This Week I are mostly reading (contd)

Dial Hard

Dial Hard wrote:

Up next after this is Michael Punke's The Revenant.

Well that was a load of rubbish. Imagine Dan Brown trying to be Cormac McCarthy and you're most of the way there.

Avoid.

Callan57

The Children Act by Ian McEwan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Callan57 wrote: »

The Children Act by Ian McEwan

I started reading that last year. Lasted about 20 pages before giving up.

Dial Hard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I started reading that last year. Lasted about 20 pages before giving up.

I'm convinced McEwan has been riding the coat-tales of Atonement for years. On Chesil Beach and Solar were both utter tosh.

ahlookit

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm convinced McEwan has been riding the coat-tales of Atonement for years. On Chesil Beach and Solar were both utter tosh.

Dont know if I'd go as far as "utter tosh", but they certainly werent anywhere near the standard of Atonement ... but then again not many writers reach that standard...

What did you think of Sweet Tooth?

Joe_ Public

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm convinced McEwan has been riding the coat-tales of Atonement for years. On Chesil Beach and Solar were both utter tosh.

Funny, I only read On Chesil Beach last week and thought it was very good. Agree about Solar and The Children Act, though, found them both quite ordinary.

Kash

Whereas I quite liked The Children Act, I found it quite thought-provoking. Certainly not a patch on Atonement though.

I'm currently reading the second installment of the Bill Hodges trilogy, Finders Keepers by master of the macabre, Stephen King.

Dial Hard

ahlookit wrote: »

What did you think of Sweet Tooth?

Haven't read it. I gave up on McEwan after the double disappointment whammy of OCB & Solar.

Callan57

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm convinced McEwan has been riding the coat-tales of Atonement for years. On Chesil Beach and Solar were both utter tosh.

I'm on page 122 and quite enjoying it ... a lot to think about.
But then I'm admit to being a bit of fan. The only book I didn't think much of was Enduring Love .... and OK Solar wasn't his best.

Swiper the fox

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm convinced McEwan has been riding the coat-tales of Atonement for years. On Chesil Beach and Solar were both utter tosh.

On Chesil beach could very well be my favourite book ever, Atonement to be fair is not far behind,
The Children's act is tough enough work but well worth a read.

Callan57

Found The Strangled Impulse by William King on my shelf - don't remember buying it

Sentenced to Life by Clive James ... beautiful poetry & so moving

SarahBM

Now reading Death at Intervals. Interesting little book so far!

holy guacamole

Just finished 'A Little Life' by Hanya Yanahigara and find myself thoroughly conflicted.

On the one hand its beautifully written and deals with horrendous topics without ever being gratuitous. But on the other it's unnecessarily lengthy (self-indulgently so), meanders in no particular direction for large periods and has a set of protagonists whose actions don't always tally up with the personalities and lives the author has presented to us.

At one point, just past the halfway mark, I was beginning to think this was going to be one of my favourite books of recent years, but it tailed off badly and the end was a relief more than anything else. Would still recommend it, but with a few caveats, namely; this is a harsh book, an often distressing one, so be prepared. It's also forcibly multi-cultural and multi-representational, to the extent that it makes you wonder if the author intentionally set out to write a book which would be welcomed by left-leaning liberals - in of itself this isn't a reason to put you off reading it, but the world she creates seemed to me to be unrealistic. Lastly, the narrative; at times it is incredibly affecting and insightful, but it's also wearying and repetitive.

Ultimately, like most critically-acclaimed modern-works, it's a book that will divide most ordinary readers.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

About to start Dr. Zhivago. My first, and only, experience with Russian Classics did not go well so I'm not entirely sure why I'm trying another one.

Callan57

holy guacamole wrote: »

Just finished 'A Little Life' by Hanya Yanahigara and find myself thoroughly conflicted.

On the one hand its beautifully written and deals with horrendous topics without ever being gratuitous. But on the other it's unnecessarily lengthy (self-indulgently so), meanders in no particular direction for large periods and has a set of protagonists whose actions don't always tally up with the personalities and lives the author has presented to us.

At one point, just past the halfway mark, I was beginning to think this was going to be one of my favourite books of recent years, but it tailed off badly and the end was a relief more than anything else. Would still recommend it, but with a few caveats, namely; this is a harsh book, an often distressing one, so be prepared. It's also forcibly multi-cultural and multi-representational, to the extent that it makes you wonder if the author intentionally set out to write a book which would be welcomed by left-leaning liberals - in of itself this isn't a reason to put you off reading it, but the world she creates seemed to me to be unrealistic. Lastly, the narrative; at times it is incredibly affecting and insightful, but it's also wearying and repetitive.

Ultimately, like most critically-acclaimed modern-works, it's a book that will divide most ordinary readers.

Agree completly ... very repetitious certainly.

I finished The Strangled Impulse earlier and tonight I'm starting Anatomy of a Soldier

Das Kitty

I think The Hundred Year Old Man could possibly be the worst book I've ever finished.

Utterly pointless with an Ann & Barry style narrative voice.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

About to start Dr. Zhivago. My first, and only, experience with Russian Classics did not go well so I'm not entirely sure why I'm trying another one.

Been on my to-do list for years. I love the Russian classics, or at least the few I have actually read!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Been on my to-do list for years. I love the Russian classics, or at least the few I have actually read!

I've only done War & Peace. It was a real struggle.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I've only done War & Peace. It was a real struggle.

The problem with W&P are the "Peace" sections which is what drags the whole thing out, the war sections are really interesting and carry you along. I think it's the kind of book you struggle with but are glad you did when you reach the end.

I prefer Dostoevsky, though, and can never understand why people say Crime and Punishment is a difficult book. Reads more like a psychological thriller to me, I totally love it. Also the Arkady Renko novels of Martin Cruz Smith, not Russian classics exactly, but fabulously entertaining books. I love novels set in Russia for some strange reason!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The problem with W&P are the "Peace" sections which is what drags the whole thing out, the war sections are really interesting and carry you along. I think it's the kind of book you struggle with but are glad you did when you reach the end.

My problem with W&P was that I hated Pierre and just didn't give a hoot about him. Given he was almost the main character it made it pretty difficult to wade through a lot of it.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

My problem with W&P was that I hated Pierre and just didn't give a hoot about him. Given he was almost the main character it made it pretty difficult to wade through a lot of it.

Oh really. On what basis did you hate Pierre out of curiosity? I'd have a lot of time for him given that Andrew, the true hero of the book, considered him one of his only genuine friends. Wasn't mad about the portrayal in the recent BBC series though.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Oh really. On what basis did you hate Pierre out of curiosity? I'd have a lot of time for him given that Andrew, the true hero of the book, considered him one of his only genuine friends. Wasn't mad about the portrayal in the recent BBC series though.

I just found him really pathetic and annoying. The kind of person if I knew in real life I'd spend all my time fighting the urge to punch in the face. He just let everyone else decide his life for him, floated from here to there, being profoundly influenced by everyone he met only to give up whatever notion he had as soon as it involved any real effort on his part. Like when he took a notion to free all his serfs and build schools to educate them but basically just threw some vague instructions at the overseers and never even bothered to check if they carried them out. Or joining the Masons because some random man he meets tells him to or randomly rocking up to the middle of a battle just to have a look, getting captured by the French while out wandering around Moscow thinking he's going to stab Napoleon. It just made no sense to me that people tolerated him never mind loved him.

I had this conversation a few times in here, I think, when I was reading the book and then again in the thread for the BBC adaptation and it seems I am very much in the minority on this but I stand by it, Pierre was a tool.

I think he's the kind of person that if he were alive today he'd be gluten free and never stop telling you about it.

SarahBM

The First Russian book I read was the Master and Margarita, which I hate. I only read Dr Zhivago because I thought the film was wonderful, but I didn't like the book at all. It ruined the film for me. I am not a fan of long-winded ramblings.
Good Luck with it!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

SarahBM wrote: »

The First Russian book I read was the Master and Margarita, which I hate. I only read Dr Zhivago because I thought the film was wonderful, but I didn't like the book at all. It ruined the film for me. I am not a fan of long-winded ramblings.
Good Luck with it!

I haven't seen the film but I did see a TV adaptation years ago with a very young Keira Knightley in it. Can't remember much about it, other than I don't think I liked Yury very much.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I just found him really pathetic and annoying. The kind of person if I knew in real life I'd spend all my time fighting the urge to punch in the face. He just let everyone else decide his life for him, floated from here to there, being profoundly influenced by everyone he met only to give up whatever notion he had as soon as it involved any real effort on his part. Like when he took a notion to free all his serfs and build schools to educate them but basically just threw some vague instructions at the overseers and never even bothered to check if they carried them out. Or joining the Masons because some random man he meets tells him to or randomly rocking up to the middle of a battle just to have a look, getting captured by the French while out wandering around Moscow thinking he's going to stab Napoleon. It just made no sense to me that people tolerated him never mind loved him.

I had this conversation a few times in here, I think, when I was reading the book and then again in the thread for the BBC adaptation and it seems I am very much in the minority on this but I stand by it, Pierre was a tool.

I think he's the kind of person that if he were alive today he'd be gluten free and never stop telling you about it.

Ah, poor Pierre! But I see where you're coming from, never a bad thing to go against the consensus.

He is a bungling figure, but it's just his misfortune that he is being manipulated by Tolstoy to be everything Prince Andrei isn't which plays around the dominant theme of the lone individual and his or her helplessness in the face of big events. I think Pierre is an attempt by the author at an honest self-portrait (albeit wishful thinking that he gets the girl) while Andrei is the man he probably wishes he could be.

Kash

holy guacamole wrote: »

Just finished 'A Little Life' by Hanya Yanahigara and find myself thoroughly conflicted.

Ultimately, like most critically-acclaimed modern-works, it's a book that will divide most ordinary readers.

It divided me against myself! I absolutely loved parts of it; I really felt for the characters and found it disturbing in places (why I have a fondness for disturbing books is anyone's guess). However, I though it lost itself at various points and had a significant amount of pages that a better editor would have cut.

I felt that having tragedy after tragedy befall poor Jude was indulgently sadistic.

That said, i think the characters will stick with me.

I myself started reading Malice by John Gwynne (another epic fantasy, but promising so far!)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ah, poor Pierre! But I see where you're coming from, never a bad thing to go against the consensus.

He is a bungling figure, but it's just his misfortune that he is being manipulated by Tolstoy to be everything Prince Andrei isn't which plays around the dominant theme of the lone individual and his or her helplessness in the face of big events. I think Pierre is an attempt by the author at an honest self-portrait (albeit wishful thinking that he gets the girl) while Andrei is the man he probably wishes he could be.

I much preferred Andrei, faults and all, because he felt like a real person. Pierre felt like a real Mary Sue.

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I much preferred Andrei, faults and all, because he felt like a real person. Pierre felt like a real Mary Sue.

All Tolstoy's characters feel a little bit like stock characters i think, maybe because he was dealing with such epic themes. The choice between Andrei and Pierre is a bit like the choice between living one day as a lion or a thousand as a lamb. You might like to be Andrei, but Pierre is the one who chooses life and ends up getting the beautiful girl.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ Ugh, don't get me started on Natasha

Joe_ Public

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ Ugh, don't get me started on Natasha

Ah, the exquisite Natasha Rostova or, to give her her modern 21st century title, Rachel from Friends