Quite a few times, this is almost, almost really good. It is almost takes an in-depth look at the economic reality of the early twentieth century for Quite a few times, this is almost, almost really good. It is almost takes an in-depth look at the economic reality of the early twentieth century for women. It almost has a lot of insight into marriage and the kinds of arrangements couples can settle into. It's almost a romance, almost a tragedy. The book is a lot like Lily herself, it suffers from occasional flashes of wisdom and a complete unwillingness to follow through on them. But, at the same time, she and the book have a self-awareness about how kind of pathetic they are, so that both remain endearing even as they flounder unnecessarily....more
I can't say I was overly fond of the book. I can recognize it as well-written, but I think on a fundamental level I just don't get it, as much as it pI can't say I was overly fond of the book. I can recognize it as well-written, but I think on a fundamental level I just don't get it, as much as it pains me to confess. There were so many threads and bits and ideas that aren't developed when you expect them to be, or don't go anywhere at all, or don't seem to mean much on any substantial level. I'm thinking of the birthmark especially.
I was surprised to see people call this a story about the friendship between two girls, because I thought of Nel as little more than a background character. I see this as a simple story of Sula and her relationships as a whole, Nel being a very small part of that. Maybe it's because the book is so short that it never takes the time to actually develop those relationships, and maybe the people that really love it are filling the gaps with their own experiences. I think that would explain a lot....more
I have to confess that my main motivation for reading anything in this series is how often I've heard it compared to Star Trek, and on that level it dI have to confess that my main motivation for reading anything in this series is how often I've heard it compared to Star Trek, and on that level it doesn't disappoint. It doesn't disappoint on any other level either, so I'm not sure why I qualified it.
This is the first Hornblower I've read, and I'm not sure it was the best place to start, but it certainly wasn't bad. With the exception of the ending, which seems to rely on some advanced knowledge of the reader, the book was highly accessible. If I have any criticisms at all, it's that the book doesn't seem to have an actual point to make. It is a story about some events, there doesn't seem to be an attempt to tie it to some larger theme. So I suppose you could say that the book was shallow? It's great anyway, sometimes you don't want anything more than shallow....more
A solid end to the trilogy, but it would be interesting to see how well it stands up when read outside of the flow of the previous books. I feel like A solid end to the trilogy, but it would be interesting to see how well it stands up when read outside of the flow of the previous books. I feel like it would do quite well, the reader would not be let into the details of the affair until the children themselves find out, adding an air of mystery and tension that the book would otherwise lack. On the other hand, I don't think you could really understand Soames without the context of the earlier stories (and Young Jolyon would be nearly inscrutable). Irene poses a different problem, but that might be better off in the Saga review.
Within the context of the trilogy, I'm not sure there's enough here to think of it as its own story. It's kind of in an odd position where it works well as a Part 3, would work find as a standalone novel, but doesn't have enough to distinguish itself with its peers (trilogy-mates?). The romance tries hard, but I never got the sense that it was as mutual as Galsworthy wanted it to seem. Is Fleur capable of truly loving another person? I think part of the story was that, in the end, she was too much like her father, but that wasn't emphasized enough for me. The book relied too much on a symmetry between the halves of the story, but Jon was not nearly as complex as Fleur, and I could have done with quite a bit less of his "highty-flighty" dullness if it meant going deeper into Fleur's worldview....more
This was significantly better than The Man of Property, and makes reading the first book more worthwhile in retrospect. I think the book largely benefThis was significantly better than The Man of Property, and makes reading the first book more worthwhile in retrospect. I think the book largely benefits from Galsworthy being clear about the story he was trying to tell rather than trying to be an all-encompassing look at the family. That said, for all of the improvements in Soames (and Young Jolyon, to a lesser extent), he doesn't do enough to give agency to Irene for my taste. I was also convinced that there would be a twist that Soames was accidentally courting Annette's mother, and was a little surprised and disappointed that I was the one misreading the situation....more
I really wanted to like this. This is not a book to read for the story, which, to be fair, it never pretends to be. This is more of a philosophical trI really wanted to like this. This is not a book to read for the story, which, to be fair, it never pretends to be. This is more of a philosophical treatise as well as a portrait of the time surrounding the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, all wrapped up in a small story about a few depraved, neurotic Czechs.
My problem with the book mostly comes down to how limited and scattered the philosophical observations were. Some of them were genuinely impressive (largely surrounding language itself), and could have used a more in-depth treatment. Others were... less impressive, but even those would have been better served with more attention.
So the philosophy is never given enough attention and only used to highlight parts of the story. That's fine, but the story isn't given a lot of time, either. The four main characters are more than a little pathetic, full of contradictions in a way intended to underscore the author's points about reality and life and whatever, but comes across as merely inconsistent characterization. I just finished, and I still have trouble remembering which one was Tereza and which was Sabina, and I'm not sure how far along I was when I first noticed that the guy I thought was Tomas was now being called Franz. I'm sure the back and forth changes in timeframe and character had some overarching plan, but I don't think it worked.
The historicity of the book I enjoyed, as well as the various perspectives on the political situation, but an important worldview can't rescue what was otherwise a seemingly random and repetitive collection of anecdotes and observations....more
The whole book was a chore from start to finish, and while parts of the story were nice, they weren't entertaining or interesting enough to make up foThe whole book was a chore from start to finish, and while parts of the story were nice, they weren't entertaining or interesting enough to make up for the struggle to read through it. I think this is one case where the desire for authenticity (and the book is loaded with it (the desire, at least, I'll plead ignorance on the merits)) overwhelmed the story.
For instance, Kipling was always aware of which language Kim was thinking or speaking in at the moment, which is a nice detail, but his effort to express that distinction to the reader leads to sentences like
"I will set thee on thy way to Benares, if thou goest thither, and will tell thee what must be known by Us."
The whole book is like that. The relationship between Kim and the lama was interesting, moderately unique, and if they spent more time actually searching and less time resting and shampooing legs it might have held my attention a little better. I found it to be an efficient producer of groans, but not so much an exciting adventure....more
It takes a long time for this book to settle into its own narrative, and by the time it does you find out that the author didn't have anything interesIt takes a long time for this book to settle into its own narrative, and by the time it does you find out that the author didn't have anything interesting to say about it. He spends way too much time chasing down periphery characters and not enough nailing down just one interesting one (and, no, Old Jolyon doesn't count, it needs to be someone with relevance). You can tell that the author was enamored with the little world he created, but I don't see why anyone else would want to hear about it. That sounds harsher and more flippant than I intended, but I'll note it rather than revise. This was only the first part of the "saga," so maybe it will get better....more
By the end of the Saga a story has been put together that is worth it on its own, even if its not especially obvious at the beginning what that story By the end of the Saga a story has been put together that is worth it on its own, even if its not especially obvious at the beginning what that story is supposed to be. I was frustrated, for instance, by how little you see of Irene throughout the books. It's not that she's never there, it's that you are simply never with her, you only ever see her reflected through someone else. That wasn't especially obvious to me on the way through, but looking back I can appreciate (at least a little) the design of the character and her real role in the story.
Soames is probably the only other character worth singling out for his role across the novels. He's not quite the protagonist, I think he might be more present for events than the driver of any of them. He's more the canvas on which the novels are painted, or the board on which it was played. Galsworthy has a lot to say about society itself, and Soames is the personification of the world. It's not a flattering portrait, but has good line work....more
As far as the writing goes, it was alright, especially if you want a healthy dose of smut. The plot takes a bit more to figure out. I feel like the auAs far as the writing goes, it was alright, especially if you want a healthy dose of smut. The plot takes a bit more to figure out. I feel like the author didn't have a good handle on who the book was supposed to be about. And I don't think it made much use of its historical setting. There was a bit of magic, maybe... it all felt kind of pointless. The story lacks focus....more
This might be a case where I was influenced too much by the last story, which was a little obvious and over-metaphored, and don't give enough credit tThis might be a case where I was influenced too much by the last story, which was a little obvious and over-metaphored, and don't give enough credit to the main story, which I genuinely liked. If the stories lacked something for me, I think it is simply relevance. All of the stories are exactly what you'd expect if you've read anything by Roth before. The main characters are all the same guy, the struggles they have all come back to the same issues. I'm not sure it's possible to get more out of the books as a reader than Roth got in catharsis by writing them....more
It feels like there is a little more responsibility involved in reviewing a book everyone else seems to have forgotten about. I'm tempted to give thisIt feels like there is a little more responsibility involved in reviewing a book everyone else seems to have forgotten about. I'm tempted to give this five stars just to avoid condemning it to even deeper obscurity. But, while the book is fine, it isn't the five star book I was hoping for.
On the face of it, this novel is the same kind of small, provincial morality play people were pumping out back at the turn of the (20th) century. This one comes in a little late to the party, with some interesting prohibition/post war-era observations as compensation. This very much lives in the same world as The Great Gatsby, and has some very similar ideas built in, but leaves off the Fitzgerald artistry in favor of a folk literature style, if that's a thing. So I can see why this book stayed so obscure, the literary world was moving on to much flashier styles and this kind of simple book belongs to the previous age.
But it isn't without merit. All of the characters are well-rounded and have clear motivations. Della Potter-Nesbit herself is great, easy to understand, and is very much the architect of her own successes as well as failings. I don't want to oversell it, the book is exceedingly simple; it has some ideas about things like personal responsibility and determining what really matters in life. The book doesn't have any twists to speak of; there are a couple of turns, maybe, but with a radius large enough to fit another novel in.
So... it's fine. It's better than a lot of more famous novels I could name. It's not exactly a masterpiece, but it doesn't deserve to be forgotten....more
It's an extremely well-written book, in a way that I sometimes forget that living people can still be capable of. You can quibble with the story itselIt's an extremely well-written book, in a way that I sometimes forget that living people can still be capable of. You can quibble with the story itself, though. It felt a little uncertain about the time period it wanted to be set in, I'm not sure the main character actually learns anything (although the last chapter certainly wants you to think so), and more than a little of the harrowing parts of the tale strain credulity. I'm fairly sure one foster family was lifted straight out of The Queen's Gambit. The book is a little like a modern art gallery; I'm not sure it had a lot to say, or that the underlying ethos is something people should subscribe to, but I enjoyed the experience....more
This was quite good, not nearly as good as Hardy's later works, but it had a point and a plot (distinguishing it from pedestrian dreck like MiddlemarcThis was quite good, not nearly as good as Hardy's later works, but it had a point and a plot (distinguishing it from pedestrian dreck like Middlemarch), and like in The Mayor of Casterbridge, managed to pull it all together in the end into one clear, consistent piece (which is not at all how it appears on the way through). There is plenty to complain about, Bathsheba is an infuriating character (although the author recognizes this, which is essential), it isn't always clear who the story is supposed to be about (at one point I was annoyed that the book wasn't solely about Sergeant Troy), it gets a little excessively poetic at times, and Oak lacks the kind of flaws you need to round out a decent character, leaving him a little flat.
But the book was good, and the little decision Hardy made to make Boldwood's entry something completely outside of his control rather than something more willful like Troy's or Oak's was a great touch. Without that, the whole story would have been hard to like.
(This was apparently a big day for parentheses and commas, no?)...more
This felt like a poor man's Ulysses for a while until the narrative settled down a little and either Updike became more confident or loosened up his mThis felt like a poor man's Ulysses for a while until the narrative settled down a little and either Updike became more confident or loosened up his mythological parallels and let the characters grow more naturally. I'm still not convinced that the novel wasn't an attempt to recreate the former work at a fraction of the length (we pass the savings on to you!), but it became tolerable and reasonably distinct. The last chapter was a large step backward in that regard. I thought it was unnecessarily florid at times and also felt strangely under-described other times. Uneven, a little uninspired maybe, but the father-son relationship was pretty great and worth the moderately high price of admission....more
It's hard to understand what people see in this book. Parts of it, if retold, would make for a good story. Fred is fascinating and underused. DorotheaIt's hard to understand what people see in this book. Parts of it, if retold, would make for a good story. Fred is fascinating and underused. Dorothea is great, and is probably the highlight of the book, but her mind and her motivations are still woefully underexplored. The narrator coming back in every once in a while to say what she thinks was an unnecessary addition that added little of substance and distracted from the narrative. Even the chapter headings struck me as pointless ornamentation, like little (mis-timed) Oompa Loompa songs. The ending is a travesty, throwing away the remainder of the story in an American Graffiti-style epilogue rather than finishing it properly. The prose was serviceable, but unremarkable. ...more
I found it impossible to like this book(view spoiler)[, largely because of the characters, each of which was awful in a different way. Theresa was manI found it impossible to like this book(view spoiler)[, largely because of the characters, each of which was awful in a different way. Theresa was manipulative and maybe even psychotic, in, ironically, exactly the same way she describes her ex-husband. She falls in love (at least she insists she does; I doubt the sincerity of her emotions) to a man that not only loves someone else, but because he is in love with someone else. She then proceeds to hold that against him until he is afraid and ashamed to bring it up. This is the one you are supposed to empathize with.
Garrett is a pathetic shell of a man with no will of his own who falls victim to Theresa's manipulations until his final self-destructive spiral. I guess this kind of helpless sap is your average woman's fantasy, but I can't speak to that.
And that's basically it for the developed characters. There's one minor character, Kevin, who only serves as a prop, and two more important ones, Jeb and Deanna. I lied earlier when I said that each character was awful in a different way, because Jeb and Deanna are the exact same character. They might as well have been platitude-spitting robots for all of the agency they had. Their purpose was merely to relay the author's wishes to their respective friend. "Go to him." "Don't let her go." I guess it's easier to give each character a Yoda to guide them in the right direction rather than having the characters make decisions for themselves. It felt like cheating to me. (hide spoiler)]
I doubt anyone is reading this, or has read this far, to see if they should read this book, but if you are, I'd suggest you don't. For what it's worth....more
I'm surprised I have never heard of this book before; I found it to be extraordinary. There's just a way the author has of gliding over the facts, theI'm surprised I have never heard of this book before; I found it to be extraordinary. There's just a way the author has of gliding over the facts, then going back and reversing the impression you got the first time that really struck me. This is the epitome of an unreliable narrator, but at the same time he never actually lies, as far as I could tell. Even before you get to the subject matter, which I imagine has turned a lot of people off, this is a brilliant work....more
I found the whole book exceedingly hard to follow. It seems like Forster wasn't content with a single point-of-view, and chose to flitter around willyI found the whole book exceedingly hard to follow. It seems like Forster wasn't content with a single point-of-view, and chose to flitter around willy nilly from person to person as the mood struck. And you can forget about connecting scenes, you'll find that the old scene occasionally just wanders off and a new one will start without bothering to introduce itself. Part One was the worse offender for this, or maybe I just got used to it by Part Two.
The plot was fine, if perhaps middling and unremarkable. The one thing I have to question is the characters, especially Lucy. Charlotte I could understand, I'd even say that she was good, but Lucy was a mess from beginning to end. She was a weathervane at best, pushed left and right with no will of her own except a consistent stubborn irascibility. The question isn't even why I should care about her finding happiness, or whether you believe that she somehow did in her last manifestation (I suppose she'll be happy as long as no one tells her otherwise), but how someone like her managed to attract attention from multiple men in the first place. It was probably for the best that George was little more than a placeholder with no deep characterization, because if he were fleshed out to any extent the mind would recoil at the idea that he never in his life had met anymore more attractive to him than Lucy. Her? What does she bring to the table? I didn't even think she was interesting enough to dislike, let alone fall in love with....more
Loading...
