|
Mind_Taker posted:I don't think Dumas was trying to conceal the identity of the Count from the reader, just from the other characters. While I do agree that some parts of the "high society" section of the book were a bit tedious, I think overall the book was fantastic and each chapter was important to the story. It's a coincidence, but I'm reading the Count of Monte Cristo right now. Probably one of the most entertaining classic novels I've read in a while, but it is just taking me so long to finish it. It's a bit paradoxical in that I'm actually enjoying it, but still have the sensation that I have to struggle through it. A lot of that probably has to do with the fact that I'm reading it in French, though, meaning that I can't read as fast as I normally would and that I occasionally have to look words up.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
General Battuta posted:What does it pretend to? I'll explain this a little more--I'm not saying this is the way you have to feel about what you enjoy reading; it's just how I feel about it. There are two things I notice almost immediately and strongly dislike about a book. One is when the author uses too many words. Two is when he uses unnecessarily long words (or, put another way, when he uses too many syllables). McCarthy goes far out of his way to do both. It reads very much to me like he is trying to impress me with his vocabulary and presentation. Sure, the meaning of a sentence is perfectly clear as long as you know all the words he's using and read it slowly. But he's forcing me to keep a thesaurus nearby and read slowly and I resent him for it--and I've ground my way through two and a half of his books and I'm yet to see any real reward for doing so. The stories and characters are unremarkable; the prose itself is supposed to be the attraction. So to me McCarthy's writing does very much come across as "look how amazingly talented I am, and if you don't get it then you're a literary dullard." (OK, that last part is probably more how his fans regard the non-fans.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I'll explain this a little more--I'm not saying this is the way you have to feel about what you enjoy reading; it's just how I feel about it. I always read with a dictionary close by, doesn't everybody? It's a great way to expand my own vocabulary and makes the experience of reading (and ultimately, writing) that much richer in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
If a word stays in my head for a couple days or if I suspect the author just lobbed an underhanded sex joke my way, then I'll look it up. Otherwise I tend to just re-read the sentence/paragraph a few times to get the gist of it, move on. Maybe a year later I see the word again and this time the setting is different enough for me to run a syntax parser/analysis or like stomp and crush and push a triangle block through a square hole in a metaphorical internal rosetta stone of simplified definitions. Then I think "Coo'. Glabrous means fluffy." Who needs a dictionary? I cannot get through Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. It's a letter/diary combination thing like, I don't know, epistolary loving bullshit. Feels like Adrian Mole crossed with arabs and an unnecessarily verbose early Bond villian plus some heavy-handed philosophical elements. It doesn't help I just read We Need To Talk About Kevin, either, in that being a good novel utilizing a letter-based narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Except that 'glabrous' is the exact opposite of fluffy and actually refers to something smooth and hairless  . I had to look it up myself, but it still goes to show that it can sometimes be dangerous to deduce the meaning of unknown words purely from context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:It's a coincidence, but I'm reading the Count of Monte Cristo right now. Probably one of the most entertaining classic novels I've read in a while, but it is just taking me so long to finish it. It's a bit paradoxical in that I'm actually enjoying it, but still have the sensation that I have to struggle through it. This is pretty much how I felt. And once it started dragging on with that high society part I decided I needed a break from it, and I just never came back to it. I really should pick it up again because it was by no means unenjoyable, just too long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
Mustached5thGrader posted:The Gunslinger. What a boring piece of poo poo. I felt the same way. I was so excited to read the beloved Dark Tower series and couldn't even get through the first book. It was a chore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Lately, I've been having some issue finishing Guns, Germ, and Steel. I don't know why either as I find it interesting. I normally don't have a problem with not finishing books. I mean I was able to get through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead even though I wanted to the throw them the out the nearest window. As soon as I finish with what I'm currently reading, I'm going to give it another try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a fascinating read, but I don't blame you for having some trouble with it. I haven't finished it myself, largely because it's a highly historical text that is kind of dry in large swaths. It can't really help it. As cool as the history is you're still basically wading through a REALLY long history lecture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
National Geographic turned GG&S into a three part documentary series that presents the idea of the book in a more streamlined and entertaining way, you could give that a shot if you want to get a handle on the concepts without reading the actual text.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Farbtoner posted:National Geographic turned GG&S into a three part documentary series that presents the idea of the book in a more streamlined and entertaining way, you could give that a shot if you want to get a handle on the concepts without reading the actual text. To contribute, I recently borrowed Turing's Cathedral by George Dyson from the library, and I got only four chapters in before I had to give up. It's an interesting subject (the early history of computers, despite the title largely focused on Von Neumann's contributions), but Dyson cannot craft a coherent narrative. The second chapter details the history of the founding of Pennsylvania and parts of the Revolutionary War, just because that's where the Institute for Advanced Study (where Von Neumann and other notables later worked) is located. The rest of the information (mini-bio of William Penn) is completely irrelevant to the book's supposed topic. I'm all for tangents, but at least up to where I got, half the book consisted of tangents. And the parts that are actually related to the topic of computing read like he took his notes for each chapter and threw them into the air before writing it. Every paragraph seems nearly completely disjointed from the previous. It's a shame, since the topic of the book seems really interesting, but it's completely unreadable except for brief moments of readable, eloquent prose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
I feel really bad but I think I might have to put down The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. I really enjoyed the first book but I'm so bored. I am 200 pages in, and while I enjoy reading about the magic, the main characters isn't loving doing anything. He is just regaling useless tales about the time he went to the bar but didn't see the girl he loves so he went home and then went to school. And I know there is some weird ninja sex coming up so I'm just losing steam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I know this is a horrible cliche but McCarthy is a writer who operates at a level that you need to work up to. Even once you're 'prepared' you need to really invest in order to get something out. The payoff is enormous, he's one of the finest English language novelists to ever live, but he's not an easily accessible author. What?! He has simplistic ideas and writes the imagery of a Final Fantasy cut-scene. #The paragraph you quoted as an example of good writing shows a total lack of control over his prose. I am OK fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
RebBrownies posted:I feel really bad but I think I might have to put down The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. I really enjoyed the first book but I'm so bored. I am 200 pages in, and while I enjoy reading about the magic, the main characters isn't loving doing anything. He is just regaling useless tales about the time he went to the bar but didn't see the girl he loves so he went home and then went to school. And I know there is some weird ninja sex coming up so I'm just losing steam. It gets worse. If it hasn't caught you yet, drop it like a hot rock and move on to something else. Yea, the dude can write, but god drat what he chooses to write is so god damned boring it's crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
I am OK posted:What?! He has simplistic ideas and writes the imagery of a Final Fantasy cut-scene. This. I've never really understood why people love McCarthy. His books don't have a deep meaning or a good plot or good pacing, all they do is hit you over the head with one message which is "CORMAC MCCARTHY WROTE THIS BOOK". He doesn't use his style in any way except to let you know he is there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
RebBrownies posted:I feel really bad but I think I might have to put down The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. I really enjoyed the first book but I'm so bored. I am 200 pages in, and while I enjoy reading about the magic, the main characters isn't loving doing anything. He is just regaling useless tales about the time he went to the bar but didn't see the girl he loves so he went home and then went to school. And I know there is some weird ninja sex coming up so I'm just losing steam. I'm on my kindle, but yeah there is a solid amount of ninja sex. Like, chapters of "I wasn't good at sex and now I am the best and women wilt beneath my smoldering gaze" sex. Abandon ship if you aren't sucked in. Unlike me, who happens to have a terrible habit of needing to finish a story once I've started it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Delicious Sci Fi posted:This. I've never really understood why people love McCarthy. His books don't have a deep meaning or a good plot or good pacing, all they do is hit you over the head with one message which is "CORMAC MCCARTHY WROTE THIS BOOK". He doesn't use his style in any way except to let you know he is there. "Along the interstate in the distance long lines of charred and rusting cars. The raw rims of the wheels sitting in a stiff gray sludge of melted rubber, in blackened rings of wire. The incinerate corpses shrunk to the size of a child and propped on the bare springs of the seats. Ten thousand dreams ensepulchred within their crozzled hearts. They went on." Indeed, an indulgent and baroque stylist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
porfiria posted:"Along the interstate in the distance long lines of charred and rusting cars. The raw rims of the wheels sitting in a stiff gray sludge of melted rubber, in blackened rings of wire. The incinerate corpses shrunk to the size of a child and propped on the bare springs of the seats. Ten thousand dreams ensepulchred within their crozzled hearts. They went on." I don't think I said anything about his style being baroque but his style is all about very little use of punctuation and sprinkling in large words. It's easy to tell its him. Although I do agree he indulges himself by refusing to use things like quotations marks and mixing run on sentences in with mostly very short sentences. Someone should really tell him to stop combining a bunch of short thoughts together with 'and', he does it a lot. example from a random page I found in The Road with the look inside feature quote:He spread the small tarp they use for a table on the ground and laid everything out and he took the pistol from his belt and laid it on the cloth and then he just sat watching the boy sleep
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
I have a story coming up in a mid-list magazine that I wrote in a McCarthyesque voice, though being a far inferior writer I'm sure I only managed to mimic the most superficial parts of his style. So with that in mind:Delicious Sci Fi posted:This. I've never really understood why people love McCarthy. His books don't have a deep meaning or a good plot or good pacing, all they do is hit you over the head with one message which is "CORMAC MCCARTHY WROTE THIS BOOK". He doesn't use his style in any way except to let you know he is there. this really hasn't been my experience. Emulating his style (even, again, at the most superficial level) was a really deliberate, considered experience, and it made the story feel less affected, as if the characters had been somehow deprivileged in the narrative, stripped of some invisible defense. I got a lot more out of it than "I AM PRETENDING CORMAC MCCARTHY WROTE THIS STORY". I guess what I'm saying is, where you think "he doesn't use his style in any way except to let you know he is there", I think his style is the keystone of everything he's trying to say. You should check out the Blood Meridian thread, it's full of great poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
I dropped it, and I feel bad but I think it was for the best. Maybe I'll come back to it someday, but maybe not. Thank you for the heads up. Like Chronicler is just sitting there writing about the food that Kvothe ate, and all the trivial things that Kvothe could do that no one else could do and how good he is. The first book I didn't really mind the god-modding, since it sort of starts all mystically and I really liked the idea of an interview with Beowulf, but dear lord... Everything he does is starting to irritate me. He is the only one who can talk to the homeless crazy girl ( I absolute hate their interaction. It gets lamer and lamer. "Here is an apple who is sad because it feel from it's mother") , he is the only one who can get their pipes, etc. No one else in the series is remotely useful. He is like a fantasy A-Team wrapped into one person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Delicious Sci Fi posted:This. I've never really understood why people love McCarthy. His books don't have a deep meaning or a good plot or good pacing, all they do is hit you over the head with one message which is "CORMAC MCCARTHY WROTE THIS BOOK". He doesn't use his style in any way except to let you know he is there. (emphasis mine) I think I have seen this same sentiment expressed in this forum before and I still can't understand it. I mean, you don't have to love McCarthy's prose, but for example The Road could be used as a textbook example of a novel where there is a strong link between stylistic choices and thematic content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Janissary posted:(emphasis mine) Well, I guess the world depicted in The Road would give me a headache and make me  too, so you have a point there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
One for me would be the first Lord of the Rings book. I think that I made it past the Moria section, and where they meet up with the forest elves before I gave up. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
I'd have to go with Julian Comstock: A Story of 22nd-Century America. Characterization was problematic throughout, but the villains were basically cardboard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:I'd have to go with Julian Comstock: A Story of 22nd-Century America. Characterization was problematic throughout, but the villains were basically cardboard. I did finish that, but it wasn't up to Wilson's usual standards. He's done much better work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
Thunderfinger posted:One for me would be the first Lord of the Rings book. I think that I made it past the Moria section, and where they meet up with the forest elves before I gave up. I'm sorry. Pretty much everyone I know (myself included) that's read the entire trilogy gave up on the first attempt. Almost all in the first book, although usually at or around the Council of Elrond, so don't feel too bad. You can always try again; it really starts to pick up not long after there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
escape artist posted:I felt the same way. I was so excited to read the beloved Dark Tower series and couldn't even get through the first book. It was a chore. Agreed but I recommend trucking through it and picking up the sequels, which are much better (although to be honest I stopped at book 4).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
I couldn't get through * A Dance with Dragons. I just got bored, and tired by what I perceived as a lack of structure and discipline in the writing. I couldn't sense the direction in which it was heading and I felt that the Author was not sure himself. Also, reading books on the actual War of the Roses is far more interesting, and it is always interesting finding the stuff that influenced him in real life. Or the stuff that bears uncanny similarities. * The Great and Secret Show. I don't know why, but when ever I try to read it I just put it down and never pick it up. * Insomnia. Never grabbed me the way other King novels have. As for the McCarthy talk, horses for courses. I love the work of his that I've read, but I can understand why people may not enjoy the way he writes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Should I feel guilty for being unable to finish The Origin of Species? Everybody has said it is one of the most accessible classic work on Biology, but I just can't dig through more than a chapter or two before dropping it for more interesting stuff - ironically, it is usually another Biology book which would not be here if not for the very book I just stopped reading. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
Jeek posted:Should I feel guilty for being unable to finish The Origin of Species? Everybody has said it is one of the most accessible classic work on Biology, but I just can't dig through more than a chapter or two before dropping it for more interesting stuff - ironically, it is usually another Biology book which would not be here if not for the very book I just stopped reading. Accessible? Says who? It's an important book, yes, but it's long and ponderous and repetitive. And there's no great reason to read other than historical importance - we've got a better knowledge of evolution now and there are far better popular explanations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
I stopped about halfway through Super Sad True Love Story about a year ago... its title is too accurate, but for the pathetic meaning of sad rather than the tragic. Every so often I pick it up and read a couple more pages but it is just too awkward. People who like awkward/embarrassment comedy would probably love it, but I can't watch those TV shows either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
LordPants posted:* A Dance with Dragons. I just got bored, and tired by what I perceived as a lack of structure and discipline in the writing. I couldn't sense the direction in which it was heading and I felt that the Author was not sure himself. Also, reading books on the actual War of the Roses is far more interesting, and it is always interesting finding the stuff that influenced him in real life. Or the stuff that bears uncanny similarities. I dropped the series here as well. GRRM seems to have lost the plot and something about his writing keeps bugging me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Mokinokaro posted:I dropped the series here as well. GRRM seems to have lost the plot and something about his writing keeps bugging me. This is me as well. It's years since I read through the series, and if I'd read it more recently I might have managed to power through ADWD, but nope. Same deal with the Malazan books, which I gave up on around Dust of Dreams. There's a great Frederik Pohl riff about Fiddler Crabs. 'See, a fiddler crab has one enormous, useless claw that it can't do much of anything with except brandish it to impress the hell out of dewy eyed female fiddler crabs. Many sci fi and fantasy authors are like this - their conspicuous virtues outweigh their equally conspicuous failings." Erikson is the very paradigm of a literary fiddler crab. I mean Erikson's idea of 'romance' is skin-crawling, his characters are pretty much paper thin and his violence goes beyond enjoyable gritty into entrail-porn. But the part of the dial labelled 'demented ultra-epic sweep'? Brother's got that poo poo locked down tight. What he offers is something you literally won't get anywhere else. Plus, he produces, which counts for a lot. There's a passage in one of the books where he goes through around five thousand years of history of a particular part of a city, culminating in the profound significance of a particular flagstone which a character is standing on, all unbeknownst. Then the dude heads off to do whatever it is he's there for. That's why people like Erikson. Or one of the reasons, anyway - he does have a genuine (and surprising) ear for Woodhousian dialogue in certain areas. And he can write a balls-to-the-wall fantasy battle like nobody's business.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Anything lately by Stephen King, Used to love his stuff but lately I struggle to finish any of his books. Must be getting old and impatient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
Siggers posted:Anything lately by Stephen King,
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
I must be the third or fourth person to mention the works of Jane Austen in this thread-- specifically, Emma and Sense and Sensibility. I recognize the literary merit of Ms. Austen's work, especially when compared to her forgotten contemporaries and the overwhelming majority of modern romance novels. I like the style of her prose; I love other works by other authors from that same time period. My friends, who like a lot of the same books that I do, all love Pride and Prejudice (without porn or zombies) in book, movie, manga and musical theater form, but I only read it once because I had to in junior high. I've never managed to get more than a third of the way through a Jane Austen novel before discovering that my give-a-drat is busted beyond repair, and I feel that this might be a serious character flaw on my part. How can I learn to enjoy these books? Is there a Jane Austen for people who don't like Jane Austen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Sense and Sensibility is by far my least favourite Jane Austen and I know a lot of people who can't get into Emma because they hate the main character. Pride and Prejudice is my favourite Austen, but you've already read that. If you have read / know a lot about gothic 'horror' stories (The Mysteries of Udolpho, The Monk etc) I recommend Northanger Abbey which is basically a send up of those types of books - it's also (I think) the shortest of Jane Austen's novels. Otherwise, don't worry if you don't like Jane Austen. Lots of people don't - it's hardly a character flaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
RoeCocoa posted:I must be the third or fourth person to mention the works of Jane Austen in this thread-- specifically, Emma and Sense and Sensibility. Honestly, the best thing to do is watch a lot of videos of Jane Austen novels; I recommend the BBC "Pride and Prejudice" miniseries especially. Then find the most heavily-annotated editions you can of her works. If you really want to go all-in, take a course in her work at a local college or something. The problem with Austen is that she describes nothing, because all her works are aimed very strictly at her own social contemporaries, and everyone she was writing for knew exactly what the difference between a curricle and a gig was, which is important when she bases multi-page-long running gags on exactly that difference. The more you know about the setting Austen's writing within, the more enjoyable her works are, because knowledge of the setting is essential and Austen does nothing to explain it. Watch documentaries about british Great Houses so you understand the exactly what it means to be Mistress of Pemberly. That said, yeah, my favorite Austen novels are Pride and Prejudice and Northanger Abbey, and I've never managed to work through Emma myself either. Northanger Abbey is probably the only one I ever find myself casually picking up to read for entertainment, mostly because it's just funny in a way that her other books don't quite match, especially if you've read a lot of other gothic fiction. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
That all makes it sound like it's incredibly dumb for high school english classes to make teenagers read Jane Austin's works. If you need that kind of background to really enjoy her books then all your doing is really turning people off to her work if you force them to read the books with no background Unless the teacher is really good at teaching the background too, but as I recall there was no time for that stuff
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Levitate posted:That all makes it sound like it's incredibly dumb for high school english classes to make teenagers read Jane Austin's works. If you need that kind of background to really enjoy her books then all your doing is really turning people off to her work if you force them to read the books with no background Hrm. Maybe. It kinda depends on the class, how much time you have, and how much out of class work you're willing to assign. I'd say her work is probably more suited to the college level, though. In high school I think you'd probably be better off assigning Dickens. David Copperfield is about as accessible as anything from that general era gets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 16:28
|
|