The Historian
discussion
There's No Worse Thief than a Bad Book
AJ wrote: "thoroughly enjoyed it."I agree!
Books I've been unable to finish include "The Children's book" by A.S. Byatt, where I managed to get 350 pages into 500+ pages, but gave up when absolutely nothing happens! (well it does - she writes 350 pages, but you know what I mean!).I did finish The Historian, but the main thing that annoyed me was the first half was concentrated on the girl and her adventure, and by the second half she had virtually disappeared and she was dropped with a short throwaway comment.
I've hated The Historian and Lisey's Story, I think it`s a crime not to finish a book but with these two, I really had to struggle. Hated them both passionately.
Once I got into it I really enjoyer Lisey's Story
I loved "The Historian". One of my favorite books.
Nice travelogue, interesting history, but otherwise stupid. All those years undead and he can't even tidy his own bookshelves, so what does Dracula spend his time doing ? Not plotting the overthrow of the hated Ottoman Empire, no, he spends his time looking for a librarian. How many book collectors that you know don't tidy or arrange their shelves, just stupid.Also hated 'On The Road' and 'Catcher in the Rye'.
Merrin wrote: "I finished Stranger in a Strange Land and threw it across the room. I hated that book. I hated the misogyny rampant throughout, culminating in the line "you know, rape is almost always the fault of..."I loved Stranger back in the 70s! Just wanted to pipe in and agree on A Thousand Acres, which I enjoyed up until the incest part which really jarred. I really liked the Historian even though it could have been edited down a little.
I loved the Historian. Each of the stories was interesting and captivating and I had no idea what would happen next, and I am usually not into dracula and that type of stuff, but Elizaveta Kostova made it so good!
I enjoyed the overall story of this novel, but was more interested in the daughter's story and part in the book more than the father's. While I did find his story interesting, I did not like reading his letters and his sections.
I really loved The Historian too! Granted, it did get tedious after a while. At first, I couldn't put the book down! Then I had to take a break and come back to it. I really appreciated the time she took to make sure it wasn't a vampire book FULL of vampire lust and sparkly romance. I feel like it was a piece of literature, not just a book. It wasn't just a way to pass time, it was something to be pondered and studied. Anywho, one book I HATED that STOLE life from me was "Lost" by Gregory Maguire. When I finished that book I just looked up and asked myself "WHAT?!" and then more slowly "WHY?!". There was an interesting plot twist but it wasn't delivered well-it didn't surprise me. In fact, it just kind of snuck up on me quietly. And I couldn't like or even fully dislike the characters so...it didn't matter in the end. Could've been because I was on the heels of the even more agitating "A Lion Among Men". Either way, I'm annoyed with him as of late.
I love a vampire tale, not the new ones being cranked out for teenage readers, but more in the classic vein (no pun intended) and this had great potential, but it needed to be edited. What's with publishers these days? So many new books just rattle on and on. This book needed a better editor!
Enduring Love and Solar - Ian McEwan. Hated them both. So much so I couldn't finish them.The Historian. I didn't put this in the 'hate' category, however I struggled to finish it. I made myself finish it. I don't recall experiecing the satisfied feeling when finishing it. Therefore I shouldn't have wasted my time reading it. Wow. That was blunt.
I was so excited to read this book. I couldn't even finish it! There's been only two other books in my entire life that I could not finish because they were so awful!
The Historian? Loved it! It was a well developed story although did end with a no-end - to be continued" feeling.Hated Wolf Hall - the language and the resource to 3rd person made me feel confused and somewhat with a sense of wasted time. The other one i hated for the downer, depressive atitude althrough was The White Oleander - now: all the stories were depressing, a sense of no future, no hope whatsoever and it dragged on like this for the whole of the pages - complete waste of time. Nothing happened right, no one was helpefull with no 2nd thoughts....utter crap!
AJ wrote: "thoroughly enjoyed it."Me too! On everything you just said. That's a cheerful "ditto" from me.
Jackie wrote: "Oh no, I just started The Historian and now I'm nervous...The one book I remember HATING was The Virgin Suicides. And I can't even remember why (I read it a few years ago), but I hated it so muc..."
Jackie wrote: "Oh no, I just started The Historian and now I'm nervous...
The one book I remember HATING was The Virgin Suicides. And I can't even remember why (I read it a few years ago), but I hated it so muc..."
@Jackie: I saw The Virgin Suicides and hated it, so I didn't even consider reading the book. It's the very last movie I would want young women to watch - very sick and tempting, in a sick, sick way.
Patty wrote: "Jackie wrote: "Oh no, I just started The Historian and now I'm nervous...The one book I remember HATING was The Virgin Suicides. And I can't even remember why (I read it a few years ago), but I ..."
Don't let everyone get you down. I really like The Historian.
I liked The Historian a lot, but one book I absolutely despised was The Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. To me, it was disgusting with the obnoxious language and equally obnoxious topic(s) . I could NOT force myself to finish it. Most in my book club agreed. The Historian had a plot that captured me and although I had to put it down once for awhile, I still went back to it. I enjoyed the settings and the mysteries involved. Oscar Wao? Not at all!
Kami wrote: "I'm sorry to disagree with so many of you. However, with a master's degree in reading and almost ten years of teaching writing experience, I must say that Kostova has one of the most engaging writ..."Of course someone with a master's degree in reading would like the book. It plumbs the well of a classic. It has academics as its protagonists, and research as a major subplot. And the kicker is that Dracula only wants a freaking librarian.
That climax is what made me hate the book. It was a pretty mediocre slog through academia and history until then, but not entirely unpleasant.
i know it was very educational about history but i should have been readable and interesting. i finished it because i had to. it was so slow i yawned many times and someone equated it with "The Da Vinchi Code" that is just criminal.
AJ wrote: "thoroughly enjoyed it."I thoroughly enjoyed "The Historian" as well. To each their own I guess.
A book i hated? The White Oleander - hated the book and can´t be bothered to see the picture.
There's three reasons I won't like a book: 1) It's appearance. By appearance, I mean, whoever decided to produce the book in small font. When font is too small (and this is not a result of eye issues or anything), it is hard to visually have any "flow" within the page and I pass out in comas after a few pages. Always. But what can I say? Sometimes appearance is everything.
2) It's old. I'm only 26. I'm American. It is ridiculous to try and enjoy a book written in the 1800's when I wasn't around to learn Old English. Old English, for the most part, lacks - a lot - and enough to bore me to death.
3) The plot is similar to a billion other books. Nicholas Sparks, for instance, I get it, they're touching, they're easy reads, but it's the same plot in almost every single book he writes to the point it's become depressing.
Other than that, I give major props to books that are actually uniquely written, even the majority of people find it too boring. The Historian, was one of my faves for this reason. I agree, it WAS a tough read, and it jumped around so much I still think I'd have to read it again to realize I missed a lot, but it was different, and that makes it good.
With all that said, the last book I recall that drove me insane was Dracula. Certainly unique, which makes it good, but it tough for me to enjoy because of reasons 1 and 2. It should NOT take someone a year to read Dracula because they were so bored with it, they kept setting it aside to read other books, but just HAD to finish it (because I'm not a quitter). Meh.
Come on now. It was fun.
I read The Historian twice and also read The Swan Thieves. I love a book that is well researched, well-written, with descriptions that can put me in the moment with the character. I also enjoy complicated story-lines that force me to engage with the story, not merely be entertained by it. I think Kostova accomplished these things in both books.
I personally loved the book. The one I read was not of the small font variety. Great characters, good story, and very informative. I want to go to Eastern Europe now.
Pickleman wrote: "I personally loved the book. The one I read was not of the small font variety. Great characters, good story, and very informative. I want to go to Eastern Europe now."I agree that the descriptions of Eastern Europe were so vivid, that I also want to go there.
Hmmmm....I loved the book!
Nichole Reason number 2 really creeeped me out - so, you do not read books over, shall i dear say 40 years old? You are missing out on much...seems a bit shallow "Oh, i am 26 and American and i cannot be bothered with 1800´s books" tsk, tsk - no wonder that in Europe, most of us have such a bad opinion about Americans - it´s because of things like this. Creep back to Twilight and stay there, please.
Oh, and ps: i am not American or English, and the "old English" as you called it really is good written english, as oppose to whatever crap you read.
I found "The Historian" something to be endured rather than enjoyed.It reminded me the famous Dorothy Parker quote: “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”
I also found myself in sympathy with the negative comments regarding "A Confederacy of Dunces." Not many novels create such a repellent central character on their first page as it did.
Nichole and Maria - I must agree with Maria, Nichole, that you are missing out on a vast amount of rich history by limiting yourself only to books written in the past few years. As you mature I think you will see the benefit of paying attention to those who have gone before - their lives really weren't that much different from yours now - the trappings are just different.
Can you tell me what (which) book(s) you have read that turned you off? Maybe this group could make some suggestions that might enjoy.
* that you might enjoy * (sorry!)
Nichole:Your reason number 2 lacks logic and knowledge. English from the 1800s is NOT "Old English"
It may be a bit dated at times, but it is modern English.
Check out the time periods Old, Middle and Modern English.
Beowulf was Old English, and if it were not translated into Modern English, few people would be able to read it.
You can't say that about Hawthorne (1800s) or Dickens (also 1800s) or Twain (1800-1900s).
You can't even say that about Shakespeare, or King James Bible, although they is more difficult than the above authors.
Here is an example of OLD English
The Lord's Prayer
(Old English - Anglo-Saxon)
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
Translation of Old English Text
Father our thou that art in heavens
be thy name hallowed
come thy kingdom
be-done thy will
on earth as in heavens
our daily bread give us today
and forgive us our sins
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and not lead thou us into temptation
but deliver us from evil. truly
As for Nicole's reason No. 2 - old doesn't necessarily have to be a turn-off.See my review of Quentin Durward, written by Sir Walter Scott around 1822. I'm finding it hilarious! And if I come across an archaic word or expression that I don't understand in-context, I can always resort to the handy glossary of words & phrases that older books often include for the reader's benefit.
Never miss a chance to learn something new, even while indulging your passion as it were. ;-)
I loved The Historian. Made me really want to visit Eastern Europe.
Curtiss wrote: "As for Nicole's reason No. 2 - old doesn't necessarily have to be a turn-off.See my review of Quentin Durward, written by Sir Walter Scott around 1822. I'm finding it hilarious! And if I come a..."
Good point. But it does vary. Not all old, small fonted, and cliche stories/books will be an automatic 'no' to me. But I am less likely to grab the book if I see of those 3 within it. So I'd need to rely on reviews/feedback.
Ok people, last I checked 1800s to now is over 200 years, not 40 years. Translated books leave a lot of room for the translator to "take an educated guess," which fails to make a lot of things truly authentic by what they originally meant. Granted, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be read, but it means it's probably going to piss me off when it makes no sense. (and no, this doesn't apply to ALL translated books/works). And just because you force yourself to read an old book, doesn't mean it's really any good. It's just OLD, (and therefore classic), and likely admirable because there weren't many writers really loooong ago (compared to now). For instance, obviously I'm one of the few, but Shakespeare is boring. Any "old" book I was forced to read in English was also boring (Beowulf, Brave New World, etc). In fact, they just kept making me fall asleep. I had to actually pick up a book written at least 200 years later to remember why I even liked reading.
Last, this was all my opinion. Too many people on here on making these threads some personal bully playground so they can feel superior. Get over yourselves.
I'd say it is all a matter of personal taste, as well as sometimes a "dated" style that makes some or most "old" books unappealing.And personal taste is just that, personal taste.
If you are into mysteries, Sherlock Holmes is among the best there is....written over a hundred years ago.
If you like thrillers, Poe is unrivaled.
And there are plenty of "modern" stories that are, in my own personal taste, atrocious. Or just not to my taste, like McCarthy's The Road...I forced myself to read the whole thing, but found it too bare-boned and depressing to enjoy.
Personnal taste is personnal taste, but the old saying applies - don´t judge a book by it´s cover or in this case, don´t judge it by his age/ small font/etc - try them. A book is a timeless thing and, old or new, the emotions are all the same, since the begining of time: love, hate, envy, jealousy, etc - just the settings, the dresses, the adresses and expressions.
This is one the best vampire books I've read in a long time. This book has a real creep factor. It is also intelligent!!! That's hard to do sometimes when dealing with this subject matter. Intended for Adults with a least a little intelligence. Not big on violence, it's more a subtle creepiness which makes seem like this could really happen. You never doubt it. I loved it!!!!!!!!!!
I actually enjoyed this book. It's not like a typical read. I didn't even know it was a vampire book when I made the purchase.
Oh, I thought this book was kinda fun, actually.
Julie wrote: "This is one the best vampire books I've read in a long time. This book has a real creep factor. It is also intelligent!!! That's hard to do sometimes when dealing with this subject matter. Intended..."Yeah, the creep factor is defo here - i remember one night i was reading it and suddenly....the shadows of the hall seems to moove - i creepd out of my mind! Kostova gives you the underlying feel that this can happen to you, that Vlad will for sure come to your home and ask you the be his librarian.....creepy!Love it!
I find it sad to read that some people think they are judged by the books they read. Who really cares what you read? Just keep reading. There are so many great books out there.
There is a reason books earn the sobriquet "classic", and it isn't just by being 'old'.I recently read "A Tale of Two Cities" for the first time, only some 35 years after High school, and found it to be a classic in every sense of the word - a superlatively entertaining and engrossing story (whose real hero[ine] turned out to be Charles Darnay's maid)!
I actually enjoyed the Historian. Books I absolutely hated, and in hindsight can't believe I wasted time to finish:
Great Gatsby
Dracula
Clockwork Orange
I understand how Great Gatsby is considered "great" from a literary point, but as a book that I'm just trying to enjoy and not critique in a class room, it sucked.
Curtiss wrote: "There is a reason books earn the sobriquet "classic", and it isn't just by being 'old'.I recently read "A Tale of Two Cities" for the first time, only some 35 years after High school, and found..."
Agreed in every point - the classics are not that just because they were written many years ago: it´s because they present touching stories, whose emotions in them are timeless: envy, greed, love, passion, jealousy, hate - you experience them since the begining of the world. But they are put to you in a manner that you can relate to so many levels that it´s as if the author thought about you while writting them, no matter how much time ago. I remember reading Anna Karenina and i was amaized at how Tolstoy, some 200 years ago brought her to life so vivedly, in a manner that it seemd as if she was alive now and having all of those experiences. And this is the trait of a good book, a classic.
i actually enjoyed The Historian and i'm surprised that the majority of the comments in this discussion are negative. but i guess to each it's own. i normally read books fast and finish in 1 or 2 settings of all nighters - but i loved this book so much that i found myself savoring it and only allowing myself to read 50 or so pages at a time and for once it actually took a month to finish. maybe her descriptions were too much and tedious but i found that i could picture the old stone walls and smell the dampness and decay of the old books in the libraries.now - talk about books that i hated....i never thought i would be the one to say "i hate a book". i am so in love with books! but there are 2 book out there that i have to say - WHY???
A Manuscript of Ashes - Antonio Munoz Molina
Child's Play - Carmen Posadas
i really wanted to throw the books across the room. A Manuscript of Ashes had extremely long one sentence paragraphs - the premise of the story would have been great - but it was really a nuisance to read those long one sentence paragraphs. Child's Play was also a hard read - although it was a better faster read - none of the characters were likable and i have never read a book where all the characters were unlikable.
When I first started The Historian it took me a few chapters to really get into it. Once I did though, I actually really enjoyed it, even with the plot within a plot. The descriptions of locales were fascinating and made me want to know more about Romania and the other general locations of the story. To each his own, but I actually enjoyed this book.
I also struggled with The Little stanger. I felt it was trying to be a kind of creepy story that didnt really work, unlike Fingersmith which is amazing and quite eerie