The Historian
discussion
There's No Worse Thief than a Bad Book
date
newest »
newest »
Claudia wrote: "I have to stick up for the Historian - I LOVED the way I learned so much about the history of the Ottoman Empire, and (what's now known as) Hungary and Romania. I am a hopeless history nerd, and I ..."I am a history nerd (in fact I write history books) but there is no excuse for a novelist to cram in all her research just because she can.
This was my original review of "The Historian" in 2009. Conclusion ... AVOID!http://thebibilofile.blogspot.com/200...
Mark wrote: "This was my original review of "The Historian" in 2009. Conclusion ... AVOID!http://thebibilofile.blogspot.com/200..."
Which is your humble opinion, I found the book an interesting read and more fun than anything Dan Brown has offered me so far.
Exactly why I don't pay attention to critics or psychiatrists!
Lori wrote: "Exactly why I don't pay attention to critics or psychiatrists!"HA! Seconded!
"The problem is the reveal. Any horror writer/director worth their salt knows that if you really want to scare your audience, you DO NOT EVER show the monster. "Agreed. I was in a revival of Jaws this summer. Surrounded by teens who are convinced that Saw was fantastic. That soundtrack scared the hell out of 'em!
And Oprah is pretty scary too.
Love, love, loved The Historian. But if you're not a history fan you probably won't get it.
My basic fondness for the book made me too forgiving, perhaps. Huge sections are as dramatic as- indeed, they essentially are- European travelogue. Still like her and the book.
Claudia wrote: "I have to stick up for the Historian - I LOVED the way I learned so much about the history of the Ottoman Empire, and (what's now known as) Hungary and Romania. I am a hopeless history nerd, and I ..."@Claudia: One history nerd to another, it may interest you to know that in Romanian folklore, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) is credited with driving all the vampires out of Romania. The people there consider vampires the most repellent beings conceivable, and the suggestion that their national hero was one, is the reason why Bram Stoker's novel was never, until recently, published or available in Romania.
Stacielynn wrote: "A book I could not finish - "Last of the Mohicans." Only one member of our book group slogged her way through it and we talked about buying her a tee shirt that said "I read all of The Last of the ..."So very true!
This is why,for the last 6 years or so that i have been envolved in forums - because it is fun to compare notes and discuss the why´s and the why not,and what made you tick on that book or not. I really love to talk and discuss diferent views of books than my own and sometimes be surprised by changing my views.And that is the beauty of talking and sharing experiences.
The worst part on a fórum is when you get people who cannot simply discuss things in a civilized way: their position is "if you´re not with me, you´re against me!" and will trash you or praise you to the skies accordingly. In the time that i was admi on a fórum, i got a lot of that and it was hard to keep the discussion on a "friendly" level.
People will like what people will like and there is nothing wrong with liking other things that our own tastes.
I really liked this book, thanks to Kostova's descriptive skills I was able to immerse myself in context. The last part was magnificent and creepy, maybe the book was a bit too long :-S but I enjoyed it.
I agree with Mona. I really enjoyed this book, but then again I tend to be a generous critic because I know how difficult is is to create something. Critics are like eunuchs at an orgy.
Nichola wrote: "I agree with Mona. I really enjoyed this book, but then again I tend to be a generous critic because I know how difficult is is to create something. Critics are like eunuchs at an orgy.""Critics are like eunuchs at an orgy" it just made my day
Lee Ann, I've been reading for years! And what I've found is that you have to give a book a chance. Stephen King, James Michener, Tami Hoag, and John Steinbeck are but a few authors that have to build all their characters and plots from the beginning. So, that means sometimes I'm 200 pages into a book before I can even get a semblance of whether I will like it or not. The Historian is a book that I felt it was going to give me "more" if I would just read another 100 pages. UGH!
Laura wrote: "I didn't HATE The Historian but remember feeling like my time had indeed been wasted. And to the person who mentioned their master's degree and years of teaching experience as, I assume, a way to m..."The English Monster was like that for me, I stuck with it and was glad I did, the message in the end all becomes clear.
I listened to this an audiobook and that didn't help me enjoy it any more than the original poster. I can't say I hate it because it didn't rate that much passion. I'm happy it came from the library and not a purchase.
One of the best historical fiction books I've ever read!
Wow! I had no idea that this book had polarized opinion to such an extent!For me, it was a long-soak pleasure to read, and each page was full of atmosphere. It's a one for fans of Stoker's Dracula, I think. Exact same pacing.
It's been great fun reading all of these opinions, though! Goodreads is an excellent to think again about all those books out there.
Enough already on this book. It was never written to be a "classic" or a book to become remembered as one of the greatest most widely loved Dracula tales of all time. It was a well written fun read with a lot of information on the lay of the land and history of Eastern Europe. Personally, it prompted me to want to take a trip to the regions covered in the book which are now only a few months from becoming reality. Thief, come on, this book was far from being a thief of any kind.
Pickleman wrote: "Enough already on this book. It was never written to be a "classic" or a book to become remembered as one of the greatest most widely loved Dracula tales of all time. It was a well written fun re..."Totally agree with you. Hope you have a great trip
Agreed. I really can't stand the feeling of having wasted my time on a bad book. I enjoyed "The Historian" up until the end. The end was a huge letdown, but I don't regret reading the book.
Another vote for Th Historian. It was too long and winding, aside from being terribly done.I usually read books through, but this one was torture. I did a lot of skimming.
As a travelog that gives you great destinations and wonderful food choices The Historian works just great, but as a Thriller/Horror novel the pacing is just way to slow...
I also loved this book. I agree with Claudia: being a history nerd probably helps a lot. Plus I finally understood the origins of the vampire myth and why it has held so many in its thrall.
I hated the Historian and felt it was a complete waste of time. This was one of the few books that I forced myself to finish and I wish I hadn't.
I also loved The Historian, and I find the fact that anyone would bother to scrawl their criticism of a book inside its front cover childish in the extreme. It's all subjective.
Melissa wrote: "I hated the Historian and felt it was a complete waste of time. This was one of the few books that I forced myself to finish and I wish I hadn't."
I know your pain.
I know your pain.
I found "The Historian" not the worst book I've read, but a far cry from the best. Shouldn't a book about a hunt for Dracula have more Dracula in it than just the final short section? The writing was fairly good, but other authors are able to tell a much more compelling story. I felt like I suffered through the middle, yelled at characters to take the hints and do something, and was then left with a rather anti-climatic, almost predetermined end. The only thing in question was who was going to die. Not a book I would waste my time reading again...unless I forget how unfulfilled I was this time around.
for 600 pages i was sold, but the last 100 pages lurched and pitched and lost all tension. i spent the first 600 pages hoping Dracula would be shown and the last 100 wishing he hadn't been. it was a good read, but the ending was a let down and given the 600 pages that came before it that leaves a very bitter taste with regard to the whole book
I loved this book but was incredibly dissatisfied. I think I might have been happier with a completely factual historical account of the times than with a partially fictionalized account.
The problem is the reveal. Any horror writer/director worth their salt knows that if you really want to scare your audience, you DO NOT EVER show the monster. You just indicate strongly that it may be real, that it may be dangerous, and that it may be behind you. The Historian was great right up to the point where it became clear that, for the purpose of the story, the "vampire" was real, confirmed, and corporeal. Instantly transported from "haunting" to "banal".
& don't ever take anything Oprah says as good advice.