BookJumper

Oooh, so many pretty words. The one that springs to mind right now this instant is: Prelapsarian: n, innocent. I found this while flipping through Foyle's Philavery in Foyle's (imagine that!) and thought it was terribly ingenious and posh, so I made sure I snuck it into my dissertation. It's the small pleasures...!

That's probably a matter of edition Vinay; in England at least they're mostly available as horribly small Mass Market paperbacks, in which format most of them are indeed between 4-500 pages.

I've just come back from seeing Nowhere Boy with a friend who's a Beatlemaniac to my same degree; we're both in several minds about it, having loved certain bits and having being extremely disappointed with other bits.

Fear not, the Resident Shakespearean is at hand so: Pretty much all modern editions, including Arden for the most part, modernise spelling though they leave grammar and syntax be as much as possible - spelling wasn't fixed in Shakespeare's time, which means that it was all over the place, with the same word often being written three different ways in the course of a single page etc. The transition from Wyrd to Weird is probably just a case of modernised spelling then, although of course with it one loses the layer of meaning relating to Fate. And re: Wyrd ---> Fate. The Moirae (or Fates or Destinies) of Greek Mythology were the three sisters who wove and cut the threads of life; they were feared by mortals and gods alike, for gods too could die if the Moirae cut their thread.

Willoyd - glad to see Vinay's list has inspired you may I urge you towards Les Miserabl�s, as it's also my favourite book?

Indeed, Different Seasons is the way to go. It also contains The Body, upon which Stand by Me with Will Wheaton and River Phoenix was based.

Some basic questions to consider: 1. Who was your favourite character and why? The poor king. For once in Shakespeare, he's all round lovely and completely blameless, yet they still off him - quite sad, really. 2. Was there a particular part you enjoyed/disliked more than the rest? Contrary to the experience of most, I've never 'got' the witches on paper - I have trouble visualising things - so I didn't care for their parts much; instead, I'm a big fan of Macbeth's increasingly rambling (or ar they?) speeches, as they contain some of the best lines in Shakespeare, such as, Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (Act V, Scene v). 3. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/by this author, has it encouraged you to read more? No, this is by all means not my first encounter with Shakespeare I have previously read Hamlet, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night and The Tempest (Antony and Cleopatra and The Tempest being the only two that I haven't also seen onstage and/or on tape); several more I have seen onstage and/or tape but have not read yet. To answer the second question - I have a Master's in Shakespearean Studies; does it sound like I need further encouraging ? 4. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with? See question 2: with the witches on occasion. 5. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience? This is not my favourite Shakespeare play by any means (King Lear, Anthony and Cleopatra and Twelfth Night are currently duelling to the death for that title); however yes, I did enjoy it as I do most of William's work. The only two I haven't enjoyed really are Othello (which, though brilliant, I find too upsetting to be enjoyable) and The Tempest (which I simply didn't 'get'). Some genre specific questions: 1. The validity of reading plays has been debated several times on this forum: some argue that plays are meant to be experienced, not read. Do you believe that is true of Macbeth? Probably to a lesser extent than for most of William's work, seeing as - apart from the end battle, which could be quite big and confusing and exciting onstage - the play is really rather straightforward.* To be honest however, if I were to see it I would probably change my mind and become aware of all sorts of page-to-stage complexities that weren't apparent upon first reading the text. * it should be noted that precisely because of its shortness and straightforwardness, both unusual for Shakespeare, many scholars repute Macbeth to be an incomplete play with bits missing. On an intuitive level, this seems to me to make sense. 2. How did you read this play? Did you read all the indications, or only the dialogues? Did you imagine how it might be enacted, which actor could play which character? I read everything, from the copyright page to Kenneth Muir's (The Arden Shakespeare's editor for Macbeth) excellent footnotes. Every little helps, when - see other question 2 - one has no powers of visualisation. I actually have to strain and cause myself a headache to imagine how the scene might be enacted and by whom; it's something I can do if required but need time and pen & paper for. 3. If you've previously seen Macbeth at the theater, how did reading it compare? Did you notice things you hadn't as a spectator? Alas, not yet.

It can't be that censored, given it's everywhere. By everywhere I mean that an average two out of three books I buy gets charity shopped unfinished for the reason at hand - surely the topic can't be disapproved of that much by the world at large if it's near impossible for people like me to avoid it. To be honest, I'm no fan of gratuitous violence and gore, either - that's why I like gothic and physichological horror but don't think much of the splatterfests that are so popular nowadays - however, may I hazard a further guess as to why sex seems to bother some people more than violence and gore do? Quite far from being something we're not used to, it's something some people are far too used to. While it is true that sex is a fact of adult life, it is by no means a serene affair for people everywhere. My own avoidance of sex in books/films/even songs stems from experiences I don't want to relive more than is necessary; I know I'm a pretty extreme case but let me tell you, it is by no means isolated.

Today I've acquired a nice bi-colour Penguin volume of stories by Poe, courtesy of The Times; I've also been in all of two bookshops and a poetry library where I bought and borrowed nowt, but enlarged my wishlist considerably. I also carted the special edition hardback of Shades of Grey around all day in the misplaced hope that I'd find a moment or two to read... fool! ETA: OH The Hero built my new mini-shelf yesterday so I spent many happy hours last night re-arranging my collection; I am nowhere near finished so tomorrow should be fun!

... ooooh, flawed hero in tragic love story? I like the sound of this. Say what you will, I liked Coppola's Dracula - 'creative' though it was in parts - and the thing I liked the most about it was the bit about Vlad Tepesh and his wife... *wails and sobs*!

... what's it called, Heaven?! Can I come visit??

I don't read romance books for a variety of reasons which include trying to avoid sex in books wherever possible, as they tend to make me uncomfortable at best and upset me greatly at worst. In other types of books, I will put up with sex scenes if they're well-written and serve the narrative - Keith Miller's The Book of Flying, for instance, contains some absolutely stunningly written scenes which advance the plot and character development, so I accept that they have their place and brave stoically through them even though I'd rather not have to. However, a lot of books have sex scenes which seem to serve no purpose other than pandering to a wider audience. One example of this is Scarlett Thomas's The End of Mr Y. Now, my opinion on this book is usually less than popular - it has been rated the least helpful of all my Amazon reviews, for instance. But, I beg you to consider. I thought I'd bought a book about quantum physics, metaphysics, time travel, philosophy... exactly were did the self-deprecating descriptions of the unlikeable heroine being [censores self in order not to have to ban self] on top of a glass tabletop by an equally unlikeable married colleague fit into all this? The problem is precisely that: they didn't. They jarred so much it hurt, and felt to me like a lifeline thrown to the kind of reader unable or unwilling to follow anything more profound for the length of the book. I find it very sad that what would otherwise have been my mind-bogglingly clever book of the year had been cheapened so.

Torquato Tasso, Gerusalem Delivered - the. most. boring. epic. poem. of. all. time, period. A scene in particular stuck with me through the years: Crusader X had been fighting to the death with Infidel Y aka the Disguised Damsel; when she is wounded and her identity revealed, you'd expect an 'I've always loved you! Here, die in my arms,' tearjerker, but no: her last words to the Christian she's always loved in secret are not 'I love you' or 'Kiss me' but 'Convert me'... what?!?!? D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover - sure, the man can write but could he have been any more disgustingly mysogynistic? And no, it's not the time he wrote in, because otherwise Shakespeare wouldn't (several centuries earlier) have been able to write from a believable female perspective, as he does in Twelfth Night and Two Gentlemen of Verona, for instance. I'll have to think about #3.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is easily Science Fiction - Douglas was a big science buff and you could so tell by reading his books bless him. I'd personally slot Jasper (cross-genre though he is) more into Science Fiction than Fantasy also; think of the time-travel, alternative history, genetic resequencing, inventions, dystopian elements...

I've been saying 'toodles' all this time:lurker: I'm not exactly sure why, seeing as to 'toddle' is quite clearly the root for the rather common word 'toddler' *throws all academic paraphernalia in the Thames* I am unworthy! It seems like a lot of good things get cancelled after the 2nd season - Joan of Arcadia was , and apparently so was the awesome-looking Carnivale. What the...?!

Oh, I know all about Gilmore Girls *toodles off to edit OP*, back in Liverpool me and the housemates used to have big marathons thereof ! I'll watch Scrubs or That 70's Show if I catch re-reruns on the telly, but I'm not enough of a fan to want to own them, I don't think Flashforward I'm deliberately avoiding as I'm meaning to read the book and apparently the series is quite unfaithful, so I rather want to read the book first. V sounds a bit Mars Attack-ish which is of course a good thing; I'll keep my eyes peeled.

What would you say are the best recent-ish TV series in the following categories, apart from the ones I'll mention to illustrate said categories? Fantastic Buffy the Vampire Slayer Being Human Dead Like Me Joan of Arcadia Supernatural Heroes Carnivale Comedy House M.D. Ugly Betty Glee Gilmore Girls I look forward to your suggestions !

... what Noll said! Thank you Anika, you're a star .

... your middle name is Echo? Now that is awesome - respect *bows*.

My name refers to the ability, possessed by Jasper Fforde's heroine Thursday Next, to jump in and out of fiction. *sigh*... I wish!

I never said or implied that it was pornography - however, because of certain circumstances I find myself made anything between very uncomfortable and utterly miserable by the entire theme, so I'm sure you can appreciate how the most sexual book you've ever read is probably not a good one for me to be reading, particularly at this juncture.

Stephen Fry could make a shopping list sound fabulously interesting, which is why at some point I'll listen to him reading the latter HP books, which I could never finish. His The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a gem; his loveable lunacy is the same brand as Douglas Adams's so he just delivers the wordplay so well. Stephen Brigg's Good Omens is quite good, though I do maintain that Fry would have done it even better.

On occasion, people over on the Amazon fiction boards will ask whether anyone knows of a good book forum; so far I've kept this place under wraps as I don't really want to have to ban the Netherworld out of all the shameless self-promoters and trolls that infestate the place, however I'm wondering whether I shouldn't be targeting the genuine readers that are there also. Thoughts?

Against Nature I once saw in the British Library Shop and it did intrigue me; however the 'decadent' pleasures explored within are probably too 'decadent' for my taste (I don't like books with any amount, shape or form of sex in them).

If you loved Good Omens, you'll love Discworld Too - after all, Sir Terry coauthored Good Omens so you already know you like his style! Also, I think you might have missed out, Potterwise - IMHO, books 1 to 4 are the only ones worth reading.