Jessica's comments

Jessica's comments from the Books I Loathed group.

Note: Jessica is no longer a member of this group.

I couldn't even get through the first 12 pages of Everything is Illuminated, so didn't even try this.

Gawker.com reports today on Augusten Burroughs' settlement with the family:

http://gawker.com/news/fictions/augusten...

Here is what I posted in my review:

My god, was this book overhyped. I was so looking forward to it, and then found that its distinctive "voice" was just a bunch of irritating, unjustified tics, wrapped around a derivative "The Secret History"-type plot that the author didn't even have the courage to commit to -- the ending is a complete cop-out.

That's why I was wondering about the basis for the speculation that people who admire Coetzee (who may or may not be "writerly") think he's a "genius" because they don't understand his writing. This struck me as having nothing to do with discussing Coetzee as a writer, but instead was about casting aspersions on the veracity and comprehension of readers who like him.

Again, I'll say that I found Disgrace to be a wrenching story about the deep, deep rifts in South African society, that may be impossible to ever set right, and the dysfunction that has been sowed by generations of apartheid. None of this was in a particularly difficult style of writing, and was quite compact.

Oh these are good!

Harriet The Spy was an awful, horrible, miss-the-point-entirely adaptation.

I didn't hate either Lolita, actually, though the Kubrick might as well have been about a different book.

Bonfire of the Vanities was horribly miscast, for starters.

And Possession was entirely ill-conceived.

I was trying to think of movie adaptations of books that, for whatever reason, totally missed the mark. Or hey, maybe there are some good movies adapted from bad books. What are some of the ones you love to hate?

I read Disgrace, and thought it was excellent. Harrowing, but insightful about contemporary South Africa, among other things. I certainly never felt, reading it, that I was meant to feel stupid or that it was particularly obscure.

I like Sherri's use of toothsome and morsel, but otherwise, I am afraid I have to concur with Vanessa on that one.

My parents STILL tease me for thinking, as a kid, that the name Buchanan was pronounced BUCK-uh-nan.

I read it. Rather cheesy pseudo-Victorian story, but it was still pretty fun, as I recall. I also recall thinking that it should be a lot racier than it was.

It's a pretty impressive list, now that i see it, and quite diverse. There is something about it, though, I can't quite put my finger on why, that makes me feel like there is a certain Oprah Book Quality that I don't find appealing. It's not a list of books that I'd want to clip and put in my notebook that I take along to bookstores and libraries of things I want to read. What is it that these books have in common? A certain weightiness of purpose? A "read this, it will be good for you, even if you don't enjoy it" quality?

One thing I'm really enjoying about this group is the spirited discussion about STUFF WE DON'T LIKE in a way that really hasn't devolved into ad hominem attacks. Talking about how we don't like things (especially when other people do like them) can be very fraught, but this group has been notable for a distinct lack of stuff like "only an idiot would like that book" and so forth. Of course, there will always be people who feel hurt when someone disagrees with their taste, but that doesn't mean they're being attacked just because they're disagreed with, or have been challeged on their opinions. If you feel like this (and hell, sometimes we all just have days on which we feel more sensitive than usual), I don't understand what you would find appealing in a group devoted to slamming stuff we LOATHE. By its very definition, this is not going to be a sunshine and rainbows kind of discussion.

Using "sex" as a replacement noun for genitals. It's very Anais Nin, very period, but it always jars me and takes me out of the story.

I never finished this, though I got about halfway through it. It wasn't that I didn't like it -- I did, there was a lot to it that I thought was quite wonderful, actually. But I think it was just too weighty, literally and figuratively. The pacing was glacial, and it takes itself so seriously. From time to time I see it on the shelf and think I should pick it up again, but then I realize I'd have to re-read most of it to remember what was happening when I left off, and that makes me tired.

Hey, is there an erotica group?

Count me in as a non-delicate folk who wants to hear what gives Sherri the heebie-jeebies!!!

Great topic!

Isn't there an annual "worst sex scene" competition? I seem to recall reading various years' entries and being alternately amused and nauseated.

I don't remember any of the details of this book, but I remember thinking it was absolute crap. Thanks for reminding me why!

Oh yes, John Irving, good one. Bears and rape, rape and bears. Except for when it's incest, bears, and Vienna.

Anyone who has actually read a Dr. Laura Schlessinger children's book should be given a Loathie Award (the official award of the Books I Loathed Group).