I just had the hardest time getting into this book - I couldn't keep the characters straight, and didn't care. The lives of the upper crust of New YorI just had the hardest time getting into this book - I couldn't keep the characters straight, and didn't care. The lives of the upper crust of New York in the late 1800's just didn't grab me.
Then the last half just soared. The end made me weep. That's right, I was weepy. I can't give a weep-inducing book less than five stars....more
This was one of those books where I read it, and I knew I was then going to have to go read what I was supposed to get. I mean, I got a lot of it, butThis was one of those books where I read it, and I knew I was then going to have to go read what I was supposed to get. I mean, I got a lot of it, but it almost seems like it was written for an English class so the teacher can explain to you what all you missed. Because it's obviously not all there. But you know it must be. So.
Stevens, our hero, has a pitch-perfect voice and almost comic sensibility as a butler who really belongs in the 1920's experiencing 1950's England for the first time. One of the things I did get struck me as almost Monty Python-esque, with that bit where a naval officer assures us that the Royal Navy allows absolutely no cannibalism, by which he means, there is a modicum of such. That is to say that it is regularly practiced. Except this book isn't about cannibalism, but what's good for jolly old England between World Wars I and II.
I hear this book was a good movie, too, and won some Nobel award or something....more
Also, if what you like about Sherlock Holmes stories are the parts where he's not there, this is a good choice. He's misJolly good throat-ripping fun.
Also, if what you like about Sherlock Holmes stories are the parts where he's not there, this is a good choice. He's missing for half or more of this book....more
Chucky's second novel. While we already have the dry, winking descriptions of human nature working at full thrum, we also have a novel where all positChucky's second novel. While we already have the dry, winking descriptions of human nature working at full thrum, we also have a novel where all positive changes are affected by people off camera. So the resolution is presented by the exposition fairy, given voice by Mr. Brownlow, in the final few chapters.
Not terribly satisfying.
Oh- in case you didn't figure it out from the 326 mentions of it*, either as adjective, or really a sort of pronoun for the character, Fagin was A JEW. Dickens could have thrown it in a few more times for emphasis, one supposes, but one also knows how Dickens loved subtlety. So there you go.
*For real. Here's the Gutenberg text. Search for 'Jew' and get 328 hits. Two of them are in chapter titles, so were double-counted in the table of contents and at the head of those chapters, so I reduced the count by two....more
I found this a pleasant read, entertaining enough, but I think I might have liked it better when I was twenty-five. A lot of story-telling that skips I found this a pleasant read, entertaining enough, but I think I might have liked it better when I was twenty-five. A lot of story-telling that skips around adds unnecessary confusion, and Adams' overused trick of beginning many new scenes with pronouns to keep us in the dark about who it is gets annoying.
I noticed Adams has a thing for personifying things that are not only void of intention, but almost not concrete concepts - the wind, light, and so forth. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I found sentences about what the wind was busy doing when it 'should have' been tousling the protagonist's hair, or whatever, clever and funny; here, it made me think Adams was really just a writer with a relatively small bag of tricks that he used over and over. Another one - several points in the book where he pretty clearly started with his iconic metaphor of 'flying in exactly the way that bricks don't' and inserted a new noun and unlikely action.
I don't mean to sound like I'm hatin' on the book. It was fun. But I had high expectations, given that this launched a second series of books for him, and this is on that '1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die' list.
Not Dickens' best - his usual smallish Deus ex Machina grew into a small herd of obese Deus ex Machinae to resolve this one - but still, a bad DickensNot Dickens' best - his usual smallish Deus ex Machina grew into a small herd of obese Deus ex Machinae to resolve this one - but still, a bad Dickens is still better than 90% of anyone else.
His dry humor slays me. I think that's the best part of this one. Just the straight-laced, ever-so-slightly winking delivery of the narrative.
Mil Nicholson's reading is, as ever, wonderful. My favorite audio book narrator....more
This has some interesting ideas, but opening with some strawman anti-scientist telling a smug scientist all the right setups for the brilliant gBleah.
This has some interesting ideas, but opening with some strawman anti-scientist telling a smug scientist all the right setups for the brilliant guy to tear him down, is a way to turn me right off. Then, the rest of the book presents character after character that we see for thirty or forty pages each, and shows that the first guy was oh so brilliant.
Meanwhile, Asimov couldn't foresee a time when physical books had any alternative, or when information could be kept primarily in computers. I mean, not even the internet - he couldn't foresee that huge stores of knowledge wouldn't already be kept in one searchable place in the next 50,000 years.
And the slang? Hoo, boy. Space, man! It's bad!...more
Comparing Dumas to Hugo seems pretty natural to me, and this opus to Les Miserables. Dumas wins.
While both books have plenty of unbelievable coincidenComparing Dumas to Hugo seems pretty natural to me, and this opus to Les Miserables. Dumas wins.
While both books have plenty of unbelievable coincidences, at least Dumas seems to not really believe his own hype. He doesn't think he's proved God's ultimate triumph or anything like that, and Edmund Dante isn't an impossibly good paper-thin hero like Jean Valjean.
In fact, our hero, and this novel, reminds me a lot of Batman...if we were subjected to about 40 or 50 chapters where Batman prepares. That part's not so fun. Still, it's great, escapist revenge reading, and plenty of it.
The version available at librivox.org and read by David Clarke is professional quality, although I've recently read that the public domain English versions are bowdlerized and I missed some really wrong stuff....more
Great title, of course - as provocative as you could want, but what I really liked was the phrasing. He really described things in fresh ways. EugenidGreat title, of course - as provocative as you could want, but what I really liked was the phrasing. He really described things in fresh ways. Eugenides doesn't call attention to imagery, and metaphor, but it's there, effortless, plentiful, and perfect. The xylophone of a spine, the viral spread of malaise, winter being the part of earth's orbit in the dark, cobwebby corners of the solar system.
What's that? You all read this and saw the movie like twenty years ago, so why am I telling you this now? Look, I've been busy, OK!?...more
Trollope does a great job presenting that really awkward situation between a husband and wife where an argument escalates and nobody knows why and nobTrollope does a great job presenting that really awkward situation between a husband and wife where an argument escalates and nobody knows why and nobody will back down and before you know it they're talking divorce and they're both certain it's the other's fault.
Yep, he does a great job reconstructing that situation, and it's really uncomfortable to read about.
Also, there are just too many people in this story, and the character named Brooke is a man. So confusing.
If you get this on Librivox (free!), the Arielle Lipshaw version is great - professional quality - but pay attention. She reads fast....more
It's not that Hugo goes off on long lectures about the Napoleonic Wars, or tells the long history of a nunnery, or gives a long lecture and history abIt's not that Hugo goes off on long lectures about the Napoleonic Wars, or tells the long history of a nunnery, or gives a long lecture and history about the sewer system underneath Paris. In fact, I liked those. Tangential non-narrative writing works well in Moby Dick and War and Peace. And just plain stupidly long books don't scare me anymore. If I die, I die.
And it's not that he tells such a convenient story, where everybody does just what they need to to be perfect or evil or whatever, and characters illustrate real humans by doing stuff real humans never ever really do. Lots of authors do that too. Like Ayn Rand. Hugo used these characters that are like nobody who ever lived to demonstrate God exists, but whatever. I don't mind.
IT'S THAT HE MAKES IT LIKE FRANCE HAS MAYBE FIFTEEN PEOPLE TOTAL AND EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE SAME COP, OR SAME SWINDLER, OR SAME CHAIN-GANG-MATE, OR SAME GUY YOU SAVED WITH YOUR SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH FROM UNDER A HORSE CART THAT YOU RAN INTO EVERY OTHER PLACE YOU WENT IN FRANCE.
God that's annoying.
I understand about conservation of characters, too. And that unlikely coincidences are OK, because after all there's a reason we're hearing the story about this guy - this is the guy who an unlikely coincidence happened to. But, like, twenty-seven bazillion times?
I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery. People do win the lottery, though the odds against it are astronomical. I might read a story about someone who won the lottery twice. If Garcia-Marquez was writing the book, I'd read a story about someone who won the lottery once a week. That's not the point.
Imagine a story where it's not about winning the lottery, but the hero happens to win the lottery every six to eight years in the fifty years of the character's life we follow.* And this story was supposed to teach us all a lesson about the real world.
Well, I'd tell that story to go to hell.**
* Yes, I know he didn't win the lottery. Ever. Nor were all the ridiculously improbable things all good. It's just that each one was as improbable as winning the lottery.
**Still, I'm too intimidated by the book's reputation to give it fewer than 3 stars. And for whatever reason, I stayed entertained....more
Everyone loves this book, it looks like. I love Dickens, and his way of talking around a subject with a wink and all that.
But wasn't anyone else creeEveryone loves this book, it looks like. I love Dickens, and his way of talking around a subject with a wink and all that.
But wasn't anyone else creeped out by how Esther's marriage came about? I'm trying not to spoiler here, but ick.
If you want to do this as an audiobook, I can't imagine a professional would do a better job than Mil Nicholson did for free for librivox. (OK, technically, I can imagine one thing. Dickens liked the word benignant, and it should be pronounced like it's spelled. The g is not silent nor the i long like in benign. You'd think so, but no. There. I'm evil. I'm sorry.)...more
So somehow I haven't read this book and the rest of the world has. A month ago, just before I was about to read this, the book got spoiled for me by sSo somehow I haven't read this book and the rest of the world has. A month ago, just before I was about to read this, the book got spoiled for me by some bloviating know-it-all on a message board I go to.
I probably would have given it 5 stars except for that scarring experience, which I cannot fairly blame on Agatha Christie....more
This was a mystery? Entertaining enough, and I guess there were a few details to be explained at the end, but I think we all knew what happened as theThis was a mystery? Entertaining enough, and I guess there were a few details to be explained at the end, but I think we all knew what happened as the book went along.
Anyhow, enjoyable. I heard from someone that some people are starting to reconsider Collins, and put him up in the echelons of Dickens. Nope.
Oh - also? He should have ended up with Marian Halcombe. Laura was a twit.
I wish I could recommend the librivox version - I almost can, but there are some chapters really hard to get through with some of the minor narrators, and even the main few seem to have problems keeping their voices modulated fairly evenly. Sometimes you can't hear, even with everything turned up to 11, and sometimes that blows your speakers....more
I waffle between 3 and 4 stars. I liked it - maybe more than liked, but did I really like it? I'm not willing to say that.
I love James Bond, the misogI waffle between 3 and 4 stars. I liked it - maybe more than liked, but did I really like it? I'm not willing to say that.
I love James Bond, the misogynistic sociopathic guy who always makes the lucky right calls and should be rights be dead 600 times over but isn't. Sometimes, though, the bridge of belief isn't suspending so well.
Anyway, this thing wraps up unapologetically and cold and quick, and that part rocks. It's automaton poetry or something. And it's the very first Bond book, so it's a must-read....more
I think I've read enough stream-of-consciousness and writing that feels no need for exposition to come to a conclusion:
I don't like it.
Give me SteinbeI think I've read enough stream-of-consciousness and writing that feels no need for exposition to come to a conclusion:
I don't like it.
Give me Steinbeck, Cather, Hemingway. Tell me who the characters are, where the characters are, and when we're switching settings. It doesn't make it better than I'm not sure what the hell's going on. I'm secure enough now to say, hey, I'm a reasonably intelligent guy. My confusion is your fault.
But then I am insecure and I give this book 3 stars because I fear it really is my fault.
Loading...
