BookJumper
-
Posts
3,610 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Books
Posts posted by BookJumper
-
-
The Gargoyle contains many distressing scenes, about life as a burns victim. So if you are upset by descriptions of burns then you should definitely avoid this book.
I can't remember any crude scenes, but I'm not sure I can remember any in Mr Y either
I'm not easily upset in general terms; I am a big horror fan for example and have no problem whatsoever reading about blood, guts, torture, eternal damnation - so burns shouldn't be a problem.
What makes me uncomfortable, and has more than once made me abandon a book (such as "Mr. Y" or "Love Without Resistance" by Giles Rozier) is sex scenes that are violent/full of swear-words, particularly if they seem to be put there to shock/grab readers and have nothing much to do with the overall plot and style of the novel.
Any of that in "The Gargoyle"?
-
For the series, how an actually pretty good adaptation can be turned into the worst adaptation of all time through mindless 1. chopping 2. dubbing:
The most recent (I think) TV version of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserabl
-
There are authors I like enough to buy blindly, i.e. Jasper Fforde - but I would never even have heard of Jasper Fforde if it wasn't for the snazzy cover of "Something Rotten" (fourth in the series, didn't understand a word because the plot was too far gone by then, but that's Waterstone's fault for not having the whole series on the shelf). Neil Gaiman is another now favourite writer discovered at an airport because of the dazzling sky-blue cover of "Anansi Boys", and the list goes on. So: judging books by their cover usually works for me.
There's authors I'll trust implicitly - to a point; for example I plan to catch up with all of Stephen King's classic catalogue, but steer clear of the newer stuff, which (after a few attempts) I've classified as not up to the same standard Stevie got me used to in my youth.
Amazon is very useful, not so much for the reviews (so many people on there can't even string a sentence together... I read a negative review a few days ago which read, and I quote verbatim, "In Freak the Mighty by Rodman Philbrick, the author uses themes and characters to write the book. I hated the book because I hate reading. (...) In Freak the Mighty by Rodman Philbrinck, the author uses themes and characters to write the book. I used his characters to write this book review."), but rather for the cross-referencing possibilities: the "people who bought this item also bought" and "listmania!" features have directed me towards many a good book.
-
26 read cover to cover; more than that many in progress
!1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 1984 - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D
-
Odd really - I'm the complete opposite you see; with few notable exceptions (Jane Austen, for example) I tend to steer clear of authors who write things that are completely, empirically "believable" as I find those types of books more easily dull and mundane. Obviously a bad writer is going to make a mundane and boring book even out of the most fantastical elements, so my choice of books doesn't always work as well as I hope it might; still, I prefer to pick up a book that allows for things that I don't really encounter in my "real", everyday life - or I might as well go and experience those things for myself rather than read about them in a book.
Of course, I might be the one missing out - can you suggest a couple of completely supernatural-free books that might make me change my mind about their risk of being dull and mundane?
-
Arguably more defensible for Dickens or Shakespeare who were less of an age were rationalism had removed ghosts and spirits from the mainstream; where we know they are nonsense.
There's a lot of people who don't think they are nonsense, Andy - what may seem impossible to yo finds its roots in beliefs that, like it or not, are still quite widespread. No author would litter their otherwise "normal" book with ghosts & co. if there weren't people in the world who either believe in them, or wish they were real, or are open to the possibility of their existence should they ever see one with their two eyes. Possibly I belong to the latest category: I'd give anything's existence the benefit of the doubt.
I do agree with you that when the crime author turns around on the last page and says, "the ghost did it" it's ridiculous - but it's ridiculous in the same way that him turning around on the last page and saying, "the butler did it". Bad storytelling is bad storytelling no matter whether the devices it employs are supernatural or not. The way I see it, it's not the ghost's fault.
-
... but look at the classics, the biggies. Without the ghost of Hamlet's father (whether you take him to be a real apparition or a nice mass hallucination), there would be no indecisive, inactive hero, there would be no "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I", no "To be or not to be, that is the question". Without the witches' predictions, Macbeth would never kill Duncan, and if he never heard voices inside his head (again, whether you take them to be real or a concretisation of his feelings of guilt) then the play would lose so much psychological death.
Plus I find the distinction between fantasy and not-fantasy, in this case, to be unnecessary. Granted, in fantasy supernatural elements are "expected" in a way that they are not necessarily in other types of fiction, but the way I see it is that such elements are usually employed for the same reasons: ghosts, for example, can be used to explore metaphysical questions about the afterlife, or show the immortality of certain sentiments/values i.e. love, or force a character to resolve their past, etc.
Don't you think?
-
It goes rather well, thank you; how about yourself? Cuppa tea?
-
Hello and welcome
! I'm sure you'll feel quite at home here. -
That's quite a substantial & impressive reading log you have there! Oh, and welcome. Have a hobnob.
-
Welcome Ginevieve (such a splendidly romantic name - tales of Arthur spring to mind...)!
-
Welcome, and not not to fear - we'll bring you to the dark side (of the bookshelf) soon enough
! -
Welcome Ali
! I am sure you'll have an ace time amongst us, your kindred bookworm-ish spirits! *is envious, wants to work in a library too* [typed "live" instead of "work" at first - I wish...] -
One of them was Romeo and Juliet... Honestly, why couldn't the teacher have waited one or two years and made us read it the right way?
My thoughts exactly. At school, I was made to study Dante paraphrased when I was ten, heavily cut when I was fourteen and in all his glory at eighteen. Problem is, once you get to eighteen you're so bored with this story they've been spoon-feeding you since you were ten than you don't give the 14th century masterpiece the chance it deserves.
Over here, it's the same with Shakespeare: by the time pupils get to an age when they might actually be able to appreciate William's language, they've had enough. It's so sad...
-
I always find myself starting a book, getting a third of the way in, picking up something else that looks shiny, getting a third of the way into that etc. etc. When I was younger I read so quick it hardly mattered; I could be reading ten books at a time and still finished them all within the week.
Sadly now I stop to savour language and such-like, so getting to the end of all the books I juggle proves a struggle. Sometimes by the time I go back to the original first book I need to start it again 'cos if forgotten bits, which is vexing,
-
I remember borrowing Bram Stoker's "Dracula" from the school library when I was little and enjoying it immensely; when, some five years later, I thought it was time to have my own copy, I found myself confronted with passages I'd never seen before. I felt like the library had robbed and cheated me by lending me a butchered book. I'd much rather school libraries didn't stock certain books at all, rather than doing away with the bits that are too difficult or unsuitable - what's wrong with waiting until a child is old enough to read the classics as intended?
As for tips to avoid buying abridged books by mistake, Amazon usually says "[Abridged]" beside the title of a book when it is; and users are pretty good at supplying that kind of information when Amazon fails to. Also, the now rather common "Look Inside!" feature should help, as it allows you to see the back cover (at the bottom of which the publishers usually tell you if a work is abridged or not). Hope that helps!
-
Count Dracula from Dracula by Brahm Stoker
Lestat from The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice
Javert from Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
I actually find Dracula a very sad, lonely figure; Lestat fascinates me in a way dull, goody-two-shoes Louis never did and Javert I don't think we're meant to hate at all - I found myself sobbing so hard during his last chapter, "Javert goes off the rails", when his whole world-view crumbles and he discovers he is not the emblem of Good he thought he was. He's easily the most complex character in "Les Miserabl
-
"The Importance of Being Ernest" is one of my favourite plays, period; it's just so funny. If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend the recent-ish film with Colin Firth and Rupert Everett as Jack and Algy, Reese Witherspoon as Cecily and the insurpassable Dame Judi Dench as Lady Bracknell (prepare to quiver in her presence as if you were nine again!!).
My other favourite Wilde play is the tragedy in one act "Salom
-
That is the question. That is to say, do you prefer poetry to rhyme, or would you rather it didn't, or aren't you really that bothered either way?
Personally I much prefer poetry that is rhymed - I find that being subjected to formal constraints focuses the mind of the poet and brings forth better versification. There are of course exceptions; Walt Whitman's poetry doesn't rhyme yet I consider him a genius. Still, an exceptional genius: most unrhymed, unmetered poetry looks to me like chopped up prose.
Any thoughts?
-
Two of my three all-time favourites (the third is really long and will need abridging):
Sonnet 116, William Shakespeare
(The perfect explanation of what true love really is)
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
O Me! O Life, Walt Whitman
(Looked up thanks to "Dead Poets Society", Whitman is now one of my favourite poets - he speaks so simply, yet so powerfully, of life lived as poetry written)
O Me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring;
Of the endless trains of the faithless
-
As we're unsure (as a forum) whether we are allowed by copywright etc. to copy/paste contemporary poetry for appreciation, discovery and discussion... what's everybody's favourite "classic" poem ("classic" here simply means "old enough, i.e. written 75 years ago or before, not to get us in trouble")?
I'll post mine shortly, but was interested to see what other people's favourites were, and why?
-
Agreed, definitely anything but boring. Personally I find it excruciating to watch because the emotions are so well described it almost hurts me physically; but surely such expressive power is to Will's credit!
-
after a point, his stories are predictable.In comedy, everybody has a happy ending and in tragedies almost everybody dies...it's like you know what will happen from the beginning
You can hardly judge Shakespeare by his plots as they were almost always "borrowed" from other sources (there was no notion of copywright, plagiarism etc. back then); I personally judge him as a poet - i.e. the words he uses to express those sometimes commonplace situations, and the words are all but commonplace: there's so much beauty in his handling of language. The only passages that occasionally bore me are the ones I don't understand, but good performances usually clear those up and then I realise what I was missing.
-
So are you a Beatles fan or do you just happen to know that? I went to the Cavern a few years and had a terrific time
Well, I chose to study in Liverpool (all the way from Italy) because I wanted to breathe the same air as John Lennon... does that make me a fan *tongue in cheek*? And at Liverpool Uni I discovered my second great love, Shakespeare
!Now that I'm older and (perhaps) wiser, I'd like to read some more Shakespeare, but I'd need some good notes to go alongside it and help me through, otherwise I don't think I'd have the patience.The brand new Oxford Classics editions are quite good for the non-initiated (I tend to buy all my Shakys in Arden editions, but I wouldn't recommend those to start with, their academic introductions are longer and more complicated than the plays); also I'd suggest to go to as many plays as you can, and if all else fails watch a few films: the words make so much more sense when spoken by actors who understand what they mean.
Example: I went to see the most recent RSC "Hamlet" twice; and because the first gravedigger was such a good actor, suddenly I understood what was so funny in what had (until then) been one of the most obscure passages in Shakespeare.
What type of story would you want to read? Happy, sad, bittersweet, blood-thirsty? I'm good at recommendations
!
What are Everyone's Favourite Films?
in Music / TV / Films
Posted
I'd divide my favourites into "films that I consider awesome, but that are too deep/depressing to watch too often" and "films that may be enjoyed at any time":
Category number one would include such masterpieces as Easy Rider, Dead Poets Society, Velvet Goldmine, Life is Beautiful, The Legend of 1900, Carrie...
Category number two would include such comfort classics as Legally Blonde, Ever After: A Cinderella Story, Enchanted, The Princess Bride, Big Fish, Across the Universe, Shakespeare in Love, The Mirror has Two Faces, Working Girl... (I'm a big softie, really. I'm also having now, at 23 years of age, the "pink princess phase" I spectacularly failed to have at the more usual age of 3).