As I was reading this, I kept taking pictures of some parts of the text and sending them over to some of my friends. At one point, one of my friend waAs I was reading this, I kept taking pictures of some parts of the text and sending them over to some of my friends. At one point, one of my friend was like, "The f*** you're reading?" That is exactly how it feels to read this. Entertaining but insane. At least now I know where Shakespeare got his inspiration for Romeo & Juliet (read: Pyramus and Thisbe).
There are some obvious anachronisms in Ted Hughes's translation but the whole thing flows better for it. I also don't think I would have got as much from the stories had they been written with the stiff language some earlier translations have....more
I thought the collection was pretty interesting and diverse in terms of themes, styles, and length. What all the stories have in common is their odditI thought the collection was pretty interesting and diverse in terms of themes, styles, and length. What all the stories have in common is their oddity--I found them entertainingly absurd.
A down-on-luck, never-going-anywhere-in-life guy meets a better version of himself in town (same name, same face) but does not dwell much on it; the conflict arises from a different reason. Another guy writes about a live dinosaur eating people away to his mother in a blasé tone. These characters are so odd and they don't seem to realize it, which I found amusing in a twisted way.
I came in without expecting much and I was pleasantly surprised. ...more
I can see how this book might not appeal to other people. It really is a novel about the history of philosophy, as is written on the cover. I mean, moI can see how this book might not appeal to other people. It really is a novel about the history of philosophy, as is written on the cover. I mean, more is revealed to the story and the letter format changes sometime through the story, but it's in essence a history of philosophy. It also briefly touches on natural sciences and psychology (Darwin and Freud). For the first couple hundred pages, it can feel like reading a long lecture, but it gets better.
The book experiments with all kinds of things and I can honestly say I've never read anything like it. Characters break the fourth wall and more characters are revealed and the ending is absurd but I simply found it entertaining. The author uses every tool in his book to illustrate some philosophical point so when you look at the bigger picture, you reach some sort of understanding. Although Gaarder has a very coherent writing style (which is pretty handy when he's toting all these names and abstract concepts), some things did go over my head. World tree and world spirit just did not make sense to me.
I think Sophie's World is a pretty good starting point for someone new to philosophy to get a general idea of what philosophy is and those who contributed to it without being inundated with lengthy, complex prose. I definitely have some names to look up and read more about now....more
Every once in a while when the mood strikes me, I would read a book like this to relieve stress. So I don't usually feel much like choking to death thEvery once in a while when the mood strikes me, I would read a book like this to relieve stress. So I don't usually feel much like choking to death the kind of men many historical romances feature--you know, ogre-like men who tend to throw women over their shoulders (my closet feminist self goes right back into the closet).
But the way Connor, the main lead, was written lacked the usual subtlety about their obvious "ogre-ness" that came with it. I don't know if that's how Julie Garwood's male characters are all like but I was annoyed every time Connor was worried that showing the slightest consideration or affection to his wife would cost him his balls of manliness. No, seriously. The story is so in love with the idea of softening a gruff man into a fuzzy teddy bear (which doesn't come close to happening, by the way) that it's near ridiculous. I'm not ooh-ing and ah-ing.
Alright, I didn't dislike reading this as much as it appears I did. I actually planned to give this a rating of 4 stars yesterday as soon as I was finished with it. I'm still hovering between a 3 and a 4 star rating so I'll settle for 3.5.
I just want more thought to be put behind those male leads in historical romances. They feel so much alike (with their tough, I'm-a-man-rawr exteriors) and so processed I find them hard to like unless I'm bored out of my mind and I don't care much.
As for Brenna, I thought she was okay. Sometimes I felt like slapping her to get her act together but she had this really-young vibe to her; she pretends to be strong when she's pretty insecure and tries hard to please others. She still had an air of familiarity about her, in the way she would incredibly amuse all the men by being "willful" and "brave" and "opiniated". The fiery, spirited woman lead who cracks the hostile man's walls by being the opposite of meek towards him. Sounds familiar?
Maybe I managed to keep my brain off when I was reading this but now I'm all fired up. LOL. I didn't mean to dissect and analyze a historical romance (can you compare it to a crime, or would that be pushing it?) when I started writing this review but it just happened. ...more