I did read this month's book. It's just that my response was so ... lacking that I put off posting and put off posting and here we are, 23 September and I am posting.
You know, I am just not a Tim Wynne-Jones fan (not to be confused in ANY way with Diana Wynne Jones--no hypen; Ms. Jones is a Brit and Mr. Wynne-Jones is Canadian) (you can totally tell by his photo). This is my third Wynne-Jones book and I'm yet again feeling it lacked lustre.
He gets some interesting characters who have Issues, but they don't do much except Think Thoughts. Mm. Yes.
I couldn't figure what kind of story A Thief in the House of Memory was. Psychological coming-of-age? Murder mystery? Spooky ghost story? No idea, even now.
Argh!
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 01, 2007
BOOK THIEF, THE
Any commentary on The Book Thief? I read it last summer; we'll see what I can remember.
I didn't love it--really, I thought it was too long and tended to ramble. It was depressing and dark and cold. All that remains with me visually are a few flashes of the basement and the drawings the artist did.
I remember it was a difficult read, as in I had to force myself to finish it.
. . . that's all I can dredge up! Other thoughts? I know we are all pretty busy right now.
I didn't love it--really, I thought it was too long and tended to ramble. It was depressing and dark and cold. All that remains with me visually are a few flashes of the basement and the drawings the artist did.
I remember it was a difficult read, as in I had to force myself to finish it.
. . . that's all I can dredge up! Other thoughts? I know we are all pretty busy right now.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Absolutely, Positively Not a bad book
Hmm. Absolutely, Positively Not was amusing, very tongue-in-cheek and I read it in one sitting.
The story was predictable (clichéd at times) but also funny. Comical may be a better word. The characters were likeable and I am so glad it wasn't all about the teacher leading Steven along the Path of Knowledge. I'm glad Mr. Bowman fell off his pedestal and that Steven had to come to terms with his teacher's imperfection. I did have some issues with Rachel. She was just about too earthy Type A for me; her actions were extreme and unrealistic at times.
Favorite part: after Rachel cheers Steven for finally telling coming out and starts getting all squidgy on him, (pg. 126) she continues:
Steven's answer is so quick, so definite; he's obviously put some thought into the subject. That still makes me laugh! I think it is the "actually" that makes the line. Hysterical.
I did not like how the story ends just before the complicated part begins. Or not so much where it ended as much as where Steven was. The central point of the book: Steven wants all the "answers" -- the ones that any person wants for instant relationship/life success. He thinks that if he just looks hard enough or talks to the right person and asks the right questions, he'll be enlightened. I don't think Steven figured out that that's a pipe dream, which left me without a feeling of closure. I think Steven still expects Mike to have the magic words to "fix" him (or he's expecting red-hot romance).
Then again, there's a lot to be said just for finding someone in the same boat.
Other opinions?
The story was predictable (clichéd at times) but also funny. Comical may be a better word. The characters were likeable and I am so glad it wasn't all about the teacher leading Steven along the Path of Knowledge. I'm glad Mr. Bowman fell off his pedestal and that Steven had to come to terms with his teacher's imperfection. I did have some issues with Rachel. She was just about too earthy Type A for me; her actions were extreme and unrealistic at times.
Favorite part: after Rachel cheers Steven for finally telling coming out and starts getting all squidgy on him, (pg. 126) she continues:
"Which guy in our class do you think is the sexiest?"
"I have no idea."
Actually, it was Victor Sanchez.
Steven's answer is so quick, so definite; he's obviously put some thought into the subject. That still makes me laugh! I think it is the "actually" that makes the line. Hysterical.
I did not like how the story ends just before the complicated part begins. Or not so much where it ended as much as where Steven was. The central point of the book: Steven wants all the "answers" -- the ones that any person wants for instant relationship/life success. He thinks that if he just looks hard enough or talks to the right person and asks the right questions, he'll be enlightened. I don't think Steven figured out that that's a pipe dream, which left me without a feeling of closure. I think Steven still expects Mike to have the magic words to "fix" him (or he's expecting red-hot romance).
Then again, there's a lot to be said just for finding someone in the same boat.
Other opinions?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
electricity
Zap by Paul Fleischman--
It sounds tacky, but this book was fun fun and I can honestly describe it as a ROMP. Fleischman's foreward left me dubious--cribbing seven plays into one? Sounds confusing. But he successfully took a mess of typical genres apart and slapped them back together. The cross-play travel reminded me of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books, if anyone else has read them.
I think my favorite part was when the actors broke character and/or allowed a layer of their personal reality to influence the scene. The fishbowl scene was hysterical.
This was a short book, so I don't have a lot to say besides I really enjoyed reading it and Fleischman continues to amaze me with his myriad storytelling abilities. So many genres, so many methods.
It sounds tacky, but this book was fun fun and I can honestly describe it as a ROMP. Fleischman's foreward left me dubious--cribbing seven plays into one? Sounds confusing. But he successfully took a mess of typical genres apart and slapped them back together. The cross-play travel reminded me of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books, if anyone else has read them.
I think my favorite part was when the actors broke character and/or allowed a layer of their personal reality to influence the scene. The fishbowl scene was hysterical.
This was a short book, so I don't have a lot to say besides I really enjoyed reading it and Fleischman continues to amaze me with his myriad storytelling abilities. So many genres, so many methods.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Blown Moon
I was really excited about reading Blow Out the Moon. It's a boarding school book, part of a small genre, and it's the best kind: foreigner boarder! (I used to be really keen on these--the English girl at an Australian boarding school (and vice versa), English evacuees sent to the US because of WWII and then returning, etc. Classic fish out of water setup.)
Ach; disappointment! Was Koponen going for a story or a biographical account of her life? The book straddles an uncomfortable position between "this is what really happened" and fiction, settling for neither, leaving the reader (me, anyways) confused. Pick one or the other, please. Sometimes there was too much exposition, not enough character development. Other times, Koponen describes herself as a child--especially her thinking processes--in an apt, realistic manner.
Either way, clean up the cutesy writing and CUT BACK ON EXCLAMATION POINTS. We also know (how we know, how you repeat it over and over) that you really, really, really, REALLY like Henry. We don't know why (or really care), but we know you do.
It's a screaming "First Novel."
Ach; disappointment! Was Koponen going for a story or a biographical account of her life? The book straddles an uncomfortable position between "this is what really happened" and fiction, settling for neither, leaving the reader (me, anyways) confused. Pick one or the other, please. Sometimes there was too much exposition, not enough character development. Other times, Koponen describes herself as a child--especially her thinking processes--in an apt, realistic manner.
Either way, clean up the cutesy writing and CUT BACK ON EXCLAMATION POINTS. We also know (how we know, how you repeat it over and over) that you really, really, really, REALLY like Henry. We don't know why (or really care), but we know you do.
It's a screaming "First Novel."
Friday, March 16, 2007
I hate self-referential books
[If you haven't read The Book of Lost Things yet, don't read this--SPOILERS ABOUND!]
I do, it's true. I almost lost my love for Stephen King's Dark Tower books when he appeared as himself in the last parts of the epic. Last week, I had to put Richard Powers's Galatea 2.2 down (instead of throwing it across the room; it was a library book) after discovering "R.P." was Mr. Powers himself. It's like the author wants to be patted on the head: now aren't YOU clever!
Granted, John Connolly is not David, the revealed author of The Book of Lost Things, but the text screams CLEVER CLEVER!!! at me. Also, DERISIVE! and CHILDISH! (Don't confuse that with childLIKE, a perfectly fine thing to have in a young-person's book.)
Alas, I am left puzzled. I still can't decide if I liked it or not. I didn't hate it, but it didn't ring any bells for me either. Technically, the book is published for adults (it won nominations for being a YA crossover) but it reads more like the sort of story an adult thinks hearkens back to oh-so innocent childhood. The stripped down narrative is merely a collection of snapshots from fractured fairy tales, most with pre-Victorian morbidness added back in--and then some. The portions of darkdark blood and guts did not mesh with the ridiculous bits, like the whole seven dwarfs scenario.
It frustrated me to no end how little the inhabitants of Fairyland/Dreamland/The Afterlife/whatever knew about their country. The first rule of fantasy is there must be rules--some logic, please! But a whole population of individuals who have no local or historical knowledge? Instead of rich characters, they become a whole lotta cutouts, reliant on what little of their personalities Connolly chose to include and what we know about them from general knowledge--Roland, for example. Here's a knight*** who cannot remember the order of kings and queens. And don't get me started on the dumb townspeople.
So David killed Rumpelstiltskin? Anansi? Coyote? Kokopelli? Loki? The Devil? Is all Heaven safe now--or was that Hell? Is the afterlife the stuff books are made of? Where is everyone else who died? Ack!
Why does the woman in the tower want David? Was she calling the whole time? Is she modelled after a fairyland character and I'm totally missing it?
Did anyone else know the answer to the troll's riddle? Hello! Labyrinth!
There's the whole copout with the plane crash, (COME ON--WHAT ARE THE ODDS???) meaning one could legitimately finish the book thinking David was just a nutty, dreamy man with an imagination and troubled childhood. (The plane crash also led me to believe David was in a Donnie Darko situation, dead and just ambling around the empty spaces in his mind--something he asks Roland on page 208.) On a whole, the book was too neat and tidy. David never has to work hard at anything; it all comes to him rather easily. All natural, no real effort or sacrifice. The Woodsman has Great Timing at the end, of course.
Maybe I've read too many fairy tales and fantasy stories to enjoy this rehash?
The end left a sour taste in my mouth. Not a bad book, but it had the potential to be better.
***Incidentally, Roland is the main character of Stephen King's Dark Tower books, as in R. Browning's "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came." But he's a different sort of knight, one with pistols slung around his hips and grit in his teeth.
I do, it's true. I almost lost my love for Stephen King's Dark Tower books when he appeared as himself in the last parts of the epic. Last week, I had to put Richard Powers's Galatea 2.2 down (instead of throwing it across the room; it was a library book) after discovering "R.P." was Mr. Powers himself. It's like the author wants to be patted on the head: now aren't YOU clever!
Granted, John Connolly is not David, the revealed author of The Book of Lost Things, but the text screams CLEVER CLEVER!!! at me. Also, DERISIVE! and CHILDISH! (Don't confuse that with childLIKE, a perfectly fine thing to have in a young-person's book.)
Alas, I am left puzzled. I still can't decide if I liked it or not. I didn't hate it, but it didn't ring any bells for me either. Technically, the book is published for adults (it won nominations for being a YA crossover) but it reads more like the sort of story an adult thinks hearkens back to oh-so innocent childhood. The stripped down narrative is merely a collection of snapshots from fractured fairy tales, most with pre-Victorian morbidness added back in--and then some. The portions of darkdark blood and guts did not mesh with the ridiculous bits, like the whole seven dwarfs scenario.
It frustrated me to no end how little the inhabitants of Fairyland/Dreamland/The Afterlife/whatever knew about their country. The first rule of fantasy is there must be rules--some logic, please! But a whole population of individuals who have no local or historical knowledge? Instead of rich characters, they become a whole lotta cutouts, reliant on what little of their personalities Connolly chose to include and what we know about them from general knowledge--Roland, for example. Here's a knight*** who cannot remember the order of kings and queens. And don't get me started on the dumb townspeople.
So David killed Rumpelstiltskin? Anansi? Coyote? Kokopelli? Loki? The Devil? Is all Heaven safe now--or was that Hell? Is the afterlife the stuff books are made of? Where is everyone else who died? Ack!
Why does the woman in the tower want David? Was she calling the whole time? Is she modelled after a fairyland character and I'm totally missing it?
Did anyone else know the answer to the troll's riddle? Hello! Labyrinth!
There's the whole copout with the plane crash, (COME ON--WHAT ARE THE ODDS???) meaning one could legitimately finish the book thinking David was just a nutty, dreamy man with an imagination and troubled childhood. (The plane crash also led me to believe David was in a Donnie Darko situation, dead and just ambling around the empty spaces in his mind--something he asks Roland on page 208.) On a whole, the book was too neat and tidy. David never has to work hard at anything; it all comes to him rather easily. All natural, no real effort or sacrifice. The Woodsman has Great Timing at the end, of course.
Maybe I've read too many fairy tales and fantasy stories to enjoy this rehash?
The end left a sour taste in my mouth. Not a bad book, but it had the potential to be better.
***Incidentally, Roland is the main character of Stephen King's Dark Tower books, as in R. Browning's "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came." But he's a different sort of knight, one with pistols slung around his hips and grit in his teeth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
