1944 post-war novel succeeds beyond critics’ harsh judgments

W. Somerset Maugham is not a particularly well-liked author. If early 20th-century book critics were a mass of teeth and muscle, he'd be the poor bastard they threw into a trashcan and rolled down the street. I wish I were exaggerating, but even V.S. Naipaul, a Trinidadian-born British author and winner of a monetary prize named after and instituted by Maugham, wrote a book named “Half a Life” that satirized Maugham's 1944 novel “The Razor's Edge.”

Still, these criticisms didn’t seem to bother Maugham himself; near the end of his life, he considered himself "in the first row of second-raters" and was not remotely bothered by his self-appellation.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I liked “The Razor's Edge.” In fact, I'd go as far as to say it has to be one of the best works (fiction, nonfiction, drama) I've read in 2007. That seems trivial, but I've read over 30 books in that period of time, and in my mind that actually speaks well of it.

One of the facets of the book that makes it different, or intriguing, I suppose, is Maugham inserts himself as the narrator of the novel.

Gore Vidal stated in 1990 the narration is "heavy, garrulous and awkward,” but to be fair, I consider Gore Vidal's opinion on literature to be as informative as Dan Brown's. I just get the feeling Vidal missed the point, the narrator is supposed to be garrulous. He's not meant to be in the background, relaying what goes on without comment. In other words, he's not Nick Carraway.

I guess that's what makes “The Razor's Edge” different. Instead of blindly following the protagonist Larry, a retired pilot traumatized by his involvement in World War I, Maugham introduces a handful of minor characters that interact just as frequently and have as much presence as Larry himself. Even the truly minor characters end up being significant in the development of the plot, as Maugham didn't waste space with trivial characters or useless dialogue. Furthermore, Maugham as the narrator might be a tad loquacious, but it's for a reason.
Actually, the story doesn't revolve around Larry per se. It follows Maugham’s own travels, and Larry's doings are revealed through the conversation that occurs with other characters. As a side note, the 1984 film adaptation with Bill Murray of the book does not follow this approach, and I might say is the lesser for it. The whole concept allows for the reader to become entirely encompassed by the world Maugham fabricates and feel as if they were present at each conversation.

In other words, the weaknesses other writers have attributed to “The Razor's Edge” are actually arguably the novel's strengths. These differences between Maugham’s work and the mainstream, critically praised novels of the era makes it feel fresh. Also, if you don't happen to like any of the Noble laureates from the same period (Faulkner, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Joyce, etc.), his body of work has a different focus. It's not stylistically sophisticated, but that's okay. Maugham focuses on the evolution of the characters and the world they live in and succeeds brilliantly.

So, if you like people, places or Eastern philosophy, chances are you'll like “The Razor's Edge.”