This book isn't bad. There are a couple of bright moments, moments that I said, "Aha! THAT'S what this book is going to be about!" ButI don't get it.
This book isn't bad. There are a couple of bright moments, moments that I said, "Aha! THAT'S what this book is going to be about!" But, alas, those never came to fruition.
I put an all call out on Twitter, asking what people loved about this book, why it is considered so great, and I got a lot of responses. Some said they felt the book's popularity was only a logical reaction to the controversy it caused upon its release- which sounds reasonable, it wouldn't be the first time it had happened. Others flat out admitted to not liking it, while several who said they loved it gave reasons that just aren't true (flowery language? this is as straightforward as it gets, folks). Those who did love it, admitted that it's out of nostalgia at this point. It seems to be pretty unanimous (among those who actually have read it) that this book is fantastic if you are/were an angry teenager. Otherwise, not so much.
I am not a teenager, nor am I angry. Even when I was a teenager, I was not an angry one. I've been happy and mentally healthy my entire life, and as such, I guess I just don't fit the mold for the target audience of this book.
Holden is one of the least likeable protagonist/narrators I've ever read. I hate this kid. He's an idiot/screw up/loser of a kid who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. He gets kicked out of school because of the teachers, because of the other students, because the books were dumb, because they're all phonies. He hasn't had sex with a girl because the girls are all uptight. He doesn't have friends because all the other guys are jerks. And on and on it goes. Nothing is ever his fault, and everybody around him is always doing wrong, he's always right.
This kid is the epitome of what is wrong with so many youth in our society (I would say nation, but I am pretty sure this is a widespread epidemic, not localized to the US): he thinks he knows everything, he feels he can do no wrong and believes the world owes him a big favor just for living. He's selfish, rude, misogynistic, immature and prone to lashing out violently at those around him. He cusses to prove he's an adult, only to have nearly every single person he ever interacts with tell him they don't like hearing it.
The overuse of "really" "very" "quite" and "frequently" were annoying. The way he said so many things twice, as though he had a writing-stutter was also frustrating.
There are a couple of good monologues by adult characters, and I can see how this captured a moment in time- the birth of the "teenager" as it were, and the character voice was completely, 100% spot on. I *know* this kid. He's real. I can't stand him, and don't identify with him at all, but, oh yes, he's real.
I don't know. I just don't get it.
PARENTAL ADVISORIES Language 4/5: The entire book is peppered with hell and damn, plus hundreds of instances of using the Lord's name in vain. A couple of f-bombs right at the very end. Several derogatory names for women.
Violence 3/5: Several fist fights, though I guess they aren't really fights: more like our main character picks a fight and then gets beat up. Two or three imaginary instances of getting shot and dying a bloody death (he's a bit of an attention-whore). One description of a suicide. The main character is pretty disturbed, and has a bunch of violent thoughts towards those he dislikes.
Sex 3/5: A boy tries to have sex with a prostitute, but feels too ashamed when he actually sees her, so he backs out. Several conversations with immature young men talking about "giving a girl the time" and "getting all sexy" and having intercourse (yes, he calls it intercourse). Never graphic, and you never really believe that any of it happens, it comes across as locker-room talk.
Substance Abuses 3/5: Lots and lots of drinking, and the main character is only 16. Everyone in the story smokes- this was 1951- even a 10 year old gets only a brief reprimand for saying she smoked a cigarette. ...more
Really liked the writing itself, but the story seemed... lame, I guess. What counted for destruction of one's life in the mid-nineteenth century justReally liked the writing itself, but the story seemed... lame, I guess. What counted for destruction of one's life in the mid-nineteenth century just doesn't seem to cut it today. I found myself saying over and over again, "That's it? THAT is your big plan for revenge?!" Although, being able to write such long-standing love without anybody actually touching anybody else is pretty impressive. Goosebumps. Liked the author so much that I will read his other stuff, but I will stick to the movie on this one. ...more
I've loved the musical for so long, that I felt like a hypocrite for never having read the book. But then somebody told me the book is really long andI've loved the musical for so long, that I felt like a hypocrite for never having read the book. But then somebody told me the book is really long and boring, so I put it off. Now I'm sorry I did. The book is wonderful. It's touching, but not sappy. It's tense without being overwhelmingly so. It's political without being in-your-face.
Yes. It is long. And parts of it (7 chapters on the history of a particular sect of nuns, for starters) are boring. But the depth of the characters more than make up for anything you might find lacking in the story.
I can see why people would read the abridged version, and I would never judge somebody for doing so. Really, honestly, truly, the history that gets cut out is entirely superfluous. Reading the full version, I could see five, six, seven chapters at a time that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual story and could have been cut without affecting anything.
I'm glad I finally read it, and I'm proud of myself for plowing through the "real" version, but you could read the abridged and get everything out of it.
Also, it's shocking to me how much from this enormous book actually made it into the play/musical. Astounding, really.
Sex 2/5: One character in particular has a checkered history; a child out of wedlock, and eventually turns to prostitution for money. This was written in a simpler time, though, so it's all very discreet, if you can believe that.
Language 1/5: Some "damns" and "hells" and maybe a "bitch" or two, but I don't remember anything beyond that. Considering it's over 1400 pages, that's pretty good.
Violence 3/5: Most of the story takes place on the fringe of the French Revolution. There are extended battle scenes, and more than one hand-to-hand type of scene. Again, it's not graphic, it's just part of the story.
The main character is a convict- his entire life calls into question the morality of the penal code and justice system. If you're a strict "letter of the law" abiding type of citizen, this may not be your cup of tea. ...more
After the mid-point, it is completely different from the movie. Not better, not worse, just different.
People who live in the movie die in the book, anAfter the mid-point, it is completely different from the movie. Not better, not worse, just different.
People who live in the movie die in the book, and vice versa. There are a few more run ins with the big bad carnivores, and a little adventure that left it open for the sequels to come (I have heard Crichton fans say he "never" writes sequels and didn't plan the sequel to this book... bullocks, I say, it was definitely planned).
This was my first time reading a book by this author and I liked it. Super action packed (even a little too much, it was like "come on, can't they catch a break??!?!?!?!") But it made me feel smart to read all the science-y stuff. ...more
One of the most interesting books I have read in a long time. It managed to be both highly entertaining while rattling of pages and pages of statisticOne of the most interesting books I have read in a long time. It managed to be both highly entertaining while rattling of pages and pages of statistics- quite a feat, if you think about it.
The "correlation without causation" is immensely fascinating to read about. The book isn't trying to be political, even though it touches on political subjects, they are very careful not to be influential with their data.
I believe there is a second book by the same authors, and I will be ordering it from the library immediately. ...more
I know that there are some 15,000 reviews of this (and each of the others in the series), and if you haven't read this yet, you're not likely to do soI know that there are some 15,000 reviews of this (and each of the others in the series), and if you haven't read this yet, you're not likely to do so now, and it's likely that you've made up your opinion one way or the other already.
But I have to say that I love these books.
This first book is much more obviously aimed at a younger audience. I would guess that the target audience of this book is about eleven or twelve years old. It's written very simply, it's pretty short and there's not a lot of story outside of Harry discovering he's a wizard, attending school and attempting to save the Sorcerer's Stone.
JK Rowling used every tool in a writer's arsenal to create a completely immersive world. Every name of every character was chosen very carefully to be reflective of their personality and contribution to the story. Every character has a backstory, she didn't leave anybody as a single-dimensional character. Every main character has pieces of hidden, supportive information (for instance, the type of wood used for Harry, Hermione, and Ron's wands are all associated with their zodiac signs, and the wood used for Voldemort's wand has poisonous sap and is from a tree that can grow to be over 2,000 years old). Every character and story line supports the overall story, and nothing is left behind.
That's not to say that every word is part of the overarching plot; Rowling does a fantastic job of creating small, non-critical scenes that do little more than remind the reader that we are "not in Kansas anymore" (so to speak). Snippets of lessons, Quidditch matches, silly names for things are all used sparingly and deftly to remind the reader that the hidden wizarding world is quite different from ours.
This first book is not very different from the movie, and it's pretty straightforward and simple. However, if you plan to read the whole series (and I highly recommend you do), you really do need to read these early books as well, as they focus on some secondary characters much more than the films do, and these secondary characters become more important in the later storylines.
Language 1/5: A couple of "damns"
Violence 2/5: A three headed dog bites a teacher, a story is told of a wizard killing Harry's parents, a ghost-type character is killing unicorns and draining them of blood, the villain causes a wizard great pain vicariously and leaves him for dead, though the main character is unconscious for most of this and we don't actually see it happen.
Sex 0/5: Nothing
Substance Abuses 0/5: Nothing
There's some bullying and some mild-mannered defiance of school rules. ...more
In the beginning and early middle of this novel, I was leaning much more towards a three-star rating. This is my first Sparks novel, and I can see whyIn the beginning and early middle of this novel, I was leaning much more towards a three-star rating. This is my first Sparks novel, and I can see why he catches a lot of flack from critics. His word choice is cheap and borders on annoying at more than one point. He uses some of the most elementary words: happy, sad, bad, good. Not that there's anything wrong with these words, per se, but really? You're a writer and the best word you can come up with for somebody's mood is "happy"?
Then, later, he is telling us how Allie feels when she looks at Noah and his muscles. He talks of an awakening inside her, and I know *exactly* what kind of awakening he's referring to. Why, then, in the next sentence do we need to read "it aroused her sexually."? First of all, in this context, the arousal can be only sexual, we didn't need the clarification. Second, did we really need to have this explicitly explained to us just a moment after deducing it for ourselves? It feels cheap, like he (or his editor) said "Hey, I need to use the word "sex" at some point in this chapter so that everyone will know what's coming. I'm edgy like that."
So, word choice is not great.
I also (having seen the movie a dozen times) missed the part where they originally fell in love. The book was all about their reunion, and not so much about their original romance, and I missed that part of it. I liked watching them fall in love.
However, once things get going and we know what is happening to Noah and Allie later in life (oh, and the "mystery" about who she married is nonexistent in the novel, just so you know) I fell back in love with this story.
Here's what I love about The Notebook, regardless of whether it's the novel or film version we are talking about: the romance didn't end when they decided to be together. The story continues. They marry and have children and grandchildren and they LIVE their lives together. There's no talk of eternal bliss, or any illusion of simple perfection. They argue and they struggle and then they are hit with a devastating diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Life is not perfect, but their love is. They live for each other, regardless of what difficulties life throws their way, and I love that about this story. It is different than every other romance I've ever watched or read, and I have to give the book four stars based on that facet alone.
Oh, but the last paragraph? Gross. Sorry if that offends, but I think it was a WAY better ending to have them die in each other's arms after she recognizes him one last time. Octogenarian copulation is NOT high on my list of must-reads. Thanks anyway.
Parental Advisories Sex 4/5: A man briefly mentions losing his virginity in his teens. A man briefly and discreetly mentions that he has had a handful of lovers since he returned from the war. A woman mentions that her fiance has pressured her to have sex. One pretty explicit scene of lovemaking. Several small asides about being turned on or excited or embarrassed about being turned on. A married couple writes each other letters that mention briefly and demurely that they are lovers.
Language 1/5: A few uses of "damn"
Violence 0/5: They talk of the fact that WWII happened, but nothing is explicit.
Substance Abuses 1/5: Adults drink some bourbon and beer, but they don't get drunk. ...more
Let's get this out of the way: Margaret Mitchell was racist. My rating this five stars does not eliminate that truth. She was also a product of her tiLet's get this out of the way: Margaret Mitchell was racist. My rating this five stars does not eliminate that truth. She was also a product of her time and her racism reads like ignorance, not blind hatred.
That all aside, she's a master storyteller. I expect old, long books to be fairly dry, but this was surprisingly easy to read. The characters are more multidimensional than they are in the movie, to the point where I actually found myself sympathizing with Scarlett throughout the book.
Pages and pages of description managed to not grow stale because she picks just the right sensory details to bring the scene to life.
This is one that will stick with me for a long time and really had my head spinning as I read. Whether Mitchell intended or not, the biggest thing I took away from this book was that our perspective matters. We like to look at conflicts - and especially wars - through a right/wrong lens. Someone was right and someone was wrong, and for the most part, the winner was right and the loser was wrong. This story gave shades of gray to that conflict (slavery was wrong, obviously, but this conflict wasn't about slavery entirely) and reminded us that even when people win a war... nobody wins a war. It's always awful.
PARENTAL ADVISORIES: Violence 4/5: It's war. Soldiers are killed in gruesome ways and Mitchell doesn't shy away from those details. She highlights the atrocities of war in a very visceral way. The scene where Scarlett shoots the Yankee is fairly graphic.
Sex 2/5: We talk a little about how babies are made. Girls are "ruined". Prostitution is discussed.
Language 1/5: A handful of biblical swears.
Substance Abuses 3/5: Alcohol is used to self-medicate all the live-long day. Cigarettes and cigars are part of polite society. ...more
We've all seen the movie. At least I have, about a hundred and six times. The book is, if you can believe this, even sillier.
So, the concept is this:We've all seen the movie. At least I have, about a hundred and six times. The book is, if you can believe this, even sillier.
So, the concept is this: S. Morgenstern isn't real. He's a fictional author from a fictional country who "wrote" a fictional story satirizing his culture. I'm not sure why the idea that Morgenstern is real lasted for so long, because in the opening chapter of this book, the author claims to be descended from Florinese parents, and worked with Florinese professors at Columbia University. It should be pretty obvious that Morgenstern cannot exist because the entire country of Florin never existed. But considering most Americans cannot even label all 50 states properly, I shouldn't be that surprised. (side note: when I input my responses for the metadata on this book, out of 1016 responders, one person listed this as a non-fiction book. *headdesk*)
Anyway. "Morgenstern" wrote a dreadfully long, boring book. Goldman "abridged" it, and added in his own personal comments and "memories" from when he was a child hearing this story for the first time. So he interrupts himself frequently, and while talking in his own voice, rambles quite a bit. It's pretty funny, but almost to silly to ever be put into a film. The film version, you almost think they're serious, but there's nothing serious about the book.
What's interesting to me about the book is Buttercup's character. She's dumb. She's cowardly. She's shy. She's vain. Intriguing, no? Such a dramatic shift was made for the film adaptation, and I kind of like it that way.
The book is exactly what is sounds like: a tale of true love and high adventure. The action never ceases, and the love story is enviable in every respect. Many conversations from the book were lifted directly into the screenplay, and the overall story is virtually the same. Some cuts were made, obviously, but they did a good job cutting consistently. You know, everything about the Zoo of Death was cut, instead of having one little scene that made no sense left in the film.
It's a fun, breezy read, and I wish there were a lot more books out there like it.
Sex 0/5: Nothing. No innuendo, no references, nothing.
Violence 3/5: Sword fighting, though it's not graphic. Fist fighting, but it passes quickly. Some wounds from a rodent of unusual size and a near drowning in quicksand.
Language 0/5: Nothing.
Substance Abuses 1/5: One of the characters gets really, really drunk and his friend has to revive him. ...more