(6.5)I am not sure why but I failed to connect with the characters in this story, especially Emily. I enjoyed the backstory more but the contemporary plot failed to engage and I didn't find the changing timeline smooth.
So I am surprised it was nominated for so many awards. ( )

It's a curious thing: nothing about the marketing of Lucky's appealed to me, and I abstained from reading it even when it was nominated for the Miles Franklin and the Prime Minister's awards. But Sue's post about migrant stories that are not memoirs, plus the book winning the Readings prize for new writers prompted me to check it out. I took a library copy away with me to Beechworth for a couple of days and found that there's more to it than the marketing suggested.

What I liked about it was that there's a moral dilemma that lies at the heart of the novel. 'Secrets' are an overworked trope in contemporary commercial fiction, and there's rarely any attempt to grapple with the problem of what to do about secrets kept not because of shame or pride, but because a vow was made to keep it that way for ethical reasons. There is an untested assumption that every secret ought to be uncovered, and that anyone who wants to know, is entitled to know it. That having everything out in the open is universally A Good Thing.

Pippos complicates the dilemma a little by conflating a daughter's desire to know about her father with her being a journalist in pursuit of a story to write, but essentially she wants to know why she is not being told about him because she is curious. So this is not a case of wanting to know one's medical history or wanting to meet extended family or possible siblings.

So, should Lucky tell Emily that her father paid some random thug to vandalise his café, but it went too far because the thug had issues of his own? Should Lucky break his promise to his ex-wife Valia because someone else is being blamed for the tragedy that ensued? Who decides whether it's important to keep a secret or not?

Along the way there is the story of Lucky's rise and fall, his flaws and failures, and his attempts at redemption. It's not great literature, but it is a jolly good story.

Having recently lost both her job and her husband, Emily is in Sydney from London with an eye to writing a New Yorker feature about the rise and fall of ‘Lucky’s’, once an ubiquitous chain of restaurants/cafes across south eastern NSW.

Lucky Mallios has a plan - to relaunch the iconic restaurant/cafe he lost to a combination of tragedy and gambling in the mid 90’s. Old and broke, he wants to atone for his mistakes, and leave something for the only family he has left.

With a nod to Greek tragicomedy, Lucky’s is a character driven novel about fortunes won and lost, of serendipity and fate. It shifts between the past and present revealing secrets, coincidences, scandals and trauma. It has a kind of charm that comes from the author’s own affection for, and understanding of, his characters.

Lucky and Emily share not only a link to Emily’s late father, but also similar traits. They each struggle with the loss of a loved one, their expectations of themselves, and others expectations of them. I was keen to discover if Lucky would win his fortune, and thus his redemption, if Emily would find success.

Lucky’s is congenial literary debut from Andrew Pippos ( )