I am not able to do this book or this author justice, as I cannot fathom into words the praise it deserves. It is brilliant and enchanting and true anI am not able to do this book or this author justice, as I cannot fathom into words the praise it deserves. It is brilliant and enchanting and true and wise, and elegant and piercing and wonderful and beautiful and magnetic and a so much more I do not have the words for. It grabbed hold of me from the first page and it didn't let go. I am still mesmerized by this book even as I have long since put it down and even lend it out, but it's rhythmic poetic wisdom still resonates as an echo in my mind and my soul. I'm awed....more
My first Jane Austen book – and I really, really liked it. Which was totally unexpected, since I’ve seen the movie (years ago) and it didn’t really sweMy first Jane Austen book – and I really, really liked it. Which was totally unexpected, since I’ve seen the movie (years ago) and it didn’t really sweep me of my feet or leave any lasting impression. I barely remember anything but the name Mr. Darcy, and I’m pretty sure I was a bit bored throughout, and wasn’t particularly fond of Elisabeth either.
Luckily so, but seemingly contradictory, the book left a completely different impression on me. This just attests to books and movies being two very different artforms and mediums, and what works in one genre, doesn’t necessarily work in the other, which is why an adaptation from a book to a movie has the potential/risk of falling out very different - for better or worse. It’s not that one artform can be named superior, as such (even if one of course can prefer one over the other:) ), it’s just that they have different strength and weaknesses, also very much depending on how (and how well) they are executed. Whereas the movie (obviously) has the power of visualizing a story that lacks description or coherence on paper, and of breathing life into characters that seemed inanimate and barren and makes show rather than tellan easy job, a book has the potential to take us deep into the inner workings of a character, into the very private of their thoughts, feelings, sometimes almost like to their very soul, which on screen doesn’t come across as easily and is very much depended upon the skill of the actor/actress. The pitfall of a book, in my opinion, will always be to rely more on telling rather than showing. When you work with words as a medium, the act of telling seems rather accustomed right? And that is exactly why I count writing that masters showing rather than telling as an art, because it seems counterintuitive, and because it completely surpasses my often overworking mind, and goes straight to my heart and my senses, making me feel and making me see the story unfold.
My point from all this, being: Jane Austen did that! She manages writing as an art, not just as storytelling
With this book, Jane Austen showed and she made every character seem real, some of them likeable, some of them rather annoying (yes Mrs. Bennet I’m thinking of you), but even with the annoying characters, I found as a reader, that I was provided with a glimpse, an insight into what was driving these characters, what life looked like from their perspective, which I found to be very gratifying. The characters have very distinct personalities, without becoming caricatures. There’s The goodnatured Father; The shallow, dramatic Mother; The wild, attentionseeking Sister; The quiet, shy Beauty; The amiable but also susceptible Bachelor; The brooding, reserved and honest Darcy; The strongwilled, sassy, funny, opinionated Elisabeth, and many many more….
These characters share a culture and a social world, with certain customs, rules and restrictions that may be different from the ones of our modern times, but likewise has consequences, if/when not followed. Jane Austen manages to be timeless, because you don’t have to know that world, to understand it. She doesn’t take these customs for granted, but weaves them into the story, into the dialogues, thought processes, emotions and scenes of her book.
And as the story unfolds these characters grow. Well, at least some of them does, anyway. Some might need a little more time, or life to throw a few more challenges their way, until they learn their lesson. But the main characters of this book, Mr. Darcy and Elisabeth Bennet, gradually change their view of each other, and of the world throughout this book. Enough to make them wiser, more open and less proud and prejudiced , but not so much that they become unrecognizable or their journey unbelievable. Austen allow her characters to make mistakes, to discover that, and to own them and to try to make amends, but without stripping them of grace.
“How despicably I have acted!" she cried; "I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameable mistrust! How humiliating is this discovery! Yet, how just a humiliation! Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind. But vanity, not love, has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other, on the very beginning of our aquaintance, I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned. Till this moment I never knew myself.”
Yes, they fall in love, but this book is so much more than just a simple lovestory. This was demonstrated beautifully towards the end, when our two lovers finally get the chance to declare each other their love and clear up the misunderstandings and Jane Austen decides to completely SKIP over this, no dialogue, no detailed description, just a mentioning of it being done (it’s not like we didn’t know it already), and instead she gives us the ‘after’ dialogue where they talk to eahc other of their GROWTH, their regrets, their misjudgments, illbehaviour - basically a sum up to their journey and how they’ve changed, and how they did this in the process of falling in love, or was able to love, now that their own pride and prejudices weren’t clouding their judgment. In this way, Jane Austen aptly pointed out that growth was the essential force of the book, even if it came to be through, or resulted in, love.
And isn’t that how it happens to a lot of us? We fall in love, and in the process we learn and change, and see new sides of life, ourselves and others, or we realize new things about ourselves or others and end up being more receptive and able to love? I know it has for me.
Have you ever read a book that you find so great and fascinating and important that you want to buy a massive amount of copies and give them to your lHave you ever read a book that you find so great and fascinating and important that you want to buy a massive amount of copies and give them to your loved ones and pretty much every single person you meet?
It’s not that what it said was new to me, it was the way it said it. Simply, yet so beautifully.
The messages of this books are like a gem, wrapped up in this wonderful story about a boy and his adventures and discoveries along the way, that makes this book one I (maybe naively) think everyone can enjoy and take from what they want and need.
And if people don’t enjoy this book, it is properly because they are in a place, where they haven’t discovered for themselves the messages of this book to be true. And so it isn’t, for them. (Yet).
But it was indeed true for me. I found the book both enjoyable as a story, important in it’s messages, well-written with the power of this simple language reflecting the simple, yet sometimes hard to grasp truths in life, and filled with layers and metaphors that make me see these truths from many angles and many layers, that makes this book the gift that keeps giving.
I definitely recommend everyone giving ‘the alchemist’ a read. It’s rather short, so if you don’t find in it something of immense value as I did, then no harm done.
And if you do, it just might give you something invaluable as it did me. A treasure and a means of penetration to the Sould of the World.
If you have been following my status updates, it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I didn't like this book.
It was boring and uninteresting.If you have been following my status updates, it probably doesn't come as a surprise that I didn't like this book.
It was boring and uninteresting. There seemed to be no real point to the story, and if there was, it got lost along the way, in all the tiring dialogues/monologues, all the little gatherings, visits and ‘interviews’ where people got together and had long, dull conversations with seemingly no point, other than to showcase themselves and their opinions, either having trouble getting to the point, or to move beyond it, once stated. And this book is severely overpopulated. It’s crowded with people with massive egos that are all just waiting to abuse ears that will listen, to create and to enact drama or gossip or lie or cheat. I didn’t like a single character in this book. Not one! And so it was hard for me to sit through all their whining, threats and dramatic outbursts. Dramaqueens all of them. Dostovyevsky might have created this awful entourage, so the main character, the idiot, Mushkin, stands out all the more as the real, honest, naive and empathic character, he is supposed to be. This is how he at some point is described: "A special characteristic of his was the naive candour with which he always listened to arguments which interested him, and with which he anwsered any questions put to him on the subject at issue. In the very expression of his face this naivete was unimstakably evident, this disbelief in the insincerity of others, and unsuspecting disregard of irony or humour in their words." But that is only how he seems at some points. At others he is just as big a fool as the rest, and so his character isn’t very consistent, in my opinion. Which, I don’t have a problem with. I like complex characters, that grow and change, as long as this is somehow acknowledged . The complexity needs to be dealt with somehow, to not just seem accidental and slobby. And let’s not forget that every character has 2 or 3 titles/names that they go by, just to add to the general annoyance and confusion of things.
And in the light of all of the above, this book is just too damn LONG. A long book is a blessing if it’s an enjoyable read, and a curse if not. This was the latter. Oh how I wished this had fallen into the hands of an editor with a razorblade, ready to cut –cut –cut, all the randomness, sleep inducing stuff out of there. (view spoiler)[I’ve heard somewhere that these Russian authors got paid by the page and that is why most of these books are so long. I don’t know if it’s true, or if it was a joke of some sort, but it’d make a lot of sense as to why I and other readers are put through this long BookHell. Either way, I do not condone of this method, and think it serves as a warning as to why authors should NOT be paid by the page. THIS is what could happen! (hide spoiler)] (go ahead and click it, it’s not a real spoiler, just a footnote).
I really felt like Dostovyevsky wasted a lot of my time here, and would have done his audience a huge favour if he’d just cut out large chunks of the tirades and kept the story to the lovetriangle/square hiding beneath all the big cast of self-absorbed and gossiping personage. Because there is bits and pieces here and there of an actual story, or what could have been one, had it not been drowned in all is Meh and Yawn.
Seriously, this was pretty much my reaction on finishing this book, solely due to the fact that it was finally, at last!, over . I felt like I was finally FREE.
When that’s the case, you know it wasn’t a good read.
So why did I finish it then? Why not just quit? Good questions, ones I’ve been asking myself several times throughout. And there’s a few reasons for that.
First, this is Dostovyevsky . Besides the fact that he is a famous, well-respected author (I don’t give much for that, I’ve hated works of esteemed authors before), I, personally , liked this guy and expected much more of him. I’ve only read 2 of his other books, The brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, both of which are also long books, but both worth it. Crime and Punishment had me a bit bored at points, but the cast was smaller, without going astray as much, and the story easier to follow. I don’t remember the story in The brothers Karamazov very well, but I remember it being more philosophical, more intriguing, and again a smaller cast, with more likeable characters too. So this not being my first encounter with Dostovyevsky I was pretty thrown off with how this book seemed to be going nowhere but in circles, and continually expected to be rewarded with something interesting, some redeemed character or a captivating plot, if only I stuck it out. That didn’t happen. It almost did, towards the very end, in like the last 150 pages or so, when the triangle/square came to a head, actual engagements and weddings happened (view spoiler)[ well, almost did (hide spoiler)] and there was suddenly actual movement in the story. And then it ended. After dragging mercilessly on for the first 90% of the book, a little action, regarding characters I didn’t like, in the last 10% just didn’t tip the scale.
Secondly, I don’t like to quit books. I’ve done it on occasions, if I very early on realize that this is a misfit. That this book has only landed in my hands, only because I thought it was something other than what it was. If I haven’t really gotten into it, have no real expectations or connection to it, then I sometimes manage to get out. But it is never easy, and always with a conflicted heart. Because… what if? What if this book turned out to be hiding great stuff anyway? Just around the corner? Exciting adventures and journeys never explored, likeable, loveable characters I’ll never meet, thoughts and ideas or magic with words that I’ll never encounter? To risk missing all of that! Oh the horror! But … then .. what if it’s not? What if it’s exactly what it looks like? A story I don’t care about, about characters I don’t like, potentially wasting the precious time I could have spent in the company of other, better, books? What if this is an easy pass when it comes to ‘so many books – so little time’? See the dilemma? And that is the reason quitting a book will always be a ‘two roads diverged in a wood..’ type of dilemma for me, and why, even if the journey seems unpleasant, I often stick it out, because at least then I can look back and say I know . I did it. No unsolved mysteries, no rejected magic.
And thirdly, this has to do with me being a stubborn (or determined as Stephen called it), person, with a curious and open nature.
So. Moving on to other books. This one has already gotten way more of my time than it deserved. ["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>...more
This was a great read. Here's a classic I actually enjoyed and found to deserve it's title as a classic.
This book was published over a century ago,This was a great read. Here's a classic I actually enjoyed and found to deserve it's title as a classic.
This book was published over a century ago, and yet, it is more relevant than ever. In nowadays society where beauty, youth and fame seems to go hand in hand with succes, and where people are often measured, appraised or critisiced for their outer self, more than the inner one, the tale of Dorian Gray, a handsome young man facing the fact that he will one day age, and lose all that his beauty seems to bring him, seems more relevant than ever. To Dorian, losing his youth and beauty seems like the end of the world, one he cannot bear to face. That leads him to make a wish with dire consequences. Enter magical realism. A genre I feel rather ambivalent about, because I find doesnt always work. If there is too much magic and it becomes an 'anything goes' kind of thing, it can ruin an otherwise great story for me, leaving me out of touch with the story. But then at other times it works so beautifully wonderfully well, that it takes a story to a completely different level, by using magic to twist reality, and amping, enhancing and showcasing certain points ending up making them so much more real. The latter was the case, with The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Besides the theme of the book being relevant, the plot being well pulled off, I also think Oscar Wilde did a great job, building up his characters and the way they interacted with each other. I found myself hooked from beginning to end, even when the plot wasn't really going forward, but I as a reader, was giving just as satisfying scenes, conversations or thought processes into the characters lives.
Oscar Wilde didnt become famous for nothing. He has a deep, psychological insight and a philosophical look at life, that questions our reality, our values and our ideals and he manages to write about them in a well-written, understandable, interesting manner, that leaves the reader a little changed, a little more in touch with themselves, a little more of an agent in life than merely a spectator.
Have you ever found yourself an innocent and unwilling victim of some random persons tiring monologue, where they just go on an on talking about theirHave you ever found yourself an innocent and unwilling victim of some random persons tiring monologue, where they just go on an on talking about their boring ass lives, and their boring ass selves, while seemingly under the delusion impression that what they are telling you is a fascinating story, that you absolutely cannot live without and that might, just possibly, change your life? All the while you are sitting there, astonished that 1) this person actually has such a boring life 2) this person is telling you about it and 3) this person thinks ANYBODY CARES!!!
when actually what you are thinking is 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
That was the gist of the experience I had reading J.D. Salingers 'cather in the rye', while 'listenning' to Holden Caufields utterly boring narrative wasting my time with a pointless story, filled with minute details of random things.
Dear Mr. Salinger - please, learn what to tell, but most importantly WHAT NOT TO TELL.
I feel for the poor students who still (!) have to read this crap, when there are soooo many other good books out there.
I think it's about time somebody went and had a reevaluation of the 'classic' file,and tossed out the bad apples. This is one of them, in my humble opinion.
This is one of the first books I ever read on my own. And I have read it many times since. It's very dark and sad, but there's a glimmer of hope shiniThis is one of the first books I ever read on my own. And I have read it many times since. It's very dark and sad, but there's a glimmer of hope shining as a bright star on the night sky. It's beautiful and it touches and tears at my heart everytime I read it. I guess it's classified as a childrens book, but really it's an 'for every age' book. Adults as well as children will be moved by this story. I know for myself, this is one of the books I will never outgrow and which will never lose it's ability to touch my heart....more
There was much interesting analysis in here of society and our economic way of loving. Much of it was familiar territory for me, but still I enjoyed goThere was much interesting analysis in here of society and our economic way of loving. Much of it was familiar territory for me, but still I enjoyed going on the journey with Fromm looking at it from his perspective, that more often than not resemble my own. Not as taken aback as I thought I'd be though, and some passages were a little to heavy on the social, economical, historical issues to hold my interest captured. ...more
I now this is a classic that most people love and it's considered a great romance by many.
I'm not one of them.
I didn't like or care for a singleI now this is a classic that most people love and it's considered a great romance by many.
I'm not one of them.
I didn't like or care for a single character in this book. They were all one-dimensional characters and in real life even 'bad' people have more nuance and depth than these people.
I see absolutely nothing romantic about Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship, and seriously disliked both of them for all their egocentred, selfish and abusive behaviour. The remaining characters were not much better, they were all whiny, dumb and/or as weak as the main characters.
I found this book on a trip through South America, at a hostel where you could swap books. The copy was old and worn, and a former owner had underlineI found this book on a trip through South America, at a hostel where you could swap books. The copy was old and worn, and a former owner had underlined and written comments in it, and it was clear it had been read, and loved, before. So, already it was revolved around some kind of mystery. I sat on a beach in Ecuador and devoured this book. And I fell in love. Every page I turned I felt like I was getting to know more and more of a good friend. I've read other Dostoyevsky books, and he writes so beautiful, and his character portrays are amazing. This book will always be one of my biggest treasures. ...more
Never have I been so torn on how to rate a book. I have difficulties even shelving it!
After finishing it I’ve been debating whether or not to land oNever have I been so torn on how to rate a book. I have difficulties even shelving it!
After finishing it I’ve been debating whether or not to land on a 2 or a 3, going back and forth, back and forth. Writing this review I am still undecided!
While reading it there were 1 star parts to me, where I was just getting annoyed and super bored with the whole thing, 2 star parts were I wasn’t really interested but not entirely put off either, 3 star parts where I was actually enjoying myself and a few 4 star parts where I thought ‘yes, that is how it’s done! Now we’re getting somewhere –and OMG it’s so late I should totally go to sleep! … Right when I’ve finished this chapter…. ;)’
So you see my dilemma?
In the end I decided to go with a 2, by reason that out of all the pages, I’m pretty sure the bigger half consisted of 1 or 2 star parts, deserving the lower rating. And even if there were some really good scenes that really drew me in, I still hadn’t forgotten about the looong, boring, uninteresting way to get there, that just felt like such a waste of time and pages.
With the final rating off the table, let me (try to) tell you more of what went in what box or rating category and why.
The bad, the boring and a whole lot of fluffyness : These parts majorly belonged in the first half of the book, when they were children/young women, but a few 2 star moments crept in at the latter half of the book too. It was just all so cute, and proper and happy, and fluffy, and preaching, and goodheartedly wonderful even in the face of ‘trouble’, which was always either small trivial matters or the war, which was also glossed over by goodnaturedness, lectures, trivialities and play. Even when one of the girls fall ill, and everybody (except me, the reader) fears the big bad Death, it never really comes a-knocking, and instead father and mother returns and all is well again in the little house! O bliss o joy! Maybe it’s because I didn’t read this when I was a girl, and so would have enjoyed the protected bubble of innocence more, but knowing the girl I was (and the woman I turned out to be), I have always been excited for the trials and hardships people endure, that disrupts paradise, which they must overcome and learn from, before they come out changed, as people worthy of receiving their fairytale ending. Those are the elements that in my opinion and knowledge moves a good story forward, that connects characters with their audiences and draws them in, forgetting their own world for a moment. And the first part of this book really had none of that to me. At it’s best it had me not falling asleep.
The ‘okay’ parts were the characters. I liked them. How could I not? They sure were such amiable people! And the descriptions of them and their different traits and passions were well-done, but also, in my opinion, overdone. All the little scenes and descriptions just sort of fell flat for me, when the story seemed to be going nowhere, and I didn’t really care much for any of the characters yet. Because as nice as they might be, the angelic nature of them all, also made them seem a touch unreal. I know this was written at a different time and a different context (as little chapters in a paper) for a different audience, but either way, that doesn’t really change the fact that it needed some essential ingredients for me to care and like a book. And it just dragged on and on and on, until I was honestly at the point of giving up. Something I rarely ever do, but was seriously considering, because I felt like I was just wasting time. Since this book didn’t excite me, teach me, move me, entertain me or even provoke me! But somehow, in between commercial breaks, in want of better books, I managed to get past all that and then, finally, things started happening!
The good, the great and the growth of characters: In this latter part of the book things started changing up a bit and the book actually managed to deliver both 3 and 4 star moments for me. After the beginning of this book, imagine my surprise! Suddenly romantic ideas was blossoming for our characters, which I have a soft spot for, but it also changed the dynamic between the characters. An honest proposal from a young, passionate loyal heart in love was rejected; the brokenhearted going abroad to mend, or dull?, the pain, ending up meeting another sister and forming a new friendship and igniting a different kind of love. Another sister went away and fell unexpectedly, unknowingly, slowly in love, with someone, only to part and not realize this love for several years after. A death happened. Beautiful and sad, leaving everyone affected and a little changed, but still living on in spirit. Feelings were bared, hurt and hearts and minds were changed by life and experience, and not so much by moral lectures or set-ups. No these issues were handled so well and beautifully and with such care and depth that I found myself surprised they were written by the same author, in only a year apart. And even if I knew these things were coming I had expected them to happen in the same dull, bland, cliché way everything else had happened, with no sense of real emotion, but quickly glossed over to get to the ‘happy’ or ‘moral’ part. And then they didn’t. In the end Louisa May Alcott decided to be brave and throw some difficulties at her characters and have them figure it out anyway, in a more realistic less fluffily merrily way. And Thank God for that.
I was given what I had been hoping for, asking for, in the same book I had been ready to cast aside, but as pleased as I was, in the end it was just a little too little and a little too late, to move it anywhere, ratingwise. Instead it earned itself a place on my bookshelf instead of being tossed out or sent away. That counts for something, right? ...more
I see what this book is trying to do, and I very much consider the debate about and dynamics of civilization,humanity,fears, power, leadership, surviv I see what this book is trying to do, and I very much consider the debate about and dynamics of civilization,humanity,fears, power, leadership, survival and kinship important and interesting topics. That was why i had high expectations going into this book and why I was ultimately led down and didn't think this book fulfilled it's own potential.
The writing was often confusing, as to where things took place and who said what. It might've been a deliberate intent not to attach names to several statements but have them all jumbled like that to try to hint a the confusion and nameless statements surfacing in the group. For me that just didn't work and came off more as bad writing. I would have preferred another way to have confusion and group dynamics shown if that was the aim. I don't think lose sentences and dialogue is the way to do that, and I would have liked for a more careful selection of writing tools in that instance.
Also the descriptions, especially of nature and the island and of the hunting games and the assemblies and of the... There was too much of it, where nothing essential happened, and where I found myself wanting to skip forward. Again, often I think this served as an attempt of being metaphorical and to give the reader a 'sense' of the island, but if I'm bored enough that the result is I'm skipping ahead, then I might miss stuff thought to be important by the author, which again suggests to me the author should have probably been more careful both with the pacing and with his writing tools choices, like when and how much to use description, dialogue and action, as well as when to be indirect and when to be more direct, and generally how to build the story.
Instead of spending the first 2/3's of the book on kids quarreling, hunting, bathing and walking around an island I'd much rather the author had spent more time on a few selected characters and the premise of the story. Why were the kids there again? So there was an airplane accident(loosely hinted at)? But where we're they going, what was their relationship to each other, how did these few manage to survive? And what did they go through, emotionally and physically (how come none of these were badly hurt after the accident??) being stranded in the middle of nowhere without any relatives, maybe never to be found? The kids seem strangely indifferent to the whole situation, easily shrugging off having lost the connection to the surrounding world and plans of rescue (except Ralph and piggy of course). That seems very unlikely to me. Unless they all led terribly scary and horrible lives before and that doesn't seems likely either, does it? The reason the story doesn't go deeper into the background and the premise is because it is more concerned with where the story is going. But that to me was the first writing mistake of the book, because that means I just don't believe it very much, and isn't as invested in the characters, because they don't see very real. And so I am not as saddened by their deaths because these are the deaths of characters, not of people. What I wold also have liked to see more of, when the book does indeed pick up speed and it comes to a battle between opposing wills and lifestyles, is Jacks (the antagonist) reasoning and psychological journey. What makes him so barbaric? Why is he not more interested in being rescued? What crushed his empathy ? What kind of person is and was he and what kind of life did he lead? So he's the bad guy, he's rough, barbaric, egocentric, power loving and ruthless, I get it. But how did he become that way? How does he feel about his acts and how does he justify them to himself? And what goes on in the minds and hearts of the followers? They are scared of him, yes, but with the brutal force he is showing why are more not trying to flee? Especially when there IS another leading figure to flee to? Now that's a story I'd like to read! (and thought I was going to, hence, the dissappointment).
The decent into cruelty, the hate between groups and the warlike nature to ensure survival is surely a very real thing that can be observed throughout the world and throughout human history. It is sadly not new, and we still have not found the means in ourselves to stop it from enfolding. Which is exactly why I'm much more interested in the dynamics and reasonings and psychological stirrings that created this than in just observing the madness, the cruelty, the downfall and the destruction unfold. I learned nothing new from Lord of the flies (even the title was a letdown) because all I have to do is turn on the tv or open a newspaper to see it. And the fates I will be seeing or reading about there will be real fates, real lives, real people.
Goulding didn't give me any of the missing pieces to the puzzle, or answer any of the questions I have about humanity's inability (so far. Consider me an optimist) to live peacefully, side by side, with respect and room for all. And that is ultimately the answer I am looking for, when I go searching in the dark, sharp corners of the human soul, in books as well as in life. But rest assured, I will continue my searching, elsewhere....more
Re-read this in februar/ march, 2013. Definitely better for me the second time around.
The beginning was slow and didn't really hold my interest, but abRe-read this in februar/ march, 2013. Definitely better for me the second time around.
The beginning was slow and didn't really hold my interest, but about halfway through it picked up and I started liking it more and more. This is around the same time when the plot falls more into place and it is revealed what Gatsbys agenda is.
The writing is amazing at points, decent at others, and ok for the most part. ...more