The Next Best Book Club discussion
Non-Book Related Banter
>
Thread Of Dire Judgment
message 701:
by
Sasha
(new)
Mar 27, 2010 10:17PM
No offense, Cindy, but holy crap that's a cool job. So where are you at with it? Hologram? Perpetual motion? Multiverse? I hear there could be aliens.
reply
|
flag
Hmmm...Aliens? I would weigh in and say that I do believe there is some kind of exter-terrestial out there...somewhere...Ok, so I've just finished 'The Dante Club' by Matthew Pearl. I also was good and wrote a review in case people are interested. Overall, a decent book. It got three stars from me.
Alex, I thought of you the other day. I was offered tickets to opening day at Fenway. May the best team win...
Alex wrote: "No offense, Cindy, but holy crap that's a cool job. So where are you at with it? Hologram? Perpetual motion? Multiverse? I hear there could be aliens."Most recently using our gravity wave interferometer, we have detected Cthulhu in the 11th dimension... he's hiding under your bed, Alex!
Kaion wrote: "Matthew, 5 stars for The Firm? You've got to give room for Grisham to improve his writing skillz."Well Grisham is one of my favorite authors. Even though I will admit there are a handful of his books I was not totally impressed with, 'The Firm' was definately one of them. The movie version wasn't too bad...but the book as usualy was much better.
Kaion wrote: "Matthew, 5 stars for The Firm? You've got to give room for Grisham to improve his writing skillz."1 star for 'The Firm'?!? Wow. That's all I'll say
You people obviously haven't read Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. How can you possibly make an informed decision before you've been enlightened by this work? I'm sure it's only a matter of time before those schools in Boston realise they're teaching from the wrong textbook and correct their ways. It's too late for you, Alex, but hopefully you're children will be better educated!
Hmm, well that came to a dead stop! anyway...Kaion, I finally browsed through your shelves. You have a lot of YA. I am wondering two things: A) you read Nicholas Sparks? Really? and B)2 stars for Hornby's High Fidelity? What say you? LOL!!
:D
The Postmistress was SUCH a disappointment!!!! The dust jacket gave me an entirely different expectation. The story itself was a let down. SIGH :(
Jayme - not much love for Huck Finn?
Tanja wrote: "The Postmistress was SUCH a disappointment!!!! The dust jacket gave me an entirely different expectation. The story itself was a let down. SIGH :("Okay, I won an ARC of this book, Tanja, and I keep hearing shite things about it. I may just pass it along to someone, like my mother-in-law, who would probably love it. Did I say that out loud? What?
No, it was dumb and boring, Susanna. It feels so good to say that! It's been a long time since I read it, but I still remember how bored I was, and it's not inspiring me to try it again.
Jennifer, I see you gave 2-stars to Mrs. Dalloway. I don't really want to judge you, per se, because I haven't read it. But I was planning on picking it up this weekend (finally). I think I have a love-hate relationship with Woolf, and have only read a few things of hers. I figure I should at least read this one before judging her officially. :)So, let's pretend I love it for the sake of argument!
OMG JENNIFER - why only 2 stars!!?!?? Defend thyself!! :)
El wrote: "Jennifer, I see you gave 2-stars to Mrs. Dalloway. I don't really want to judge you, per se, because I haven't read it...."Hi El!
OMG EL! You haven't read it!!! So instead of judging Woolf, you're judging me!! LOL :P
I just bought To the Lighthouse and I am looking forward to reading it but Mrs. D made my ears bleed. The prose was quick-paced (a day-in-the-life, after all), and the writing good, the problem, to me, was it had no point and Clarissa's nails-on-a-chalkboard voice (which is a tribute to the writing - that I could hear her) nearly had me straight-jacketed to the loony bin if I had to hear one more sentence from her helium infused voice box.
To sum up: a) no point within this boring sliver of society & b) irritating as hell!
Challenge to you, El! :D
Great, I'm actually looking forward to it! I recently read The Voyage Out and loved it - Clarissa Dalloway makes her first appearance in it, so I have been wanting to see how her story progresses. More interestingly (to me anyway) is that The Voyage Out was Woolf's first published novel, so I'm curious to see how her writing also progressed over the years. We'll see if I agree with you or not. :)The real inspiration to read Mrs. Dalloway (besides your glowing review, lol) is to read that and then read Mr. Dalloway: A Novella for the Seasonal Reading Challenge. Can't wait to see how the Mr.'s story goes on as well.
Dear Kaion, Why do you hate all my favorite books? (And how have I not noticed that before?) Seriously, comparing our books made me sad.
2* for The Things They Carried breaks my little book-loving heart. Wh-? H-? Really?
2* for Nineteen Eighty-Four is just nonsense. Has anyone called you on that yet?
2* for In the Time of the Butterflies? Seriously, I can see knocking off a star as punishment for the cheesy title. But still, why???
2* for Night! You do realize that the 2* rating translates to "it was okay," correct?
1* for The Poisonwood Bible - I'm assuming you disliked this for the same reasons as the Alvarez. (I loved them for the same reasons.) This one doesn't even have the cheesy title excuse, though. I'm really curious, what is it that you don't like about these two books?
We've discussed Jane Eyre and Heart of Darkness at length, so I'll leave those alone.
Actually, I think we'd make for a really entertaining book club. I'd be all like "I loved this book. This is the best book ever," and Kaion would just be like "Yeah, whatever. It totally sucked."
P.S. El, I patiently await your review of Mrs. Dalloway.
Katie wrote: "P.S. El, I patiently await your review of Mrs. Dalloway."For the love of Darwin, El, Don't give in to peer pressure! Jennifer - your description/smack down of Mrs. Dalloway was so perfect and inspired, I might have to fake-literature marry you. That's legal in some states, right?
Oh boy, let's tackle this:1. Matthew, The Firm- Admittedly, the thriller is probably not my thing (though the legal is somewhat my thing) as I discovered a few more thrillers in. But I think a combo of Grisham's early writing and a pretty unsympathetic main character make for some really mechanical plot stuff that is really all money... and the storyline manages to be both ludicrous *and* boring (if I never hear about Cayman tax law again...and what right did he have to rip off the FBI/the crime family anyway?)
2. Jennifer wrote: "A) you read Nicholas Sparks? Really? and B)2 stars for Hornby's High Fidelity? What say you? LOL!!"
A. Yes, really, and I wrote an awesome review for it. I was wondering whether the epic romance I was apparently not understanding from The Notebook movie was evident thematically in Sparks's writing.
B. High Fidelity, *shrug*, I can't generally relate to dating troubles that are literally just that, let alone ones filtered through music fanboy-ness.
3. Mrs. Dalloway: El, how can you defend something you haven't even read yet? Actually I read it last summer and I liked it (3.5 stars). It's my first Woolf. I've never read a true stream-of-consciousness novel before, and I was really impressed with her ability with it... but it *is* sort of wasted on 3/4 of the characters. Rich people all be unconsciously gay/fixated on the same event that happened 20-something years ago, apparently. (Especially annoying to me in Peter, ugh.) So I think Jennifer is totally valid as well.
And Virginia Woolf does sound awesome, which means the book might fail the "is this novel more or less awesome than reading a memoir of the same experiences that inspired it in the author"-test. (Related to the Gene Siskel "Is this movie better than watching 2 hours of the same actors having lunch"-test.)
Let's see , I haven't looked in here for a while. I have read Stoner, Nerfertiti meh, The Moonstone ,The Sheltering Sky, Go Down Moses, Disgrace, A Reliable Wife,and The Women all in the last 6 weeks. So chop away.
A new post to just respond to Katie!1. Nineteen Eighty-Four- I've defended my apathy to 1984 so many times, I have not much to say... Totalitarianism = BAD? No shit, Sherlock. Lacking nuance.
Again, this doesn't pass the rule I sort of mentioned in my previous post: Is the fictional novel more or less interesting than a nonfiction version of the same events? In short: I'd rather hear the nuances of living in a Soviet Russia or a North Korea or a Burma or *insert other examples here of various levels of totalitarianism, and/or love in crazy places, etc*, over Orwell's heavy-handed approach here. (Offtopic, but I loved his story of killing the elephant.)
2. Speaking of regimes, and novels that fail this test: In the Time of the Butterflies. The Mirabal sisters fought the power! They were opposition members! They hid weapons! That's interesting, that's amazing. A fictionalized version eschewing that for the author's fleshed-out speculations about their sibling rivalries? Navel-gazing and cheapening.
3. The Things They Carried: Monotonous, borderline generic, again fails the nonfiction test.
I have to support Kaion on 2 stars for 1984, as that is the same rating I gave it.Katie - no love for A Wrinkle in Time?
I don´t like people bashing Twilight LOLBut I do bash self-help.... :D
I'm late to this discussion, but if it's wrong to love Mrs. Dalloway, then I don't want to be right! Now go ahead, bash my ratings, bring it on. I love a hearty discussion about books!
Did you like The Moonstone, Carol? I finished The Woman in White a little while ago and really enjoyed it, wouldn't mind reading something else by Wilkie.
Kaion, I wasn't seriously defending Mrs. Dalloway. I was just pretending that I had an opinion of it so Jennifer would tell me why she only gave it 2 stars, all the while keeping in the spirit of this thread. I will, however, be actually reading the book in a few days or so. :)Jayme, I strongly suggest you read The Moonstone if you want another Wilkie Collins book. It's fantastic.
Katie, welcome to this thread! Looks like we have a few books in common... but you gave 5 stars to Confederacy of Dunces and I only gave it 1. Yikes. I think there was a discussion of that one already in this thread somewhere (much too tired right now to go looking for it, lol). Anyway, I'll try not to hold your 5-star rating of that book against you. :)
Kaion wrote: "1. Nineteen Eighty-Four- I've defended my apathy to 1984 so many times, I have not much to say... Totalitarianism = BAD? No shit, Sherlock. Lacking nuance."Alright, I'll give you that Nineteen Eighty-Four is heavy-handed. But the Two Minutes Hate? You can't give it a third star for the Two Minutes Hate? Big Brother? Thought crime? This stuff is brilliant. Alarmist, but brilliant.
"Again, this doesn't pass the rule I sort of mentioned in my previous post: Is the fictional novel more or less interesting than a nonfiction version of the same events? In short: I'd rather hear the nuances of living in a Soviet Russia or a North Korea or a Burma or *insert other examples here of various levels of totalitarianism, and/or love in crazy places, etc*, over Orwell's heavy-handed approach here"
So why, then, did you not like Night?
"In the Time of the Butterflies. The Mirabal sisters fought the power! They were opposition members! They hid weapons! That's interesting, that's amazing. A fictionalized version eschewing that for the author's fleshed-out speculations about their sibling rivalries? Navel-gazing and cheapening."
To me, this isn't some fluffy, cheap story focused on the relationships between sisters set against the backdrop of political turmoil; it's an indictment of traditional history, of the process by which we decide whose memories are valid enough to enter our historical record. I love how the political/military events in this novel are merely ancillary to individual reaction and engagement.
Butterflies reflects the Latin American notion of testimonio, or the melding of literature and history. It's supposed to be more authentic than traditional history in that it speaks with a multiplicity of voices, acknowledging the sub-altern. The form is resistance in itself, resistance through memory. My favorite part of this book is the last section when Dedé is an old woman. What does she do with her time? She sits on her porch (women's sphere!) and listens to the pilgrims that come to share their stories. Maybe that's what we're supposed to do, too. You don't have to pick up a weapon to fight oppression. Just listen to the story. (Also, who cares if it's true? And what does that really mean, anyway? Sure, it is speculative, but it's no less true than anything else.)
"The Things They Carried: Monotonous, borderline generic, again fails the nonfiction test."
War is hell, baby. You want to see generic, try WEB Griffin. Holy schmolly. Oh, and I couldn't disagree more about O'Brien. (Surprise!)
Does it seem like I'm defending historical fiction? I'm kind of surprising myself with that. I think I find historical fiction grating because so much of it seems to be a.) based on shoddy research, or b.) some lame cover for a romance novel. Who cares who was schtupping whom in the seventeenth-century? Now that's generic.
Katie, speaking of spectacular war books, have you read Johnny Got His Gun? I strongly recommend it.
Isn't that what the video for Metallica's One is about? If you read it, you're honor-bound to listen to that song over and over while you read it.
Yes, Alex, that's the one. Nice pop culture reference! I think the video is actually based on the movie that was based on the book, but close enough.
El wrote: "Katie, welcome to this thread! Looks like we have a few books in common... but you gave 5 stars to Confederacy of Dunces and I only gave it 1. Yikes. I think there was a discussion of that one already in this thread somewhere (much too tired right now to go looking for it, lol). Anyway, I'll try not to hold your 5-star rating of that book against you. :)"
El, as you know, most people either love Confederacy of Dunce or they hate, there is usually no in between. :) backatcha!
El wrote: "Katie, speaking of spectacular war books, have you read Johnny Got His Gun? I strongly recommend it."No, I hadn't heard of that one. It sounds like something I would like. Thanks for the rec.
Jayme wrote: "Did you like The Moonstone, Carol? I finished The Woman in White a little while ago and really enjoyed it, wouldn't mind reading something else by Wilkie."Yes I liked it. Gave it 4 stars.
Cindy wrote: "Jennifer - your description/smack down of Mrs. Dalloway was so ... I might have to fake-literature marry you. That's legal in some states, right? "LOL so, so hard right now! I assume literature fake-marrying is legal everywhere, but here in Toronto it is 100% for sure allowed! Everyone comes to Toronto for their same-sex literary fake-marriages. Booming business that is proving to be.
Aww, Jennifer, but weren't Lucretia and Septimus a little touching? And the scene with the hat? I'm not ordinarily soft-hearted, but *sniff*.1. Katie wrote: "2* for Night! You do realize that the 2* rating translates to "it was okay," correct?...
Actually, I think we'd make for a really entertaining book club. I'd be all like "I loved this book. This is the best book ever," and Kaion would just be like "Yeah, whatever. It totally sucked." ."
God, Katie, it's like you love berating me or something. (Oh it would be entertaining, I love being called on my half-assed opinions. :) My friends joke about me hating everything, but I like things... I just like them so much I think they could be better.)
Night- I actually don't mind it, but I feel it's sparse to the point of textbooky-ness (which makes the symbolism a little heavy-handed). Hear there's a mythical unabridged version though, but maybe the sequels (yes, evil sequels again, run!) fill in some of my blanks?
2. Katie wrote: "Alright, I'll give you that Nineteen Eighty-Four is heavy-handed. But the Two Minutes Hate? You can't give it a third star for the Two Minutes Hate? Big Brother? Thought crime? This stuff is brilliant. Alarmist, but brilliant."
Some of the ideas are interesting, but I wanted to see more of the implication of that in the everyday. The "love" between Winston and Julia (while suitably sterile I suppose for such repressed people) doesn't really ground the whole stretch of talky ideas in any emotional resonance. (Again, with a movie simile: I'd rather watch the writer commentary over the actual movie.)
3. War is hell, baby. You want to see generic, try WEB Griffin. Holy schmolly. Oh, and I couldn't disagree more about O'Brien. (Surprise!)
Does it seem like I'm defending historical fiction? I'm kind of surprising myself with that. I think I find historical fiction grating because so much of it seems to be a.) based on shoddy research, or b.) some lame cover for a romance novel. Who cares who was schtupping whom in the seventeenth-century? Now that's generic.
I haven't read Griffin. Maybe that's the problem? Things They Carried just seemed like the one short story repeated a bunch of times to me. War is hell. Nobody understands. Mental baggage.
You know I haven't encountered that subset of historic fiction at ALL (who's schtupping whom?). Is it really popular? Granted I tend to avoid historic fiction about famous/powerful people like kings and queens and stuff, cause dammit, haven't they got enough attention? The vast majority of history is not in-charge people, let's hear about them.
(What's considered historical fiction, anyway? I generally think of it as where the author wasn't alive or have access to anyone alive in the time period he/she is trying to recreate for and reinterpret through modern eyes.)
Historical fiction doesn't have to be that old, Kaion. The author could totally have access to people from that era, or be from that era. All it means is that it's fictional and it's set in the past. There's a lot of kick ass historical fiction out there...but I can see how it would be a good cover for a sucky romance too!
Jennifer, The Postmistress isn't completely bad but it's not what I expected from the description. It's my disappointment that caused such a low star grade. Some have enjoyed the book though. I was so-so.
Jayme wrote: "Historical fiction doesn't have to be that old, Kaion. The author could totally have access to people from that era, or be from that era. All it means is that it's fictional and it's set in the pas..."How's that make it different from "contemporary" fiction then? Gah, I hate shelving.
I'm writing a historical fiction novel right now where I pretend yesterday wasn't sortof boring.
According to Wikipedia ('cause, you know, that must be 100% accurate), the story needs to portray a historical figure or event. (LINK)So a story about the American Civil War (being a real event in history) would be considered historical fiction. A story about Joe Blow (not a real person) stubbing his toe on the corner of the bed (which has no real historical significance) would be regular fiction. And it would be a really boring story to boot.
Ah, that whole Civil War thing is just a left-wing conspiracy.
Ah, see, now you're talking about Harry Turtledove who wrote an entire series of stuff like that, which brings us into the pleasant world of ALTERNATE history - not historical fiction, but a classification of its own. :)(Side note: "Pleasant", my rear. I hate that stuff. Though will say I thought The Plot Against America was pretty decent and that qualifies as alternate history.)
That does sound interesting. Sorta like a subtler version of Fatherland, which is said to be pretty good.I don't have a problem with the concept of alternate history, but I do think enough interesting stuff has happened in real history that I don't have time to get into it.
See, that's my thing about historical fiction - like some of it looks pretty decent, but I really hate the idea of someone taking that much artistic license with a topic. I mean there are some cool-looking non-fiction books out there about Abraham Lincoln (to stick with the Civil War theme); I wouldn't be interested in a fictional account of Lincoln when I know the author is making up most of it. And I wouldn't really believe any of the other stuff because, hey, if the author is making up the dialogue, what else is he/she making up? That being said, I loved The Killer Angels.I guess I would prefer to cover all the non-fiction stuff until I exhaust all of those avenues, and then, if I'm still interested, would see what the fiction writers have to add to it.
I'll go for historical fiction if I've heard that it's real good and that it's accurate. I went for Imperium a while ago because it's a neat idea - a recreation of Cicero's lost biography, narrated by the scribe who wrote that bio - and because it was said to be so accurate, which it more or less was. And I went for Wolf Hall for the same reasons and was also more or less impressed. But it's pretty rare that I stumble across historical fiction I think I can trust. Like you, I usually prefer straight up non-fiction.
Historical fiction doesn't have to be based on a specific historical event or the life of a historical individual. Historical fiction can be simply set in a historical time period. I would consider The House at Riverton to be historical fiction, for example.I agree, though, that I've got very little tolerance for historical fiction that distorts the facts. I've got real problems with The Other Boleyn Girl.
I enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl - strictly as a novel. Historical? Not so much.And why anyone should have to make up history about the Tudors is beyond me, when the truth is quite bizarre enough as it is!
Hi, Miss GP. I'm sorry, I mis-wrote above where I said historical fiction "needs to portray a historical figure or event." Good point, and I guess what I was getting at was, as you say, historical fiction should be set in a historical time period. I just managed to not say it correctly - one of the hazards of posting comments to GR from work... :)Yeah, I haven't read the Philippa Gregory books because of the inaccuracies that I've heard about. But then I've heard the same about the Showtime show, the Tudors, yet I'm hooked on those DVDs. :) And will eventually read Wolf Hall because it looks interesting and seemingly intelligent people around here like Alex say it was pretty good.
I am liking this current discussion. I also prefer reading non-fiction but I will read historical fiction on recommendations. I have read a couple of alternate histories and was not fond of them. My reaction was the same as your comment, Alex. Why make it 'alternate' when the real thing is so meaty?One type of historical fiction I do find interesting is a story that takes the perspective of a different character. The best example I can think of is March by Geraldine Brooks which imagines the Civil War experiences of Mr. March, the absent father in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. Interesting premise; however, while the Civil War is roaring on, it is more a character driven novel.
I have Wolf Hall on my book shelf but I am waiting for a goodly chunk of time so I can savour the novel.
In some ways Wolf Hall's the same kind of thing, Jennifer; as you probably already know, it's from Cromwell's perspective. Certainly an unusual way into a very familiar story.
The Next Best Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Gargoyle (other topics)Lost Girls (other topics)
What's Up, Dawg?: How to Become a Superstar in the Music Business (other topics)
Little Girl Lost (other topics)
A Night Without Armor (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)
Geraldine Brooks (other topics)
Harry Turtledove (other topics)
Matthew Pearl (other topics)
More...
