Sign in with Facebook
Irina Dumitrescu's Reviews > Codex
Codex
by
by
I read this book on vacation, and so my brain was as relaxed as possible and as willing to be understanding. However, for the sake of full disclosure (and, hopefully, credibility), I am a graduate student in Medieval Studies, and I happen to have been taking a couse in the Medieval Book this semester, so that was my background while I was reading Codex.
I don't really need to repeat the comments of most of the people here -- that the plot is thin, the characters shallow, and that at best, the novel keeps you reading until the final, disappointing conclusion. I will say though that for the know-it-all tone that Grossman adopts, and considering that he brings in a medievalist graduate student to be even more erudite, his mistakes are glaring. (Some of these are factual mistakes that anyone with an acquaintance with the subject would spot, and some are logical mistakes that absolutely anyone would notice.)
I only remember one of them off the top of my head, and I can't check for more because I left the book in disgust at the hostel where I was staying. However, it's a notable example of the ignorance involved. Someone suggests burning the manuscript, and the main character says something like, "It's vellum, not paper. It doesn't burn."
EXCUSE ME? Someone should have told that to all the vellum manuscripts that have been destroyed in fires over the ages... then they would have known that animal skin doesn't burn.
Look buddy, if your main character was an English major at Yale, even as an undergrad he would know that vellum burns, because they all know that the Beinecke is full of rare manuscripts and books, and they like to tell you repeatedly (though incorrectly) how the air will be sucked out of the entire stacks in the case of fire. Also, he would know just a little more about books in general, ya know?
I don't really need to repeat the comments of most of the people here -- that the plot is thin, the characters shallow, and that at best, the novel keeps you reading until the final, disappointing conclusion. I will say though that for the know-it-all tone that Grossman adopts, and considering that he brings in a medievalist graduate student to be even more erudite, his mistakes are glaring. (Some of these are factual mistakes that anyone with an acquaintance with the subject would spot, and some are logical mistakes that absolutely anyone would notice.)
I only remember one of them off the top of my head, and I can't check for more because I left the book in disgust at the hostel where I was staying. However, it's a notable example of the ignorance involved. Someone suggests burning the manuscript, and the main character says something like, "It's vellum, not paper. It doesn't burn."
EXCUSE ME? Someone should have told that to all the vellum manuscripts that have been destroyed in fires over the ages... then they would have known that animal skin doesn't burn.
Look buddy, if your main character was an English major at Yale, even as an undergrad he would know that vellum burns, because they all know that the Beinecke is full of rare manuscripts and books, and they like to tell you repeatedly (though incorrectly) how the air will be sucked out of the entire stacks in the case of fire. Also, he would know just a little more about books in general, ya know?
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Codex.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
May 1, 2005
–
Finished Reading
July 3, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
David
(new)
May 28, 2014 04:24PM
I feel like if you know something about a subject, fiction that revels in the specialized knowledge of that subject often falls flat. It's just like when you read a newspaper article about a story that you played a part in, the amount of factual errors and misinformation in any article becomes readily apparent. When you read these errors in expository fiction, all that head scratching is a real obstacle to accessing a story. I haven't read the book yet so I appreciate your review because it focuses on SPECIFIC flaws in storytelling. It's frustrating to read amateur reviews on goodreads (and, even more so, professional reviews) that complain about a book's "pacing", "character development", and "plotting" without offering any specific criticism. I digress, it's really unfortunate when it becomes obvious that an editor didn't recognize the need for consulting experts or proper research. I think it arises from publishers' disdain for an audience whose collective ignorance and lack of curiosity is taken for granted. I see these errors so often in popular fiction that one needs to really give due respect to those writers and editors who either are able to navigate their lack of expertise through using consultants and/or research.
reply
|
flag
Thanks for your comment, David. My review on Amazon of this book got quite a few dislikes, but it really is a weak book. If it had otherwise been strong I could forgive a few factual errors. In this case, I think the errors simply pointed to a general laziness on the part of the author -- making up ridiculous "facts" to drive plot rather than thinking it through. Ah well, Grossman's career seems to be fine, so the publishers' disdain for their audience was probably well founded.
This is hilarious! Good for you for calling him out on that, couldn鈥檛 stop laughing at how ridiculous that was.
