Gabbie

I'm really liking Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran and I'm hoping to finish it today still. Which is good, since my reading has been on the back burner because of work. But hopefully this week I'll get to read more non-work material as well, and maybe even have some time and energy in the weeks to come to keep reading.

I knew I wouldn't dare ppen this thread again, after being away for so long. Sorry about that, work got in the way, and reading about all the reading y'all got done would have made me rather envious what with no time to read myself. Or really the inclination. I was feeling off practically all the books I started! Finally picked up Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi and it caught me. (I also have her autobiography on my self, I'm really looking forward to that!) Oh, so I gather you liked it, bree? How wonderful! I loved Angela's Ashes, read that and the following two books ('Tis and Teacher Man I think they were called), at least I think it was only two books, and loved those too. McCourt has a wonderful narrator's voice, no wonder he was a good teacher! Yes, Angela's Ashes is nonfiction. Which is not something you think about while reading it, it really read as a fiction, if you know what I mean? Often the nonfiction ones are more stiff and forced. Not this one. I truly enjoyed it too! So different from the movie, which I did like for the light and fluffy comedy it was. But the book was, especially given the socio-cultural context in which it was written, really memorable.

Oh, really? That's interesting. I'll have to make a note of picking it up one day. As for Austen, you really should give her a go. She's really rather funny. Not in a funny ha ha kind of way but there's a lot of humor in her books and in the way she looks at the world and society in particular. I love the BBC's adaptations, whether Austen or some other classics. They're really know how to do quality period drama in Britain!

Well, that's certainly not an easy read! I'd be interested to hear how you get about it, I must say I haven't dared to crack that one open just yet. I also think that there is a difference between books that are plain difficult and books that challenge you. Some of the older books are more difficult reads simply because of the language and the way of expressing things, while the stories and ideas behind it can be rather ... simplistic. Like Jane Austen, for example. Yes, there's social criticism and all that, but really, they're like the chick-lif of the old. And I say that with all the love for Austen, I love her! But those books are more feel-good stories than stories that make you think new thoughts.

I think you must be about the first person I've ever come across who have read Paddy Clarke and accused it of being bland. That's very interesting. I read it years and years ago (during school so I'd rather not thing exactly how long ago, if you all don't mind!) but i remember liking it very much for the strong impact it had on me.

I adore this book. I tend to gravitate towards books that are challenging, that make me think and this one had a nice balance about it. It's very readable, while giving you a gentle push to get you off your comfort zone.

I don't know if he's really that undiscovered, but at least no one I've spoken to have heard of Erlend Loe. He's a truly amazing Norwegian author. I specifically want to mention his Super.Naive, which was wonderful!

Some really good ones have been mentioned already. While I adore Pride and Prejudice as a book, and I do love Mr. Darcy (I have a thing for the dark and brooding type, so go figure I like Mr. Darcy and Jane Eyre's Mr. Rochester) I don't think it's the greatest love story. Jane Eyre would get my vote (seriously, he was willing to risk the wrath of God to marry her!) Also maybe Austen's Persuasion. Anne and Captain Wentworth both believed they'd lost each other forever, yet their love for each other never died. (Besides, I like a man to who has a way with words, so Captain Wentworth and his letter have a special spot in my heart.) Interestingly enough, neither Jane or Anne is anything like me, while my husband is of the dark and brooding type. I wonder if that's some unconcious reasoning on my part. I admire the women in these stories for the atributes I wish I had (or had more of) and feel attracted to the male characters that display the same characteristics I ended up marrying in real life as well. Anyone else notice something like that? Of the more modern works, there's one that's not of the "love conquers all" school but an incredibly poignant and beautiful story of love: Waiting by Ha Jin. It's just so realistic and true and broken it pierces your soul, to borrow a line from good Captain Wentworth. I like that the Phantom of the Opera was mentioned. I haven't acutally read the book but the soundtrack for the 2004 movies has actually been playing a lot around the house lately. It's just so beautiful. And I know that everyone's supposed to feel it for the poor phantom, who doesn't get the girl, but for me the truly touching bit is in the final show-down when Raul pleads with Christine, asking her to forgive him. For not getting her safe, for putting her in that situation, for not succeeding in saving her from the phantom. "I fought so hard to free you" has me in tears everytime. Yes, things turn out better in the end, but he doesn't know that yet. But I haven't read the book, so I can't really say about that.

Hi Robin, and thank you. I see you're also new here. How are you liking it so far?

Oh, okay. Well, I guess that's very true. I think I understand what your saying (and what the original article was saying) but can't really express it. first person point of view is more limited in a story, that is true. And I guess that can help when turning the story into another medium because you really do focus on that one particular character (as everything is seen through them) and everythign that happens or everyone else in the story is really just an interpretation of this one character. So yes, I can see that concentrating the story more. Never thought of that, though, so thanks for pointing it out!

That's an interesting point, chesilbeach, and probably very much true. I mean, how well to you turn a book of 700 pages into a 120 minute movie? You can't possibly cover everything! But with a short story, there's, for one, less material you "have to" (so that people won't go "they left that and that out!") cover and, secondly, there's usually more freedom of imagination in the story to begin with, everything's not spelled out specifically so it's easier to turn into a movie. Wouldn't know about the first person POV though, I mean, you can't really tell a movie from a first person POV, it's always from the outside.

Glad to hear I'm not alone, pontalba. And yes, I too do the "I'm reading that. And that. And that and that and that. What?? I like variety!" thing. I wonder if there's a name for the ailment? Is it even an ailment? Do we need a support group? I have loads of work to do today (plus the usual domestic chores that oddly enough always fall on me especially now that we haven't gotter around to finding any help yet) so maybe tonight will be the night and I can just sit down with a hot drink and read. Paul Auster's New York Trilogy is looking pretty tempting (and small) right now. I might be able to stick with that.

Like said above, movie and book are very different medias, and the ways of telling a story are very different. What would be boring in a movie isn't necessarily so in a book, and vise versa. On top of that, if you take a book, and try to turn it into a movie, you can't possibly include everything. In my mind a movie interpretation of a book is just that: an interpretation. It's one person's (or several, as in the production team) interpretation of the characters and events and places. Let's take an example. I say "red chair is in the corner of the room." Simple enough, no? Red chair. Room. Corner. Now, if I asked all of you to make a picture of that red chair in the corner of the room, I'd probably end up with very different pictures. Is it an arm chair? A wicker chair? A high-backed chair? Is the wall behind it painted? Is there trim in the ceiling? Wooden floor or carpet? You're getting my point, aren't you? So a movie is just one way of seeing the story the author of the book is telling us. It's not in any way more wrong or right than our own way. Yes, sometimes you have to (for the sake of making a good movie!) cut things or skip things or compress things, but still.

For some reason I cannot seem to be able to focus on any particular book for the time being (maybe due to reading the last 100 or so pages of Room so intensively). So instead I've been a good wife and done as I've been told, which is to say, I've been sorting through my books and picked out the ones I'm willing to let go (that is, store in the basement for the time being, until I figure out a good way of getting rid of them). Mostly old chick-lit I really have no taste for anymore. And books I haven't liked, so don't want to keep around cluttering my already full bookshelves. Of course, the truly smart way would have been to do this BEFORE the move. Oh well...

I don't think "good literary quality" and entertaining and captivating storytelling are mutually exclusive, however. It's just that, as we can see here on this focum, what captivates one brings another to tears of boredom. So the latter "measure of goodness" is more personal, and depends on the person doing the judging or evaluating. The former can be thought of as something "absolute". What that absolute measure of quality in literature is, that I'll happily leave to people smarter than me! But we can have both, of course.