Jump to content

MrCat

Member
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrCat

  1. Can't decide if I want to read The Bell Jar now or re-read Mrs Dalloway.
  2. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner This was my first Faulkner novel and I have to say I was quite impressed. Faulkner is also one of those authors that has a "hard to read and understand" tag but just like Dostoyevsky, that was simply not the case for me. However, in Faulkner's case, the writing and language had a purpose and I will get to that now. I feel very inadequate to write about this book since I am sure there is a lot of stuff that I am missing but I will do my best to do it justice. The story is quite linear and simple but that is not the thing that sticks out in this book. The characters are what give the book substance and each in their own way contributes to the novel. The story is about a family that's strolling around the countryside in order to bury their dead wife and mother. It is told in turn by each family member and this is where Faulkner's writing truly shines. Sadly, this is where he loses most points because of the constant confusion he creates. The story is written in a very southern vocabulary and even after two books in the setting, I was still not used to the language. Errors are all over the place and there's always a letter missing or a verb messed up and this can make the reading very tedious. Once you do get past that though, it's really good. Every character sees Addie's (the mother/wife) death differently and they each cope with it in different ways. Faulkner uses this in an excellent manner, changing the language and view with each person. In this sense it reminded me of James Joyce's Dubliners where every short story is told by a different person. This is a book about character development first and foremost so do not expect a sophisticated plot. The characters are simple, uneducated and poor peasants and they would not make interesting characters at first glance in any novel. Yet Faulkner's brilliance lies in his ability to give them each personality, interior and exterior struggles , personal issues, all united under the same event, Addie's death. The mood changes from funny to depressing and the author captured this perfectly with his style of writing. Yes the book might be hard, yes it might be confusing at times, yes maybe it is just classic Faulkner but it is very much worth reading. 4/5 stars from me and my interest for the author just went through the roof.
  3. Have fun reading Asimov. Excellent SF author even though he is a bit outdated, especially when it comes to robots.
  4. I was very disappointed with Fahrenheit 451. Whenever I read about classical dystopian books, Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and Brave New World are most of the time mentioned. It's kind of a holy trinity and you can't think of one without the other but I found Bradbury's book very lacking, especially in our current world. We live in a time when more books are being published and read than ever before. Maybe most/many are garbage but so is everything else in media so what is the difference between looking at a mindless crappy reality show or reading a mindless crappy book?
  5. I am not a fan of 3D movies, except maybe with few exceptions. We only have 3D cinemas in malls around here so there are really few to no options when it comes to seeing a movie but I try to avoid the format as much as possible. The problem with 3D movies is that not all are made for 3D. The new Clash of the Titans movie for ex was for 2D and then they just converted it. The result was a total mess and to this day I still feel sorry for buying a ticket to see it. Authentic 3D movies and converted ones are very different things. This being said, I think that The Hobbit was a good choice. The movies are garbage imo but at least you can feast your eyes on all that CGI. Generally, I'd say that movie with lots of special effects are good for 3D viewing, so that would include most SF and fantasy blockbusters. Star Wars was great in 3D, I have to admit but it's not like anyone goes to see Star Wars for the special effects. The new Stark Trek movies are also good 3D material. And of course space and wild life documentaries if you are interested.
  6. I'm not sure fantasy was childish. I mean the people that say this probably though the same about comic book heroes until they saw The Dark Knight. But for a story to be "for grown ups" it does not have to be mature. And I certainly don't think that if a work suddenly has boobs and violence it becomes mature. Sadly that is what GRRM has given us and it will be the standard for "mature" fantasy. Just like Deadpool became the standard for 18+ rated super hero movies. A novel can be mature in themes, story and characters. On the contrary, I;d say that throwing tits in the reader's face actually makes a book more childish. About the LOTR part, yes I am saying that there is no absolute evil in Tolkien's universe. I guess you could argue that Melkor is Satan himself since he turned to darkness and forged the One Ring but that's really going back to the roots of Tolkien's universe. As far as LOTR is concerned, I think the characters were corrupted by the Ring and could have been influenced by it. I mean even Gandalf has more sense than to wear it and he's the wisest of the primordial spirits. He's not your random wizard from Harry Potter. I find Tolkien's themes actually to be more mature since they deal with deeper issues like trust, kindness, corruption, greed etc. I understand why GRRM gets the praise for this since he can more or less present the same themes in a more... mainstream way. The corruption of power isn't very explicit in LOTR and it;s certainly not as well explained as through GRRM's violence and revenge, but like I said I feel that Tolkien's way of showing things goes deeper than that. (Admin Edit: A Game of Thrones spoiler; for book 1 of the A Song of Ice and Fire series).
  7. Today is also Murakami's Bday I wonder when a translation for his book will be available. It usually takes some time before his new books reach the west.
  8. I guess the answer would be: It depends on the book. If I like the book then its length is not an issue but it can be a pain to read if not, even if the book has 200 pages or less. I feel that short stories don't have enough time to develop characters properly so by that fact alone I prefer thick books. Generally I try to mix the genres and authors so I don't get bored of the same thing. I am on my third consecutive book where the characters speak with southern accents and use southern language. I am really looking forward to my next book that will most probably include proper grammar and not deal with bleak themes. There's so only so much of the genre, language or particular author I can take at a time. Unless we are talking about Austen ofc. As far as series go, I never interrupt them. If the there are seven books, then I will read them in order before moving to something else.
  9. I'd say that it pales in terms of universe, scale, writing, background, you name it. But most importantly, originality. Now, I understand that Tolkien himself wasn't original in the first place since he took a lot if inspiration from different mythologies but they way he mixed them in order to give life to his world is unprecedented. He is the grandpa of "generic fantasy" for a reason. Whenever someone tells me about GRRM's characters, the complexity, the difference in generations, the families etc I always point out Tolstoy's War and Peace. Not that is a book with worthwhile and complex characters. As for grey areas in LOTR, well I will just put a spoil tag in case you have not read all of Tolkien's works. Also, like I said before, I have not read all of GRRM's books so might be missing some important stuff from this work. edit: I might add to this post later. edit nr 2: Speaking of Tolkien and Martin:
  10. Yey, no more minus 25 degrees outside. Now it's just -10.
  11. Beloved by Toni Morrison I will start writing about books in this format from now on since it's easier to follow and find. Continuing my adventures through American and modern authors, I stumbled on this little book and by reading it I hit two bottles with one stone. (yes I know it's two birds with one rock but I'd never hurt some poor birdies). This book was strange to say the least. There are so many things going on, so many characters that you only read about once and then never hear again, so many points of view, so many stories. But I will start from the beginning. The writing is good, not great, difficult at times but once you get used to the language it's easy to keep up. I like how the author kept going from the present, back in time and then back in the present. The book itself is dark, incoherent and deep. Well, you might take out deep depending on how you feel on the slavery matter. The thing is that by trying to write about so much in so many words, makes it feel pretentious. Yes there is suffering and horror but there is also joy and hope. I feel that people focus too much on the negative stuff in the book (which is nasty as hell) and somewhere along the lines, loose touch with the positive aspects. And that is not all that is missing. Similar to TKAM, Beloved threads a very touchy subject and it seems that is the only subject most people recognize in the book, thus ignoring the language, the internal suffering of every (black) character in the book, Sethe's struggle with her past, not just her present. I liked how the story was disjointed, quickly jumping from one thing to another. Not many books do this it's a good way of keeping the reader's interest up. If the writing is good, the story is good, the ideas behind the book are good, why am I not enjoying this as much I had expected? Well, firstly , like I said before, the subject is touchy so there's an involuntary feeling of being guilty if you do not like it. Kind of like seeing Schindler's List and not liking the movie. You cruel 'person of dubious parentage'! But you see, touchy subjects need to be presented with writing and story and characters and it's in this last part that the book failed for me. Secondly, none of the characters made a big impact. Sure they all suffered but what else is going on with them? Except the suffering and bad past, what else can I say about them? They do not have anything memorable or distinct thus making them just some random colored people that suffered from the abomination called slavery. It reminded my in some ways of Life of Pi, where the author tried to insert a lot of symbolism and metaphors that in the end just felt pretentious and without substance. With a little more focus on just few things, with a little more character development, this book could have been amazing. As it is, it's just average. Sadly, I feel that a lot of potential was wasted here.
  12. Hello and welcome to BCF. Every time I read Australia somewhere I think of kangaroos and this song:
  13. Sry Angury, I am really bad with using quotes around here so I will just make a simple reply. I was not referring to the details per-se but rather the way they are written and if they have any relevance at all. Tolkien is also plagued by this kind of writing sometimes, as is Charles Dickens or Frank Herbert or J.K.Rowling. But the matter in which they do it is different and I'd say superior to GRRM. I admit that Tolkien does tend to go overboard with his narrative, especially near the end where you think everything is settled but Surprise! 200 more pages to go but it all has a point. He basically created a world from zero, with kingdoms, races, cities, gods, an entire mythology, history and language. I'd say that you really do need descriptions and long narratives to unfold these to the reader. GRRM's universe pales by comparison so I do not see the need for his narrative. Also, the actual usefulness of his descriptions is not that big. Certain characters do not move around much so filling the pages with useless details around their surroundings and actions is just a waste. Immersion is needed in every fiction book but it tells a lot about the author's value if he manages to do it in 200 pages or 2000. As to your last paragraph, this is where I am in opposite thinking. The point of fantasy is to be as far away as possible from real life. That's why the author makes a new world in the first place. The moment you place ordinary things in your fantasy book, that books stops being part of the genre. Now of course you could take inspiration from real life, or put out a message from the real world through the fantasy idea, I mean Tolkien did exactly that with LOTR, and you can see this in many examples, like... the Japanese version of Godzilla but the complexity of human life can be put forth in many other ways, mediums and genres and I don't feel the need to see them explained in my *go away real world* novel. People often seem fixed on the idea that in fantasy (and in most movies and books where there is a conflict) everything is black and white and most of them come with the argument that GRRM paints a grey/dark world but the same can be said about many many other books, from LOTR, to Paradise Lost or even To Kill a Mockingbird. If there is one good thing I could say about his work is that some of the characters are quite good. Tyrion, Jon Snow and Arya come to mind, as well as Denerys. They are outcasts and often seem to thread that grey line that people keep talking about but for the rest... Yeah yeah we know, Geoffrey's a dick and Ned Stark was the good guy.
  14. My weekend was terrible as far as reading goes. Had to work a lot so there was little time to read. I've barely read 200 pages from Beloved.
  15. You can always skip the book and look at the TV show. Seems there is a series with Peter Capaldi though I am not sure how good it is.
  16. It's very easy to read and understand. Her language is simple and explicit if that helps.
  17. Funny, I was just thinking of the subject these days. I was browsing part of my old book collection that I moved over at my grandparent's place and I recognized many familiar names and titles but I could not name every book's action properly. Of course nobody can be expected to remember something he or she read 20 years ago but in that case does it even count as a read book? I mean I read most of Jules Verne's novels when I was a kid but I can only remember parts of the books. Or Gulliver's Travels and books by Alexandre Dumas. Most of the books that I remember very well have either been read a few times on had something very special that made them stand out.
  18. Well for one thing I thought It would be actually fantasy. You know, dragons and orcs and wizards and stuff. And yes some of these things do come into the story at some point as far as I know but I will not bother reading more than 1000 pages of your book just on the promise that they will show up eventually. I grew up playing and I still play roleplaying video games and D&D so naturally most elements that we associate with fantasy are very well known to me. GRRM's novels were not fantasy, at least not in the traditional sense. I kept waiting for the bloody walkers and dragons to appear but no. All I got were mostly boring characters with boring writing and boring story. The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general makes up what I consider to be good fantasy. Or maybe, Ursula Le Guin with her atypical characters and stories. Or maybe even good old myths from every religion ever (after all, Tolkien took a lot of inspiration from Norse mythology). The Eragon books were kind of meh for my taste but I'd still consider them to be "more fantasy" than GRRM's work. Add Harry Potter to the list too and Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy too. Or maybe Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy. Now of course the writing and stories in these books are more or less good, depending on personal criterias, but as far as ticking all the right boxes for a fantasy novel, they are all above what I have read by GRRM. Seeing how I could not get into him, I tried reading his works for something else. Characters, story or writing. But it was all in vain. The writing is all over the place and mostly tiresome with endless non-important descriptions of non-important locations. Yeah I really need to know how a certain room is arranged because.. you know... that's what makes a book good...? Characters are ok, some of them but most are not. And given the fact that GRRM tends to "unexpectedly" kill off many of them is really a kick in the reader's nuts (pardon my French). Oh give you this character, now invest emotionally into him just so I can murder him for no reason later. It's ok when authors do this if it;s well made and not done very often but when you become famous just based on this fact, then your charm is going to fade very fast. Kind of like complaining to Gordon Ramsay about the food and expecting NOT to be yelled at. It;s funny when he goes into a berserk rage at first but after a while it's just pathetic and predictable.
  19. I finished the first two books shortly before the TV show started and saw only the first season of it when it came out. I was not very impressed by the book to be honest. Maybe I was expecting something different, maybe I was not shocked at all by anything it it... I don't know. Whatever it was, it made loose my interest in GRRM and his overhyped books. People tell me that the first book is kind of like a prelude to the actual story but if an author fails to impress me after 700 pages, then that author does not deserve my attention. The TV show was decent enough but I never got very involved it in. Not a fan of cheap sex and killing characters just for the sake of it.
  20. -25 to -30 Celsius these days. It's freezing outside. In times like these I miss Ireland's weather.
  21. I must be the only one on BCF that has not read Middlesex.
  22. Any admin that can make the thread for this month's Read-a-thon?
  23. What a coincidence that you made this post exactly 125 year after his birth I do agree with most of what you said and indeed, characters are (mostly) one dimensional but that kind of was the point. As far as fantasy goes these days, from almost every other author, to movies, Dungeons and Dragons and certain musicians , his influence can still be seen. His work was heavily influenced by WW1 The good and evil conflict from the book was inspired by the good and evil conflict of WW1 and his participation in it. Sam Gamgee is actually your average WW1 soldier, a very small person caught in a very big conflict. The story of Beren and Luthien was inspired from himself and his wife. I don't see why in this case being one dimensional is a bad thing, especially since that is the entire point. Gods are one dimensional too in mythology and religion and Tolkien took inspiration from both as well. Have you read The Silmarillion and Children of Hurin? Excellent book imo and they explain a lot of the lore from the universe.
  24. Finished To Kill a Mockingbird and I thought I'd stay in the area with the theme and read Beloved by Toni Morrison.
×
×
  • Create New...