Oh wait, that's not the right Inigo. My bad. But let it be recorded that Supernatural does have a gif for everything.
And now to the actual review. I w
Oh wait, that's not the right Inigo. My bad. But let it be recorded that Supernatural does have a gif for everything.
And now to the actual review. I would like to say that I tried really hard to hide all possible spoilers and I hope I succeeded. If I missed anything, I'm sorry. Please, point it out to me, so I can fix it.
I honestly do not know what I expected, but I will tell you that this book was and wasn't it. I've seen the movie, naturally, but I noticed a lot of people mentioned that the book was quite different than the movie. So I half expected a different story or a different tone or atmosphere. I got the same story (in essentials), the same tone and atmosphere. I did get a slightly different ending, but I will get to that. The core of the story stayed the same. The wrapping was different.
First of all, before you get to the actual story, you have to get through the introduction. And then another introduction. Both about how Goldman got around writing the book and shooting the movie. I started off taking him seriously, but it turned out that William Goldman is the sneakiest shit of all sneaky shits. He claims that this book is only a shortened version of a much longer and older story by S. Morgenstern. I am not one to read half-ass versions of anything, so I Googled it to see if I could get to the original version. Turns out there is no such guy as S. Morgenstern. At least not one who would write this story and that he is a figment of Goldman's imagination that allows him to brag about how awesome the story is without looking like an idiot.
On the other hand, I have to give it to Goldman. He knows how to fool people. Everything he talks about sounds very real, because he gives details and takes detours as if he was actually talking about his past. He does what people do when they tell you their story. I am actually a bit sorry that I found out about the Morgenstern ruse, although I would probably realize it anyway, because I know every country in Europe and I've never hear of Florin. It's kind of funny, though, because I can imagine most Americans would probably fall for that. It sometimes seems to me as if Europe is some sort of magical country to them, where everyone is merry and gay and there are all kinds of awesome countries like Florin or Genovia.
Also after I decided to just give up on trusting Goldman as an author, and see him as another character, my irritation with him lessened a bit. Until the I felt like he was playing a joke on readers that he was taking a bit too far. Like that cousin who tells you he's finally got a girlfriend and you feel honestly happy for him, until he, encouraged by his initial success at fooling you, says that she's a supermodel pornstar with a doctorate. I'm not saying there isn't a possibility that such a woman exists, but that she would date your incredibly boring, dumb, gross and immature cousin is inconceivable.
The book finally took off when I got to chapter 1 and I was pleased when I recognized some of the narrative techniques in what was allegedly Morgenstern's text. Goldman hardly bothered to change his writing style though he did add some tricks to it. What did not change is his attentiveness to detail, but it took a slight turn. He adds precise facts and statistics about such things as who is the most beautiful woman on Earth or how you meassure the quality of a kiss. It add a sort of absurd edge to the story and can be very entertaining.
This trick also translates into how he plays with setting the book into a time-period. He uses the same technique you can see in most fairytales - it tells you certain things about that time that make it sound like you could pinpoint the era (knights, swords, wine in a bottle, king...), only it's blurred, talks about "once upon a time" and in the end it's not important for the story. The author doesn't care and you don't care either. Goldman does the same thing, only he takes it further, all the way to the absurd edge. He tells you it takes place "before Europe" but "after Paris" and "long after quarreling" but "before board". The only thing that annoys me about this is that Goldman jumps into the story with an author note only to point this out. Oh, look, Morgenstern used this technique, what a smart guy. Only it was Goldman who used it and to point out your narrative tricks in the middle of the story is weird and kind of idiotic. He basically says: "Look, I know how to set the story into an unspecified time period while making it seem like I'm talking about a very specific one! I'm awesome and I really have to tell you because I can't bear the thought of you missing this ingenious move."
I already told you, the book is pretty much the same as the movie, except the ending. And there is a few passages in between that were skipped in the movie, but correspond with it. You get to know more about Inigo and Fezzik, which I thought was awesome, because I really love Inigo. I understand very well why these scenes were not in the movie though. On the other hand I am personally surprised that they did not put the scene where Fezzik and Inigo are trying to get to Westley through the Zoo of Death. Only in the movie they changed the whole place to the Pit of Despair, probably because it would be difficult at that time to shoot with real wild animals and they did not have CGI that could do it. And if they shot the movie again, it wouldn't be the same, because the kind of clumsiness that comes with older fantasy/fairy-tale movies is part of the charm in this one. And part of the slightly ironic, satirical tone you can feel from it. I'm still sorry I didn't get to see it though. But I'm biased.
For a similar reason, I just can't forgive Goldman for leaving out the scenes with Inigo and Fezzik getting ingredients for Max's miracle. It sounded wonderful from the short passage where Goldman was explaining what he "left out from Morgenstern's version". He said he did it because he wanted to focus on Westley and Buttercup and these scenes were out of the main line of the story. And I suppose he's right in a way and I would agree if I was a fond of Buttercup and Westley as I am of Inigo and Fezzik. I actually want the whole book to be about Inigo, with Fezzik as a second main character, but unfortunatelly it isn't.
On the other hand, I agree with "Stephen King" or Goldman's version of Stephen King, who reproached Goldman for leaving out Buttercup's studies. I would love to see those scenes as well for several reasons and one of them is that it might help me like Buttercup better.
You might have noticed that I said I am not that fond of Buttercup and Westley. To be honest, It's mostly Buttercup. I can't take her seriously. Well, I probably shouldn't anyway, since this whole story is not serious and perhaps it might be even pointing out the exact problem I have with her. And I do realize this was written back in 1973 and by a guy, who's wife left him, but still. Buttercup does absolutely nothing for herself or for what she wants. She's just passively waiting for Westley to save her. If this book was written now, Buttercup would probably get out of this whole mess before Westley could even find her. Or she would at least try. (view spoiler)[She would definitelly not sit in the room where Humperdink locked her and feel sorry for herself. Westley would not stop her from commiting suicide but from trying to tie the bedsheets together so she could climb out of the window, at the very least. She would grab Westley's sword and stab that giant rat in the Fire Swamp herself. (hide spoiler)] This girl is a Bella Swan and I can't really respect her. The only bright moment I can remember was her dealing with prince Humperdinck in a very straightforward and honest way (view spoiler)[when she agreed to marry him if he can accept that she'll never love him (which prince Humperdinck promptly ruined when he started to lie to her). And I suppose the second bright moment was when she yelled at the guards right at the end, so they would let them pass. (hide spoiler)] But that's about it.
I don't have that much of a problem with Westley, except that he's kind of annoying when he's all mushy about Buttercup. I know I sound like the little boy from the movie, but I kind of agree with him about the "kissing parts". I do love a good romance. But this book was good for hundreds other reasons, just not for this one.
The last part, Buttercup's Baby, was even more schizophrenic than the previous story. For starters there was the introduction that reached a whole new level of crazy when Stephen King appeared. But the actual story was even crazier. Goldman claims it's only the first chapter of another Morgenstern's book. And it's written that way. Not only the ending of the Princess Bride was weirdly open (well, one of the endings, because there were two), but on top of all the first chapter of Buttercup's Baby ends in a cliffhanger. Almost literally. (view spoiler)[It ends in what usually follows a cliffhanger - in the fall. (hide spoiler)] Goldman also jumped into the story a lot more than in the previous story. And finally, There was the beginning and the ending that took place during the same time and then there were three parts in between that jumped all over the timeline and one of them was entirelly out of the whole concept (view spoiler)[- it was about Inigo, so I would overlook it, but it was surprisingly boring and pointless. Well, the point could be to show Inigo's more human side, but it's not like I didn't see it before. (hide spoiler)]
I thought it was kind of funny when Goldman started about King at the end of the book. Symbolic, really, because I'm reading Mr. Mercedes right after that. I enjoyed Goldman's "real-life" story in the last part a lot more than that at the beginning and a big reason were the bits about Arnold Schwarzenegger (that was hilarious, really) and about Stephen King. Though it was probably all fiction. Is Goldman even real? Are his movies real? Is King real? Am I real? What is real? Great. Now I'm having an existential crisis. And that's coming from a Cimrman fan (if you don't know who Cimrman is, which you probably don't unless you're Czech, he's about as real as Florin, but according to a recent study he's one of the most popular historical figures in the Czech Republic).
I have my notes I took while I was reading scattered all over the place and I might go through them later and add some more to this review (which was for the most part put together by rewriting some of the notes).
All in all though. Now that I finished the book, I realize that I did like it a lot. It didn't matter that I knew what was going to happen. I liked the slightly sarcastic style, the humor and the story itself. When I look back I did not even mind the "autobiographical" parts as much as it probably seemed at the beginning of this review. But one star has to go. It wasn't THAT good. It was not one of my top books. Buttercup was Bella Swan and the author lied through his teeth and then used the lie to brag. Four stars is still very good though.["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 little more than poorly researched fanfiction, but at least it was pretty accurate when it came to the characters and their behaviour. It's eThis was little more than poorly researched fanfiction, but at least it was pretty accurate when it came to the characters and their behaviour. It's easy to read and quite entertaining if you don't mind that it doesn't corespond with the show. Some of the parts were a bit boring, but that was probably due to my own problem with certain characters (like Quinn). In the end it wasn't that bad. I liked the whole story about Rachel, which was luckily the bigger part of the book. Even though I can't imagine how the creators of the show could approve of this, not just because miss Lowell didn't bother with back-research, but also for the fanfiction-like style of writing (and that's an insult to some fanfiction). I gave two stars - one because it didn't bother me to read it and it took me so little time that I can't bring myself to regret spending it on the book. And the second one is for Rachel Berry :)....more
A to jsem si myslela, že nikdy nepřečtu nic horšího než Stmívání. Ale vzhledem k tomu, že tohle není nic jiného než Stmívání v kostce (to, co se u MeyA to jsem si myslela, že nikdy nepřečtu nic horšího než Stmívání. Ale vzhledem k tomu, že tohle není nic jiného než Stmívání v kostce (to, co se u Meyerové odehraje ve čtyřech knihách se tady stane v jedné a ještě o polovinu kratší). Kdo to editoval a schválil k tisku to nevím, ale buď to byla autorka sama nebo někdo, kdo si myslel, že tím dojde podobného úspěchu jako Meyerová. Jak moc Meyerovou nemám ráda, její časová osa příběhu se ještě dá zkousnout. Celou knihu se v podstatě nic neděje a když přijde na rádoby drama, je smrsknuté na dvou stranách a napsané způsobem, že by to jednoho uspalo. Knihu rozhodně nedoporučuji. Raději si přečtěte fanfiction ke Stmívání, protože hodně z nich má vyšší úroveň než tahle kniha....more