Dial Hard wrote: Up next after this is Michael Punke's The Revenant.
Callan57 wrote: » The Children Act by Ian McEwan
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » I started reading that last year. Lasted about 20 pages before giving up.
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.
ahlookit wrote: » What did you think of Sweet Tooth?
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.
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.
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!
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » I've only done War & Peace. It was a real struggle.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » ^ Ugh, don't get me started on Natasha
