Loved it once again the second time through. I think I'll bump it up to five stars, in fact. My enjoyment doesn't get much more total than this.
Finish...moreLoved it once again the second time through. I think I'll bump it up to five stars, in fact. My enjoyment doesn't get much more total than this.
Finished the second time on our honeymoon, around February 28, 2011. (Yes, I lugged this thing across Costa Rica and back.)(less)
I just finished reading this for the second time; I was loathe to dive into the Baroque Cycle again, because of the commitment involved: three volumes...moreI just finished reading this for the second time; I was loathe to dive into the Baroque Cycle again, because of the commitment involved: three volumes of nearly a thousand pages each, and you know how I feel about commitment.
But man is it great. So funny and clever and I learn SO MUCH (though since I'm learning nearly all of it all over again, clearly I didn't retain much the first time around.)
Uh, okay, quick synopsis? It takes place in the late seventeenth century, mostly in England, a bit in Versailles, a bit more wandering around the rest of Europe. Isaac Newton is in it (he's kind of a religious asshole who is too concerned with alchemy) and so is Liebniz (whom I love oh so very much.) And Hooke is pretty boss too. And there are the made-up folks, like Daniel Waterhouse, who appears in one form or another in nearly every Stephenson book. Jack Shaftoe could be an irritating guy if he weren't clever, but he is, so he's not. And Eliza -- it's a shame Stephenson can't find room for more than one decent female character in any of his books, but if they're going to be Eliza, it's almost forgivable.
Not necessarily recommended as your first Stephenson, but if you've already got your feet wet, by all means, jump in.
Every few years, my mom reads this book in three days. Staying up until 4am, the works. I saw it in Goodwill one day, and decided to tape a cover to i...moreEvery few years, my mom reads this book in three days. Staying up until 4am, the works. I saw it in Goodwill one day, and decided to tape a cover to it and read it myself.
Sure, it's very white-centric, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it. It's both violent, and soft and beautiful. I hope most of the facts are right, because it made me feel like I understand what Japan is like during that time.
I also recommend the miniseries, if you're willing to watch it with a grain of salt. (less)
Okay, this is my favorite Austen so far! (Just two more to go.)
At first it was okay. Then I realized it was "Clueless," which was distracting for a wh...moreOkay, this is my favorite Austen so far! (Just two more to go.)
At first it was okay. Then I realized it was "Clueless," which was distracting for a while (and spoiled the ending, though I guess I would have figured it out anyway.) There's a lot more to this story, though, than I remember being in "Clueless" (though I do have the urge to watch that movie again), so once we got past all that, it was okay again, but Emma is something of a stuck up bitch. BUT, just when she was becoming so insufferable that it might affect my enjoyment of the book, in comes a TOTAL bitch to make her look good. And then Knightly calls her out and instead of being indignant, she is humbled.
I related to Emma in that she is a flawed, yet ultimately Good person. And Mr. Knightly was my favorite Austen love interest yet. Long-time friend become lover = win.(less)
I didn't know anything about Satchel Paige before, and now I do!
A quick educational read. I wasn't blown away or anything, but it was very sweet and w...moreI didn't know anything about Satchel Paige before, and now I do!
A quick educational read. I wasn't blown away or anything, but it was very sweet and well-told. There's an introduction in the beginning, and a few pages of contextual facts at the end.(less)
Okay, I probably wouldn't have chosen this book if I had realized what it was like ahead of time. But that being said, I ended up really enjoying it,...moreOkay, I probably wouldn't have chosen this book if I had realized what it was like ahead of time. But that being said, I ended up really enjoying it, and was sorry when it was over. She talked about "desire" a bit much for my tastes (and the idea of being so crazy in love with Arthur when they were only married for four measly months is the sort of thing that makes me eyes hurt from rolling) but when it was talking about war or something else historical-like, it was super interesting. And I learned things, maybe!
It ended abruptly and I'll have to check out Wikipedia to find out how it really ends, but that's okay.(less)
I'm not really sure why I liked this book, as nothing actually happened. I kept waiting for the army from the north to do something exciting! But they...moreI'm not really sure why I liked this book, as nothing actually happened. I kept waiting for the army from the north to do something exciting! But they never did.
Dude talks about how honorable he is, Bess talks about her houses and her account books, and Mary talks about how she just wants to be FREE! Over and over and over again.
I mean ultimately she's only a competent writer, she's certainly not painting any pretty pictures -- so if there isn't a story, then there isn't anything left.
The narrators were pretty terrible as well. Dude had such a pompous voice it was comical; Bess was okay I guess but nothing special; and Mary was clearly an American doing a shoddy English accent, though from the text it seemed as though it ought to have been a French one.
I guess, again, I learned some things? But not much. And I guess this Gregory person is supposed to be a writer of romances (as I mentioned in my review of The Constant Princess, she sure did like to use the word "desire" a lot), but she didn't do jack with the thing between Mary and Shrewsbury. I mean, that's my shit, man! Unrequited love? People who are forced to be friends when they are totally crazy about each other? Totally my shit! And she did nothing except TELL us that this was the case, instead of showing us. I mean, why were they such great friends? Because they went riding together? Because he lifted her out of her saddle? That's it? How disappointing and unbelievable. Oh well.(less)
Fool is the story of King Lear, told in humorous fashion by Lear's fool (jester,) a small dude named Pocket (I HATED that name) who says "Fuckstocking...moreFool is the story of King Lear, told in humorous fashion by Lear's fool (jester,) a small dude named Pocket (I HATED that name) who says "Fuckstockings" a lot. And who is not as funny to me as he is to the author.
I . . . did not like this book at all. I recognized where all of the jokes were (and practically every other sentence was a punchline, or a pun, or even alliterative) but I didn't laugh out loud once. Not ONCE! I laughed out loud at Jane Austen for Chrissakes.
I think that the humor is too . . . broad? I like my humor cleverer than this? Or maybe it was just the format. I may have found it funnier if I had been reading it, and the jokes were in my own voice. Maybe. Maybe not. I'll never know.
I only finished it because I wanted to see if he kept the ending (I have never read King Lear nor seen it performed, so I read the Wikipedia entry.) He didn't.(less)
Eh. I liked the art, but the story didn't engage me at all. I didn't care more about these people than any of the other millions affected by the Holoc...moreEh. I liked the art, but the story didn't engage me at all. I didn't care more about these people than any of the other millions affected by the Holocaust. And having a kid say shit like "God is in the wine!" every few pages, does not an insightful discussion about God make. Sorry lady.(less)
Ugh, I've been avoiding writing this review forever, I suppose I should just get to it.
Back in sixth grade, I saw the film The Hunt for Red October. A...moreUgh, I've been avoiding writing this review forever, I suppose I should just get to it.
Back in sixth grade, I saw the film The Hunt for Red October. And I loved it. It was wonderful. It was my new favorite movie. So I bought the book, thinking I would like that too -- and it was horrible. I only got, like, a third of the way through it -- and I didn't stop reading books back then.
It was just so boring. The example I gave to people at the time: Ryan would be explaining something to someone, and in the scene, that's all he did. It would be two-and-a-half pages of dialogue, but no "and then he took a sip of his coffee" or "as he strolled over to look out the window." I could take lengthy scientific explanations -- I was a big Crichton fan at this time -- but this shit was unbearable.
So, I was surprised that when this book did just that -- would interrupt long didactic monologues by talking about how the dudes ordered tea -- it annoyed the hell out of me. It was just so plastic and forced, and the little interruptions never added ANYTHING to the story, at all.
Phew. Deep breath. So.
So, just by reading the back cover, I knew what I was getting into. This was going to be a book that was an excuse to teach me stuff about Christopher Columbus. And I was okay with that! I like learning things, so (less)
I abandoned this because I am just no good at reading non-fiction. But it was really good and interesting, I swear! I just didn't retain very much of...moreI abandoned this because I am just no good at reading non-fiction. But it was really good and interesting, I swear! I just didn't retain very much of it.(less)
First, as always, the narration: the narration on this book gets 5 stars. Three women, and they each did a fantastic job.
This is like every other Phi...moreFirst, as always, the narration: the narration on this book gets 5 stars. Three women, and they each did a fantastic job.
This is like every other Philippa Gregory book I've read. I learned stuff about the Tudors, and it's fun to hear about what everyone is wearing, and what CRAZY shit actually went down. The writing itself is only mediocre. She repeats herself like CRAZY.
Although now that I'm thinking about it, it might be the best of her writing so far. It isn't too bad. And the narrator guilty of the most repetition (Jane Boleyn) was supposedly mad. So you know.
Recommended if you're into this sort of thing.(less)
Unfortunately, I read an abridged version. Didn't mean to do that.
This one is about . . . Elizabeth Woodville, the wife of Edward the something. It wa...moreUnfortunately, I read an abridged version. Didn't mean to do that.
This one is about . . . Elizabeth Woodville, the wife of Edward the something. It was all right. Not as repetitive as some of her other ones.(less)
I don't get it. I don't get why everybody thinks this book is so great, and I don't get the book itself. I don't understand what the connection is...moreEh.
I don't get it. I don't get why everybody thinks this book is so great, and I don't get the book itself. I don't understand what the connection is supposed to be.
Okay, first of all, for those who have not read it: the supposedly remarkable way this book is written is as such: there are six stories (novellas, I guess.) You get the first half of #1, the first half of #2, the first half of #3, etc, until the sixth story, which is sorta long. Then you get the conclusion of #5, the conclusion of #4, etc etc.
Big whoop. Much is made of what an amazing job Mitchell did, writing in so many voices! He did a fine job I guess, he's a good writer (as opposed to John Scalzi, which is what I'm listening to right now, good god) but I wasn't, like, impressed or anything. Writers are supposed to write well, that's their job.
I also was bored by some of the stories. The Louisa Rey one (#4) was terribly boring and cliche. The Cavendish one (#3) was extremely boring too but it wasn't a cliche because I couldn't figure out what the point of it was. Nos 1 and 2 were somewhat interesting just because they were period pieces and I like reading about rich people in olden times, but the stories themselves were nothing. The only ones that held my interest were #5 and #6. Probably because they take place in the future and I like thinking about the future. I thought #6 was going to be interminable because it's written in a dialect (or whatever you call it when it's written as the person is actually speaking) but it turned out to be the most interesting; although again it was also kind of boring? Like, the worldbuilding was good, but the actual plot was (again) a cliche.
Taken individually, none of these stories really had any point.
Taken together, I still don't see it.
Some stories had a theme of slavery and poor vs. rich, and that was fine, but then some . . . didn't. The threads that connect the stories are completely superficial. "Oh, I read half of this manuscript that I found!" "Oh look, I found the second half and will read it now!" Okay? But the manuscript didn't RELATE to anything in the reader's life. (The one exception was Louisa reading Sixsmith's letters -- because she actually met Sixsmith (which is an awesome name by the way, I like saying it, Sixsmith) -- but she barely talked about them, didn't tell us how it humanized this guy she barely got to know.)
I don't know, everything seemed so superficial. Give me two people who find each other one lifetime after another. (Or maybe that was what he was trying to say, but I'm too dense to see it?) Show me how society evolves (or rather, doesn't, and everybody is shit from beginning to end) and how one era leads to another. Give me SOMETHING besides "oh I have a weird birthmark," which signifies nothing. But I was given none of this. I tried, oh I tried to connect the slavery thing together, he had potential there, but then what of #2 and #3? They didn't have ANYTHING to do with that shit. Again, unless I missed it. Maybe I'm just not smart enough for this book.
But so yeah. I wanted to like this book because my main bro Sean loves it, but I just wasn't feeling it. He said it took him some time (after he had finished it) to come around, so maybe that will happen to me. But I dunno.
I have never noticed Stephen King to be so sentimental, but man, he really is in this book. Aside from racism, he thinks America in 1958-63 is a freak...moreI have never noticed Stephen King to be so sentimental, but man, he really is in this book. Aside from racism, he thinks America in 1958-63 is a freaking paradise. Everything tastes better! Everyone is nicer! Everything is so cheap! I never understand the "everything is so cheap" thing. It's all relative, man.
The main character is a Mary Sue if ever there were one. Stephen King wishes he could go back to 1963 and fall in love and save the president. He wants it so hard it's kind of gross. But then of course at the end he has to have a stupid complicated explanation for everything that doesn't really make sense.
It took me over two freaking months to read/listen to this thing.
Here we go:
Narration: fantastic as always, Mr. Guidall. I'm not as familiar with what...moreIt took me over two freaking months to read/listen to this thing.
Here we go:
Narration: fantastic as always, Mr. Guidall. I'm not as familiar with what French should sound like as, say, German, but to my ears he knew what he was doing.
Love: ugh, so trite and contrived! I hate that shit. He did write some awesome stuff about love itself, actually (and if I had read this before I got married, I may have mined it for a reading,) but Marius and Cosette are madly in love just because they are. I hate that shit. I was hoping that the book would have more (any) reason for them to be in love than the musical, but not really.
All the asides: were fine to read once, but if I ever decide to read this again (I won't,) I'd read the print version so that I could skip most of the asides. Sorry, Vic! There's just too much. Every time I posted an update I felt like I was saying "he just finished a two-hour long digression about such-and-such."
The Bishop: man, I totally loved that guy. The book opens up with 2.5 hours of description of this bishop dude, and he is the nicest guy ever. He is compassionate and kind and gives everything he has (and everything he can get from the rich people in his parish) to the poor. This is of course the Bishop of Digne who is the one who purchases Valjean's soul for the price of silver plate and candlesticks. Though he doesn't appear again for the rest of the book, his presence remains. Every time Valjean makes a decision, you feel him. The Bishop rules. (Although I can't help hearing Monty Python every time I type The Bishop. "The Bishop!!"
Coincidences: too many. Ugh, Victor! I read somewhere recently that some Pixar dude said that in storytelling, a coincidence is acceptable if it results in getting your characters into trouble; but if it's helping to get them out, then it's cheating. I have to agree. Les Miserables is littered with coincidences, and it strains credulity. It's like there are five people in all of Paris, and they are constantly running into each other. Gavroche is a Thenardier, even though it never really matters that he is? The two urchins he runs into just happen to be his long-lost brothers? Come on. And Valjean and Thenardier run into each other all over the damn place, in the most dramatic of situations. And that he (Thenardier) just so happened to have "saved" Marius's dad at Waterloo? Give me a break.
Good guys and bad guys: they're too too. Thenardier is SUCH an unredeeming dick. He is not a person, he is a charicature. And (spoiler alert!) when Marius throws money at him just to get him to leave the country/continent, for some reason, he goes to America AND BECOMES A SLAVE TRADER. You have got to be kidding me.
And Valjean is the goodest of the good. Slightly more believeable because we hear about his inner wavering sometimes, but still. Such a goody two shoes.
Ladies: as in the musical, Eponine is the only interesting one, but there isn't enough of her. Cosette is a shell, she's nothing. (There's a passage at the very very end where Valjean is telling Cosette what she was like when she was younger, at the convent, and THAT sounded interesting! But we never got to see that Cosette.) Mother Thenardier is just a version of her husband, only she's compliant to him. Fantine is lame and wishy-washy and naive. That's about it for major female characters. I would have liked to have seen the inside of Eponine's head more.
Grandpa: without a doubt, the most interesting character that was left out of the musical (though to be honest, there weren't many left out, which is sort of impressive actually) was ol' Grandpa whatshisname. Marius's grandpa. That dude cracked my shit up. Kind of a dick also, but he's old, old people are crotchety. He had some nice things to say about being in love as well. He was stubborn and then, when broken by Marius's near-death, was sentimental. An interesting dude.
Mabouf: I am probably spelling that wrong (occupational hazard of listening to the audiobook.) Oh lawd what a tragic figure. I liked that guy. As a wise man once said, a sure-fire way to make a literary character sympathetic is to make him a reader. He likes books! And flowers! When a coin purse falls from the heavens, instead of using it to make rent, he takes it to the police!! (Or maybe he gives it to the poor, I forget.) And then he decides to go out in a blaze of glory with the young cats! That guy. He was great.
So . . . yes. This review is all over the place but it's tough, man, I've beeen listening to this thing for two whole months (that is the longest ever; the ASOIAF books take me about a month, at 30-40 hours a piece) and not taking notes or anything. My final verdict is . . . that I liked it. I liked Valjean, I understood Javert even though he was a dick. I wasn't crazy about the two kids in love. But I liked a lot of the secondary characters (usually old men) as mentioned above. And I cried a couple of times! So I guess 3.5 stars.(less)
Loading...
