Wendy's Reviews > Lucky Jim

Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
F_50x66
's review
Jun 12, 09

Read in June, 2009

I'm waffling between a 2 and 3 star rating. Parts of it were funny--the whole slapstick around the burnt sheets and blanket, for example. But most of it was tedious. The conversations between Margaret and Dixon were painfully dull even to read about. And what was Dixon's (or Amis's) obsession with Welches' bag about? Something was lost in the translation across an ocean and fifty years. Was it like a man-purse, and thus inherantly funny? Was using the term "bag" instead of "case" some sign of Welches' obtuseness? Whatever the joke, was it worth bringing up every freaking time?

Okay, the more I think about it, the more I am settling on that 2 star rating. The only character that was dependably amusing was the guy who went along with Dixon's jokes. As for Dixon, the only things that seemed to distinguish him from the people that so annoyed and bored him were drinking like a frat boy and making faces.
1 like · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Lucky Jim.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-5 of 5) (5 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Don (new)

Don Campbell Um, Wendy? You just didn't get the book. Plus, you have no sense of humour.


Wendy Totally agree on the first comment. In fact, that's what I was trying to say in my review. As for the sense of humor--I do find it amusing how people feel comfortable insulting complete strangers online. Does that count?


message 3: by Mickaugrec (new)

Mickaugrec Don Campbell is a troll -- see his response to Tamra above. I guess a literal e-troll doesn't give a name, but the part about insulting (with abandon) complete strangers online? TROLL. I like the 'Um, Wendy?' rhetorical flourish at the beginning. Man, what a Pain In The ____ DC must be to the people who have to endure him in the real world, where, mercifully, he probably spends as little time as is, um, 'humanly' possible!


Wendy Thanks for that. I will say that just recently when I was tempted to launch into someone for a (to me) stupid comment about a book, I thought of Dear Don and decided to let the poor schmuck alone. If you can't be a good example, be a terrible warning, right?


message 5: by Mickaugrec (new)

Mickaugrec Indeed! A salient point, kudos for taking the so-called high road. After I posted I thought I might be sliding down the same sanctimonious slope as Dandy Don (after all, I don't know him), so I'm glad you took it in the spirit intended. Tempting for me too to blast into comments about various books which (comments) I would deem stupid, but whether 'edifying' a poor schmuck or trying to get behind someone's [errant] thought process, communication and choice of words is obviously important, so much more so online. Delicate flowers we humans, even (especially?) the truculent 'Lucky Jim' defenders... Take care, Mick


back to top