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.

I have not seen the production you're asking about, Amelie, but I do share your love of this play and I have seen other productions. I think the thing with plays is that you often subconciously give the actors and the director a bit more ... freedom. I don't know if it's the case with you, but I've found that to hold true for myself and some of my friends. Somehow when you read a play and then see it on stage, your mind often goes "well, it's a play, we're all SUPPOSED to interpret it differently". With books it's a bit different, it's more "this is the way it was written and that's it! You ruined it with your stupid movie adaptation!" But with plays, when there is so much more left for you to fill in (the surroundings, clothes, the look of the characters), you tend to give more freedom for others to do that too. Am I making any sense? All in all, I guess my advice would be to see if the play's getting good reviews in general, and if so, go see it. You might hate it, but it's not taking anything away from you, is it?

Interesting quote, Michelle. Without actually taking the trouble to read the original piece (sorry!) I think what he means is actually something I've discussed with my friends as well. That is, the difference between "I like it" and "it was well done". It's like... you can recognize good quality even if it's not your type. It's not just literature, mind you, and in fact I think in literature it is often a bit more difficult to see the difference. But say you hate ... oh, I don't know, salmon. You just don't like it no matter what. It doesn't take away from the quality of the ingredients, the skill in cooking it, in the pure genius and brilliancy of the dish, that you don't like it. I myself cannot stand Cabernet Sauvignon wines. I can still appreciate the wine as well-made and truly amazing wine of indisputably great quality, just not one I personally, due to my preferences and tastes, like. And I think that's what Sir Peter's saying. Personal opinion is always a matter of taste. But we can, despite our tastes, say that a book was a truly amazing piece of literary art. Can we not? And when it comes to prize like the Booker Prize, we should focus on the pure quality, not just how it hits our tastebuds. Personally, I aplaud his courage in pointing that out instead of meekly pandering for popularity.

Oh no! Really? I adored Paddy Clarke! It's been years and years since I read it, and can't rememmber anything exact but the general overall feeling of loving it. It's on my list of books to reread. I'll have to take a closer look at the nominated books, as I've usually liked them. Not that I've particularly sought out to read the books nominated in any special way, but I do remember picking up a book more than once or twice with the sticker "winner of .." or "nominated for..." and enjoying the book very much.

After thinking about Room throughout the day I can't say I'm any clearer about my feelings about it. The subject was such a horrible one, and to think what Jack's Ma had to go through is just... I think the point of view, to tell the story as Jack, made it at the same time interesting and fresh, and palatable. I wonder, would it have been the same experience, if the story was told from her point of view instead? Did we, as readers, need to be put in Jack's shoes (or socks as it were) in order to come out of it all unharmed? Jack's Ma said everything changed after Jack was born, and I guess he saved her, also mentally, spiritually. I really enjoyed, towards the end of the book, how Jack pointed out some rather ridiculous aspects of our everyday life. How most of htings in the outside are just repeat. Or some of the inconsistencies that we do, or some other weirdness, like the many brushes he was confused about. So many different things, all called the same? Confusing. And I don't know, do kids feel that way in general? Or do they learn to take it in their stride if they grow up with those things? I can't remember for my own sake, and as I don't have kids... That was kind of fun. In a sort of ironic way. There are several things in this book I'd love to think through more in detail (especially the characters like Grandpa and his reaction; Steppa's role and the way he stood to the challenge and really was a rock; Grandma who remained rather a one-dimensional, at least to me...) but I don't want to spoil it to anyone. Especially since I really did not grasp the whole situation in the beginning myself, and that realization make a huge difference to me and how I felt about this book. I liked it. Would definitely recommend it to others. Should I rate it now? What's the scale? What's the criteria for each rating? Oh, I don't know. I'll say I liked it, I'm really glad I read it, and that's it. Is that ok?

It's not, but it's very personal, your really get under Biony's skin and in her head. I actually had to check! That's how personal, and intimate even, it felt to me. I don't think I really remember reading that many 1st person stories, come to think of it. Except of course Room, which frankie suggested. But I think while Room was captivating and truly heart-wrenching, Atonement was more of a tear-jerker.

Oh yeah, it'll make you cry! It's a really good book, despite the rather tedious middle part.

Stopped by to check out the bookstore, didn't mean to but came home with three books. How does that happen?? Got grief for it, too. But "buying new books" is almost the same as "I'm going to get rid of some of these", right? I got HoneyMoney by Catherine Hakim, Willpower by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney as well as long overdue Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis. All non-fiction, oddly, but then again, I do have boxes after boxes of fiction to unpack... Has anyone read any of these? I know Liar's Poker at least has been around for quite some time.

Finished Room. I really liked it in the end, and to be perfectly honest, once I realised (in the fairly beginning) that the surroundings of Jack and Ma weren't quite what I thought they were, the story took a real twist to the better. Or maybe better is the wrong word, more interesting. Though that's what you're supposed to say when you don't like something, wasn't that so? Also, once the situation changed dramatically, Jack's voice got more realistic in my mind. It was really more like a child talking, not just someone trying to sound like a child. I can't really wrap my head around this one yet in any constructive manner, I really just devoured the last 100 or so pages that it's still a bit of a blur in my mind. I guess this cold of mine (better now, thankfully!) was a blessing in disguise. I got to finish my book and to organize the basement!

Oh, I loved The Virgin Suicides! I hope you enjoy it too. I finished Room today, I have to say it really came to its own in the end. I can't wait to discuss it with my bookclub girls and of course you all here.

Thanks Kylie! I'm really fond of the floor-to-ceiling Billy's, if I say so myself. And while arranging the books by color does sound a bit superanalmicromanager, it does make the wall look spectacular. I'll think about photos once we get this hassle of moving over and done with for good. The photos you've all posted are wonderful!