LinRobinson

Can't agree. For one thing, to class Slaughterhouse 5 as a "anti-war satire" misses a lot of big points. But beyond that, Catch 22 is just really a little silly. Has a whole Hogan's Heros, M.A.S.H. feel to it. Slaughterhouse 5--apart from its literary innovation--isn't really an attempt to be "anti-war" (neither was Catch 22) though it got interpreted as that in the Sixties and it seems to have stuck. And is not a satire by any means. Anybody reading Vonnegutt as "satire" is missing out big time. Don't let the tone fool you, he's serious as a heart attack and he doesn't bother satirizing: he indicts.

I have never understood the appeal of this book. The only thing I've ever ome up with is that they make you read it in school and compared to the Brontes and Silas Marner and picking the way through MacBeth on a page instead of stage, it seems pretty good, and actually might have something to do with the lives of the teenagers reading it, unlike the others. But why people STILL say they like it, once grown up and exposed to other books, is beyond me.

Bonfire of the Vanities. Had almost nothing to do with the book.

At the moment I'd say the current British version of King's Solomon's Mines. Worse than the fem-nazi Patrick Swayse version. Quartermain was the model for Indian Jones and all those temple-robbing serials and games. How could you possible reduce this novel to something with no action and nothing but Brit social snottery and bickering with a singularly unattractive female lead. I can count on one hand the number of films I couldn't get through, but I pulled the plug on this one after 20 minutes. What an incredible turkey.

Gotta love the attitude

After a fashion

I'm kind of partial to Rorschach at the moment. (I assume that says something about my pysche...but then that's what Rorshach is all about, huh?)