable ending; who can put their hands up after reading the book and honestly say they saw ‘Zymurgy’ coming?
Regardless of the fact that it is easy to
dip in and out of the novel at random, the book as a whole is a bit of a
disappointment and ultimately seems that Oxford Press need to take heed
of the oft quoted phrase ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it’. And on a
final note to those of you who still plan to find out what all the fuss
is about, be warned that some of the language can get quite complex. As
a result, it might be worth keeping a copy of Cawdrey’s Table
Alphabeticall to hand. |
|
|