Jump to content

Loricat

Member
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Loricat

Loricat's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

  1. I liked Penmarric so much I went on a Susan Howatch binge and read Cashelmara and Wheel of Fortune right afterward. This was in the late 80s and all three books are a bit of a blur in my mind now. But I certainly enjoyed them all at the time.
  2. I read it in my late teens or early twenties (can't remember exactly when) and hated it even then. I picked it up a couple of years ago to try to decipher whether or not my hatred of it was justified. I thought maybe I was too young to get it the first time around. But it was equally as ridiculous the second time, and I definitely didn't bother re-reading the whole thing. That said, I think your point is valid and still stands. It's like a time capsule book that captures the mood, spirit and vision of an era that deserved to be recorded. And the sort of rebelliousness expressed in the book is probably something many, many young people can still relate to today.
  3. I can't believe how many of these books I've read. And most of them I read as a teenager; they were gifts from my mother. From both lists combined, I've read: 1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien 6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee 7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne 10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bront
  4. >>>90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac<<< For the love of god, why?????? Please! I hate this book. It sucks. I could write a better novel. I'm serious. Overall, I think the BBC list is okay. I've read a number of the books on it, and some of them even made my top ten list for this forum.
  5. I bought two CDs the other day. One was an experimental jazz album called Saloua by Erik Truffaz. He's a trumpet player I'd never heard of before, but I liked the samples on amazon.com, so I bought it. It's a little spacey but good. The other one was A Decade of Hits (1969 - 1979) by the Allman Brothers Band. Good stuff. :-)
  6. Ive heard Lucky is a lot better than The Lovely Bones. I didn't hate Sebold enough to avoid her other books, so I'll probably check out Lucky at some point. If it is better, it may be because she wrote about her own rape as a young woman. It's just such a sobering topic that I've avoided it -- but I'll get to it eventually.
  7. I confess, I'm reading my list out of order. I've read the first two and am working on a third from the list. I know....I'm a slow reader. The whole Time Traveler's Wife thing through me off. I ordered the book more than two months ago, and I planned to read it earlier, so I could join in on the discussions here. Unfortunately, I didn't receive the book on time because of some ordering snafu, so I started reading Ireland by Frank Delaney. So far, I'm really enjoying it, but I'm reading it slowly. After Ireland, I plan to read TTW - and I'm looking forward to reading through the old threads with everybody's comments and stuff.
  8. ************CONTAINS SPOILERS******************* So........I'm getting the feeling you really didn't like this book! Heh Heh The heaven part didn't bug me so much for a number of reasons, and particularly because I knew it was Susie's version of heaven and not meant to represent Heaven (if there is such a place) itself. BUT, what I hated about it was the way Susie returned to earth to possess Ruth's body toward the end. And the only reason she does this is to have sex???? I dunno, but that seemed stupid to me, considering Mr. Harvey was still out there (as I recall -- it's been a while since I read this book). And I also hated that she *could* take over her friend's body. I didn't get why the book took this sudden new seeming direction. The whole ending just seemed to not fit with the rest of the book. What I did like about it was Sebold's writing style. It was simple and basic, and I thought it was pretty. So that kind of made up for everything else I didn't like.
  9. Interesting. I liked the little girl's descriptions of heaven, although I have to say I wasn't sure about them at first either. But something about her picture of heaven grew on me. I'm more like you and couldn't see myself lured into a situation with a man like this either, but thousands of children in the U.S. are abducted or lured into dangerous situations each year by seemingly innocuous adults; so ultimately, I could buy the scenario without any problem. However, I was frustrated and aggravated by certain characters as well, particularly as the story went on. Since you're still reading it, I won't say anything else. But I do understand where you're coming from. Totally.
  10. Which parts or character(s) are angering you?
  11. One at a time only. Certain books evoke certain moods in me as I'm reading them. I have trouble switching over from one mood to another when it comes to books, especially if one of the books is serious or somber and the other is more light and comedic. Reading two books at once usually requires an emotional or mental shift I don't usually feel capable of making.
  12. Great recommendations! I read them both many, many years ago back in the 80s when I was in high school. Both have stuck with me, particularly To Kill A Mockingbird, which is one of the best novels I've ever read. I think some people might have a hard time getting through the darker aspects of The Bell Jar, but I honestly think To Kill A Mockingbird is a book for everyone, young and old alike.
  13. Great guide! I just posted a review and I wish I had read this first. I'm cutting and pasting this for next time.
  14. I am a Bret Ellis fan and have read 5 of his 6 novels and immensely enjoyed 4 of them. I've never hated one of his books and was only mildly disappointed by Rules of Attraction which I found utterly pointless, but funny, when I read it back in the 80s. I've taken a bit of flack over the years for liking Ellis from friends who consider him and his writing shallow and worthless -- but he's still one of my favorite writers and news that he's written a book never fails to fill me with glee. :-P What I like about his writing style is best captured in the spare and atmospheric Less Than Zero where everything manages to be said in short concise sentences and picturesque prose that doesn't seem to go anywhere yet acutely gets its point across. And being a Los Angeles native, and living in the San Fernando Valley for the last 25 years where Ellis grew up and where parts of his stories often take place, doesn't hurt in terms of making his work appeal to me on a personal level. As for Lunar Park, what I like about the book is that it is a horror story. Something that took me by surprise since I avoided reviews about the novel before I purchased it. I didn't even bother to read the book jacket. I knew it was an Ellis novel and I was reading it -- that's all it took to pique my interest. So when I discovered the story revolved around supernatural events including a haunted house, a designer toy bird called The Terby that comes to life ala Chucky to threaten the lives of Ellis and his family, the disappearance of several young boys, a series of violent murders that occur in Ellis' community and what appears to be the literal haunting of the author by his dead father and fictional characters he's created in his previous novels - I was thrilled. I don't often read horror, but it's one of my favorite genres, and I was delighted to discover this book was inspired by the writings of Stephen King. As far as horror stories go, this one is engaging if predictable and ridiculous at times, and often pays homage to horror movie cliches, which I found both funny and occasionally frustrating. However, the novel worked best for me because of its horror aspects as opposed to its back story that is much more about the author's failing marriage to a well known actress and his move to suburbia in a futile and pathetic attempt to have a normal life; his move away from the fame, unreality and immaturity that has consumed his life as a famous author and the writer of controversial novels like American Psycho. This is the story of how Bret Ellis reinvents himself from the infant boy prince to the mature man and father real life demands him to be, a maturation that has eluded him because he has deliberately avoided it out of a loathing and fear of his own father, an abusive, angry alcoholic who was the basis of his serial killer character, Patrick Bateman, in American Psycho and to whom Lunar Park is partly dedicated to. What I didn't like about this book is that it's written from the point of view of Bret Ellis himself. He is the main character, and the novel attempts to blur the line between the real Ellis and the protagonist Ellis. I didn't object to the book being written in this style, but the fictional Ellis was so darn unlikeable that I had a hard time dealing with the style. Because of the difficult narrative style, I think the novel will mostly appeal to already established Ellis fans, even though it's his most accessible novel. The most positive thing I can think to say about this is that the book -- while horribly self preoccupied - manages to transcend this just by being an engaging horror story and a legitimate exploration of the shadows and unresolved guilts and complexes that make up your average, male, American mind. However, the fictional Ellis is so detestable, it put me off and I'm sure it would put off those less thrilled with Ellis to the point where they could not get beyond this. In the past I could enjoy his descriptions of vapid, self obsessed twits because the writer was laughing at them and it was understood it took an insightful and intelligent narrator with an above average intellect to be able to so perfectly satirize these types of annoying losers. But for some reason, having the narrator (who in this case is Bret Ellis) be the vapid twit is not funny or appealing. It's just obnoxious, and while never dull, it rather repelled me and kept me from enjoying the novel as much as I might have. In this book, some of the obsession with the hard, cold surface of things that permeates all of Ellis' other novels is tempered by a sentimental, forgiving, even schmaltzy Ellis who is genuinely reflective instead of merely detached. In Lunar Park he is surrounded by the trappings of everyday life in an everyday world (despite the horror) instead of off partying in ridiculously superficial and "glamorous" surroundings, and this is appealing even if it never really goes far enough, never probes deep enough to cause any major revelations. This new Ellis viewpoint manages to make the reader feel something with well written prose and insights about feeling nothing and being nothing and being unable to take anything seriously. Ironically, through a distant, inaccessible, even detestable egotistical narrator you are taken on a journey of self exploration into the depths of your darker emotions just by being confronted with page after page of vapid, hollow meanderings by the character. The effect achieved is a sense of meaning about the unmeaningful, an understanding of what it means to be numb and why this is important instead of merely being numb and conveying nothing. I think this book is probably Ellis' best written novel, and although not my favorite, I enjoyed it quite a bit.
  15. I haven't checked out that thread yet, but I'll take a look at it.
×
×
  • Create New...