After I started reading Less I immediately thought “So, why did this win the Pulitzer?” Then, about half way through, I began to understand. By the time we get to Morocco with Arthur Less, I was mentally comparing Less to Lolita, though the characters are nothing alike. While you hate the protagonist Humbert in Lolita, there is no denying the power of the novel. And where you will love the protagonist Arthur Less, it is the writing that shines here, not the sweep of the story or the depth of the characters. Is there a literary genre called Profound Humorous Romps? That’s where this book belongs. This is not a “gay” book, but Arthur is gay. This is not a story about middle age, but Arthur is confronting his own aging. This is a story about how humans are constantly swimming upstream against life. This is a story about how humans are old or young or bald or sad or beautiful or boring and sometimes we are more, but sometimes we are…(wait for it)…Less. I just hope Arthur turns sixty really soon, and Andrew Greer brings us a new book so we can ride shotgun again with Less.

There are some beautiful turns of phrase in here, and some good characters and an interesting story. I read it and enjoyed it, but a Pulitzer??! No. I think not. It just didn't have enough- of anything! Characters weren't deep enough or real enough, writing wasn't amazing enough, story wasn't interesting enough. It needed more. Shame on you, Pulitzer committee.

I'm encouraged to see that I'm not the only one who thought this book wasn't so hot. After reading all the pages of raving blurbs, I thought I'd really be in for a treat. But I couldn't believe in it (and this is from another aging--okay, old--gay man). I spent so much energy slogging through the writer's attempts to be clever in every single sentence that I couldn't get involved with the character or story. I will admit that I laughed out loud a few times, and that's a lot more than I get out of the majority of books I read, but overall it was tedious, difficult reading. I was left wondering if "winner of the Pulitzer prize" was just part of the title--a bit of irony based on Less's older lover's having won the prize.

What was the Pulitzer group thinking?!? Based on the Pulitzer designation and based on some of the endorsements from favorite writers (Ann Patchett), my book club chose "Less". All six of us (college educated women ages 35 to 71) disliked it. The criticisms were that the main character was uninteresting, unsympathetic and unrelatable; that the paltry humor was only mildly amusing (not "hysterical" as one endorsement said), the ending was predictable and anticlimactic; and that we finished reading it out of duty to the club, not because the book was compelling. In other words, we couldn't care less about "Less". The only redeeming aspect was the interesting way the author would weave past and present together in the narrative. I cannot recommend this book and the Pulitzer people need to reexamine their standards.

Tender, funny, sometimes melancholy, written with beautiful language. I first read a chapter of the novel when it appeared as a short story in The New Yorker earlier this year. It was a tour de force of carefully managed absurdity, heartache, and wistful humor. The book is just as good (although its structural device perhaps goes on a bit too long -- one country too many, maybe). Greer's writing is masterful. He manages to be meaningful and funny at the same time, an incredible balancing act. And he is just so lovely with words. This could have really gone off the rails, it could have been repetitive and gimmicky, but he's too skilled a writer for that. 4 stars instead of 5 (4.5 if I could) for what felt like a giving up at the end (that one chapter too many, and too quick an ending). Otherwise, a fantastic book and a truly great discovery.