willoyd

Depends on the book. Anything I think might be disposable, paperback is OK. Most of my fiction (non-classic) is this. Otherwise, I prefer hardback - for instance most of my history is hardback. I hate the way paperback books' spines crack up, I hate creased covers, especially when they are sold like that, but find it even more annoying if a cover gets crease damaged after purchase. They're overall more vulnerable to wear and tear. Paperback print size is too variable, and vulnerable to being too small (especially in non-fiction books). Too often the gutters of paperbacks are too narrow, and one's obliged to read into the gutter - ugh! As a result of all this, I find paperbacks far less portable than hardbacks which, whilst more cumbersome, are more robust (I take off the dustcovers for transport and slip my hardbacks into a temporary cover). The only advantages of paperbacks I find is that (a) cover designs are sometimes more exciting and {b} they're cheaper. (My preferred combination is a hardback and a Kindle version for travelling).

I didn't get that far! I have just finished Lorna Doone. A monumental tome that has taken me nigh on three weeks to read. It's not quite as long as Dickens's monsters, but it's a bigger read, almost overwhelming at times. Certainly taken me longer than anything else in recent years. Enjoyed it though.

Manchester By The Sea tonight. Little wonder that Casey Affleck won the best actor Oscar - superb performance. Moving story of how a man's brother and son, along with various ex-wives and other relatives, handle the aftermath of his death. Lee Chandler (Affleck) reluctantly returns to Manchester By The Sea, and not only has his brother's death to handle, but also the unexpected guardianship of his nephew, and the ongoing consequences of an horrific incident that eventually explains his reluctance and character. I found it completely immersive, and was amazed when the credits started rolling - was that really two hours?! The third in a row of outstanding films.

I enjoyed it, but for a musical I found it rather bland - only one song came close to sticking, and that really only because they kept repeating it. I've yet to see those other two - I'm hoping to get to Manchester by the Sea on Wednesday. So, like you, I'm fairly neutral on who wins, but of what I have seen, La La Land is definitely the most ordinary. It really doesn't stack up on 14 (?) nominations, and some of the nominations are only explicable in that it's a film about Hollywood, so nice familiar territory for the Academy members. In the Best Actress alone, it's inexplicable to me that Stone got a nomination ahead of Henson and Adams. I think it's particularly odd because, at least for me, there seems to actually be some really good stuff around this year. Could be a cultural thing though - I was chatting to two of my neighbours and both commented that they didn't know anybody directly who thought LLL was particularly special, and most felt it had been simply overhyped.

Went to see Jackie tonight. There are some really good films around at the moment, and this is certainly one of them. Built around an interview of Jackie Kennedy by an unnamed reporter around a week after the JFK assassination (but based on one she gave to Theodore H White at that time) with much of the 'action' told in flashback, it examines the immediate aftermath of the shooting from Jackie's perspective. It also provides an insight into how the JFK legend, particularly that of the White House as Camelot, came into being through Jackie Kennedy's determination that JFK's funeral would ensure he left his mark - there is a very telling moment in the film where Jackie questions the staff of the ambulance taking JFK's body to the autopsy as to whether they had heard of James Garfield, William Taft or Abraham Lincoln, the obvious results reinforcing her desire to model JFK's funeral on Lincoln's, even in the face of an awareness expressed by Bobby later on that the administration's abrupt demise had horribly limited its tangible achievements. As Jackie says early on in the interview, the truth is what is written, and she's determined that it's the legend that will be written - and it is, almost literally as she insists that "There will be more great presidents, but only one Camelot" is included in the reporter's interview report. Portman's portrayal is mesmerising, enhanced by the camera work which is amost claustrophobic in its intimacy. The complexity, contrariness and self-contradiction of a woman under enormous emotional stress in such a publicly exposed position is vividly portrayed. I also found the structuring of the plot enormously powerful, particularly in the way we don't see JFK himself until late on in the film, and images of those stunning moments in Dallas even later. When they come, they are violently shocking - even though it's all well known history. So, that's two excellent films in three days - both, coincidentally, centred around contemporaneous events. I've previously commented that I was surprised that Taraji P Henson hadn't received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Well, Natalie Portman has, rightly so. I'd go further. This morning the Oscar report on the Today programme suggested that Emma Stone was favourite to win. To my mind, that would be an absolute travesty of justice - Emma Stone is good, Henson is excellent, Portman, admittedly with a gift of a part, is extraordinary. Again, I've not seen the others, but it is going to have to be something outrageously good to be better than this. There are some good, largely understated, supporting performances too, especially from Peter Sarsgaard (Bobby Kennedy), Richard E Grant (Bill Walton) and Greta Gerweg (Nancy Tuckerman), although I found John Hurt just a little OTT for my taste. Oh - and the score is amazing too. Sorry if it sounds as if I'm getting at La La Land (I suppose I am - I found it all a bit underwhelming and even disappointing), but the soundtracks of both Hidden Figures and Jackie were better too - much better. Jackie probably has the edge though.

Went to see Hidden Figures this evening. Loved it, - a real must-see film. The three lead actresses, Taraji P Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monae are outstanding, but the support is equally good. It's an important story-line too, historically. One of those films I want to shout from the rooftops, "Go and see it!" Incidentally, Henson's performance for me knocked socks off Emma Stones's in La La Land (I haven't seen the others yet, but will see Portman's on Saturday), as did the film overall and the soundtrack, but no Oscar nomination. What planet is the Academy on?

Yes, I've read a couple before, and the earlier ones were better. Way back, I think I quite enjoyed Gridlock, but didn't think much of The First Casualty (didn't finish that either).

Thank you for the lovely comments. I'm keen to get stuck into that American list, but feel obliged to complete the English Counties Challenge first - no requirement to, but I have this feeling I'd never quite get around to doing so otherwise. But I'm definitely looking forward to stretching my reading into those (for me) lesser known quarters, the English Counties list being much more familiar territory.

Visited library earlier today, and my next reading group choice had arrived Two Brothers by Ben Elton. They warned me that it was already reserved, so I decided to get going on it this afternoon, in spite of being in the middle of Lorna Doone. OMG! It was AWFUL!! Where was his editor? The worst bit was the dialogue which was horrendously stilted and out of time, but the rest of the writing was little better, full of crude exposition (more tell not show!), clunky description, ("The sky that lowered over the young couple as they stepped out on to the icy pavement was so dark and so grey that it might have been forged from iron in the furnaces of the famous Krupps foundry in Essen and then bolted above Berlin with rivets of steel" - and that's on the second page!), cliches, and a desperate desire to TEACH us the history (it seems that Elton's incessant on-stage shouting has carried over to his writing). To cut a long story short (I can use cliches too, and this is not worth a long diatribe!), I lasted about 50 pages (and that took several deep breaths), realised that I was barely a tenth into what was rapidly becoming a major exercise in reading self-flagellation, and gave up. Much as I'm committed to my reading group, I just couldn't read any more of this unutterable drivel, especially when I consider how much great reading there is out there still to be read. What I do have, though, is a significant contender for the Duffer of the Year award - it's certainly worse than anything I read last year. I think the last time I felt this rude about a book was when somebody chose James Herbert's Ash for our group back in 2012. At least whoever has reserved Two Brothers after me will be getting it a bit earlier than they might have anticipated. Anyway, back to Lorna Doone (he says with a sigh of relief, as soft as the gentle on-shore breezes formed of an evening by the rising thermals of the famous Sahara desert in Africa, cooling the land that had spent all its daylight hours roasting in the full glare of a sun forged in the white heat of the creation of the Universe - or some such! ).

No, mine doesn't either. All to do with the proprietary formats used by Amazon I think (although, as I understand, the Kindle can read one of the main formats, mobi, well enough - but I'm no expert). I'm just rediscovering my local library, so am just starting to get my head round what they do and don't offer.

Sure is, but thank you, and hope you are better soon too! I've started and stopped reading my reading group's choice for this month, Two Brothers by Ben Elton. On the short list for the worst book of the year already. Thank goodness, I can go straight back to Lorna. More details on my own thread!

Or the library?

Interesting one this. Have to say that I have completely abandoned qualitative reading goals, as I started fixing too much on the number rather than the enjoyment/quality. Ironically, as soon as I did that, the actual number of books I started reading shot up, and last year saw me read more than ever before (but nowhere near 120 or even 100). But even if that wasn't the case, I'm certainly enjoying my reading more. Still have goals, they just don't involve numbers.

After one false start last year, I'm having another go at Lorna Doone. Amazing how different a book can feel - have just about caught up to where I left off last time, about one-eighth of the way in, and have loved it. Just shows how much successful book choice depends on mood. It helps that I've been able to have a good run at it, as am off sick from work, and not up to much more than sitting around on the sofa (lying generates too much coughing!).

Finished Love of Country (Madeline Bunting). Great read - thoroughly recommended.

Love of Country by Madeleine Bunting ***** Madeleine Bunting makes a series of journeys, spread over six years, through the Hebrides, where she examines the interaction between these 'outer' islands and the the main island of Great Britain. Starting off, almost in prologue, on Holy Island (not strictly part of the Hebrides, her book wends its way northwards with successive chapters on Jura, Iona, Staffa, Rum, Eriskay, Lewis and finally St Kilda (in which she also visits the Flannen Isles). Each chapter focuses on points of contact (or influence) between that island and the British 'mainland'. Thus, Staffa looks at the Victorian perception of the picturesque and the sublime as influenced by the island (e.g. Turner's painting), Rum at the colonialisation of the island and how it reflects the land development in the Highlands, Eriskay at the Jacobites (this is where Charles Stuart landed), Lewis at the Clearances, and so on. Bunting writes about some substantial topics, but her touch is always light, and she has mastered the art of saying much in relatively few words, perhaps reflecting her journalistic background - this book is only just over 300 pages but feels far more substantial. Her aside, for instance, on the influence of John Smith (buried on Iona) taught me so much about the New Labour movement and recent politics but was only a couple of pages. Other topics take up more space, or are even woven as threads into the narrative, such as the depth of the relationship between people and land, and how the conflict between that and Anglo-Saxon/Lowland attitudes to property both led to so much of the tragic history of these islands. The hoarding of property by the super-wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population sounds a familiar theme, proving there's nothing new in history. Maybe we could learn something from this today, but somehow I doubt that we will. It may be for someone who already knows the Hebrides that she hasn't a lot to say that is new, and that it's a bit superficial (as suggested by one Amazon reviewer) but as someone who has only made a couple of brief visits to Hebridean islands, I felt I had much to learn from this book. It was a riveting read, and has certainly persuaded me that a Hebridean visit is long overdue - but then I think that was the object of this, a Christmas present from OH, all along!

I'm in a minority of people who really didn't like Cloud Atlas (1-star). However, I loved The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (6-stars!), and have just finished The Bone Clocks for my book group - in the middle (4-stars). Generally, we all liked the last, but nobody was raving - mostly put off by the fantasy element, atlhough we pretty much all loved the rest. So - you take your choice!

I don't think there are really any book trends that annoy me, simply because I can ignore whatever what I don't want to read and read whatever I want. I've tried a few psychological thrillers (right term?) such as Girl on the Train, Gone Girl, The Silent Wife, and found them massively lacking, but they're only popular because a lot of people want to read them, and they're free to do that - I'll stick to other things. Having said that, there is one trend that worries rather than annoys me somewhat: the increasing infantilisation of children's reading. Not what is written, but what is read at what age. Even in the last decade, books that were popular with years 3/4 (8-9 years old) are now the mainstay of year 5/6 reading, and most of my year 5s can't physically read what most of my children lapped up a few years ago. I suspect, but can't be sure, that it's partly down to an ever decreasing number of parents who are reading with and to their children: it's scary how few do nowadays. Mainly because they are too busy (the children's own words!) it seems. They're also too busy apparently to teach them the time, how to tie shoelaces, how to tie a tie, how to hold a knife and fork.........at the youngest end of the school, the Early Years teachers are reporting more and more children starting school not properly toilet trained, so it's not really a book issue, but I find that aspect dispiriting.

My Oxford World Classics copy is just over 650 pages of actual text.

I agree with your summary - I think the only point we differ on is that it didn't put me off the book as a whole. I can recommend The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet - a completely different style, being an historical novel set in 18th century Japan, mostly in the European trading enclave. Not a murmur of fantasy anywhere.

The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell **** My reading group's choice for our February meeting, I was really looking forward to this rather chunky (620 page) book, intrigued to find out whether it matched either of Mitchell's books that I had previously read: The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet, rated one of my favourites on 6-stars, or Cloud Atlas, a rock bottom 1 star rating. It got off to a cracking start, introducing recalcitrant teenager Holly Sykes, at war with her pub-owning parents over her relationship with an older, distinctly unreliable, man. The book is divided into six long chapters, each almost a short story in its own right, each set in a different decade of Holly's life, successively told from different viewpoints, until the last one, which returns to a previous narrator. We soon discover that, whilst this story initially seems true to life, there are some distinctly odd things going on, not least 'visions' that Holly keeps having, and the reader gradually comes to realise (if they hadn't read the blurb!) that while the real-life aspects continue to develop, the whole story sits firmly in the fantasy genre. For me, anything but a fan of most fantasy, this was a bit of a downer, and is probably the main reason the book didn't in the end rate higher. Indeed, there were several occasions where I contemplated giving up altogether, and they were all dominated by the fantasy elements; by far and away the weakest of the six sections for me was the one where the fantasy came to the fore. Fortunately I didn't, because the thread of Holly's life was definitely worth following. I'm not sure what the book is about, although our understanding of mortality has to be in there, and Mitchell has, in the last section, some pretty strong things to say about the way we are treating our world, but to be honest, I'm not overly bothered, as the narrative was sufficiently strong to keep me on board, even if only just on a couple of occasions, whilst Mitchell's writing is, especially when he's not getting bogged down in fantasy, always eminently readable.

Thank you! It does then continue to beg the question of what the ranking is based on. (Can anyone post a link, as I can't yet find anything on the GH website).

Is this based on the Popsugar annual challenges? These categories all look very familiar - many of the have featured in the past couple of years.

Finished The Bone Clocks last night, having fairly galloped through the last half or so. It lagged a bit in the middle, and became rather too fantastic for me at one key point, but otherwise proved an enjoyable read. I particularly enjoyed the early pages and the last section. Ultimately, a 4 star (out of 6) read. Have moved on to my Christmas present from OH: Madeleine Bunting's Love of Country, about the Hebrides (Inner and Outer). First few pages very promising (and did enjoy the episodes I listened to when it was Radio 4 Book of the Week around Christmas time).