Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Book Club

sunshinelover

By sunshinelover
in Books

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

sunshinelover

sunshinelover

I thought it would be fun to have a virtual book club!  We could make a list of books one for each month (or whatever works best) and get together here to discuss it!

Please let me know if anyone is interested and we can work together to make a list, and get started.

Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

So here's my plan.  I figured one book a month would be good, so enough people are able to keep up.  Starting in November, the first week of the month would be to read it.  Then on the 8th, we can start discussing it.  I can gather some questions to think about/discuss, or just see how it goes. 

I picked books pretty much based on what looks interesting to me >g<.  There's a mix of classics and newer stuff.  Here is my tentative schedule

November:  Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse Five

December:  Vladimir Nabokov- Lolita

January:   Markus Zusak- The Book Thief

February:  Jack Kerouac-On the Road

March:  Khaled Hosseini- The Kite Runner

April:  Aldous Huxley- Brave New World

 

I'm totally open to suggestion though, and I love hearing about new books!  Thanks everyone

Link to comment
ouinason

ouinason

(edited)

I want to suggest a couple of books

Good Omens by Neal Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

The Hangman's Daughter by Oliver Pötzsch

I also think we need to sort of alternate the heavy works with the lighter ones. That way we can not get totally bogged down in huge books or dark stuff or anything like that.

Edited by ouinason
Link to comment
Mischievious

Mischievious

May I suggest perhaps having two weeks to read the book before discussions begin? I don't know about you all but work and personal life can get crazy at times, especially with upcoming holidays, although at other times it is the complete opposite.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

Ok here is what I've come up for, for the final monthly book listings.

 

November:  Kurt Vonnegut- Slaughterhouse Five

December:  Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

January: Vladimir Nabokov- Lolita

February: Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin
March: The Hangman's Daughter by Oliver Pötzsch
April:  Jack Kerouac-On the Road
May:  Markus Zusak- The Book Thief
June: Aldous Huxley- Brave New World
July:   Khaled Hosseini- The Kite Runner

 

To allow more time to read the book before discussing it,  I thought 10 days would be good for most.   This means we would start discussing on the 11th of each month.  And everyone can in jump in as they're ready. I love books, so I'm really excited for this, and thank you all for being a part of it!   See you on the 11th :)


Slaughterhouse Five-discussion beginning November 11th.  

 

 I found some discussion questions that might be useful, although I'm sure we'll find plenty else to talk to about!  There are from Shmoop.com  http://www.shmoop.com/slaughterhouse-five/questions.html

1. We here at Shmoop think that, factually speaking, Billy's trips to Tralfamadore are at least questionable and possibly outright hallucinations. Does it make a difference to your understanding of the philosophy of Slaughterhouse-Five if you read Billy's experiences on Tralfamadore literally as alien abductions? If Slaughterhouse-Five is a straight-up science-fiction novel, do we get the same lessons on fate and free will?
2. All of the women characters in this book (except Mary O'Hare) are either portrayed as dumb (Lily Rumfoord, Maggie White, and Valencia Pilgrim) or obnoxious (Barbara Pilgrim and Nancy the reporter). Are ladies getting short shrift here? Do the guys come off any better? And what makes Mary O'Hare so special?
3. There's the time travel and then there's the alien abduction. Billy comes unstuck in time in 1944 and is then abducted by aliens in 1967, he says. Why are these two separate events? What does the time travel do for Billy's character that the abduction doesn't?
4. Slaughterhouse-Five blurs the line between truth and fiction with the biographical details in Vonnegut's own life that keep creeping into the fictional parts of the story. A lot of other real people's words also make it into the novel. For example, there are quotes from poet Theodore Roethke (1.20.1) and the Gideon Bible (1.21.1). Why does Vonnegut quote so much? How do these quotes challenge our definition of Slaughterhouse-Five as a novel? Which chapters seem to quote the most, and why?
5. Vonnegut refers to the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. While the content of the novel clearly focuses on World War II, how is Slaughterhouse-Five also a book about America in the 1960s?

Link to comment
Mountainair

Mountainair

So, haven't seen much action here. Are people participating? I checked online and my library has a copy of the first book available. I alone will not offer much feedback. Want to see if it's worth making a trip to the library tomorrow or not?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Jazzy24

Jazzy24

So, haven't seen much action here. Are people participating? I checked online and my library has a copy of the first book available. I alone will not offer much feedback. Want to see if it's worth making a trip to the library tomorrow or not?

I just got my book from the library and I just started reading it so I'll be here for the discussion on the 11th.

Link to comment
Mountainair

Mountainair

Alright, I got the book today. Hopefully more people are reading it and just not saying so and hopefully they are more educated than I. It's a good book so far (only 50 pages or so in) but I do suffer from "mommy brain" and lack of mature adult conversation due to being a stay at home mom who doesn't get out much :)

Link to comment
Mountainair

Mountainair

I finished it. I thought it was actually a really good story. It started off a bit slow for me but I easily got into it. I admit to multi tasking a bit while reading but it seemed to end rather abruptly where I wasn't sure what I had actually been reading the whole time.

I get that there were three different stories going on. 1945, 1960s and Alien time. I just didn't quite grasp the point of the story.

Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

I felt like it ended really abruptly too!  As for the point, I was reading it as an anti-war novel so that's what I felt like the point was.  Billy goes to war and just gets shuffled around.  He's desensitized to everything so it seems like he doesn't really care what happens.  That's why every time there is a death he says "So it goes."  He's not affected; he doesn't really care.  His life seems pretty depressing.  He just goes through the motions and does what is expected of him- the wife, the boring career, and standard issue one boy and one girl. 

Link to comment
JayKay

JayKay

I thought that it ended the way it did because of what was mentioned early on about there not being much to say about Dresden. That the "Poo-tee-weet" was about as relevant and explanatory as anything that could be said about war. He didn't have any answers or closure to offer.

 

I think Billy went bonkers during the war and that the trips to the alien planet and the time travel were all in his mind. And maybe he suffered brain damage in the plane crash. He disassociated so intensely that he lost all sense of time and space. I don't even believe that Lazzaro had him killed. And I think that a lot of stuff said about Trout was actually about the narrator. Maybe he would have written novels of all of Trout's stories, but as Rosewater said, his prose was crap so he just inserted those ideas into Billy's story. And the bitter author was friendless. But Rosewater was right, his ideas were good.

 

But yeah, the whole scenario with a missing young, beautiful porn star (who showcased in "literature" targeted to lonely men) smacked of a wish-fulfillment fantasy and invalidated any truth to Billy's claims of being abducted or traveling through time imo. The poor girl went missing and conveniently arrives on his "as happy as anywhere" planet and sleeps with him after a week? Come on. Maybe a lot of his "trips" are falsely remembered hallucinations that actually take place after the end of the story. Too many coincidences. And he was suffering from serious PTSD.

 

I also decided early on that I didn't like Billy very much, after he described his own daughter as "bitchy." And he found his wife, whom he married for money, merely tolerable even though she loved him enough to accidentally kill herself over him. And then he described his mother as dumb for believing in God and hope and social niceties. His feelings of embarrassment and ungratefulness at her love for him were touching, but then he went and described her that way. I kind of wonder if he would have felt that way about his wife, mother and daughter if women were allowed in the armed forces. He's more than a little resentful of them.

 

I'm not big on books about war myself, but Trout's stories sound like something I'd be interested in reading if they were real.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

I think Billy went bonkers during the war and that the trips to the alien planet and the time travel were all in his mind. And maybe he suffered brain damage in the plane crash. He disassociated so intensely that he lost all sense of time and space. I don't even believe that Lazzaro had him killed. And I think that a lot of stuff said about Trout was actually about the narrator. Maybe he would have written novels of all of Trout's stories, but as Rosewater said, his prose was crap so he just inserted those ideas into Billy's story. And the bitter author was friendless. But Rosewater was right, his ideas were good.

His trips to Trafalmadore seem to be heavily associated with death.  His first abduction is related while he is in the train car, nestled against the hobo who later dies.  When Billy gets out of bed to see the flying saucer, he says that his bare feet are "ivory and blue" which is the same way he described corpses he saw in the war.  While he's waiting, he watches a movie about war, and all the while he is drinking flat (dead) champagne.  Later, he travels to Trafalmadore while in the hospital after his wife's death.  These trips act as an escape for him.

 

What's also interesting is the Trafalmadorian edict that there is no such thing as free will.  If we take his trips as fiction, then we can infer that their disbelief in free will is Billy's also.  This is why he is so passive in life and doesn't care about anything; he doesn't think it matters because everything is predetermined.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
ouinason

ouinason

The way the story just ended was jarring.

I'm not sure if I really liked it or not. I think I might be simply ambivalent about it, which I guess is better than throwing it against a wall (done that twice), so it beats some books I could name. I don't get why it's such a classic, that's for sure.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
glowlights

glowlights

5. Vonnegut refers to the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. While the content of the novel clearly focuses on World War II, how is Slaughterhouse-Five also a book about America in the 1960s?

 

Hi everyone, I'm a little (a lot!) late to the book club but have enjoyed reading your comments on Slaughterhouse-Five. FWIW, I accepted the time travel and alien abduction as literal (within the logic of the story) upon first reading in high school despite what my teacher asserted, wondered about a mental break or hallucinations on second reading a few years later, and have come back full circle to accepting it as literal. Somehow, explaining it away as hallucinations reduces (in my mind) what Vonnegut was trying express about fatalism and predeterminism, not to mention Schadenfreude, but I'd have to work to put that into words.

 

To answer the discussion topic quoted above, I think both the Dresden bombing and events in the 1960s point toward a loss of innocence with America in particular and democracy in general. Vonnegut talks about struggling with the novel until someone pointed out to him that he and his fellow troops were children, and that's how the characters ought to be written. That dovetails nicely with his horror and disgust with the Dresden bombing - we had been certin that the Americans and its Allies were the good guys, but here was wholesale slaughter against innocents done in the name of democracy and the good guys, and what's worse is the scale of atrocity was not reported. Even Vonnegut didn't know until he began to research at home. So there's a loss of innocence, both the literal loss of innocence of boys sent to war and the more general loss of innocence when you realize your country isn't what you thought it was, or you're no longer certain of the side you're fighting on, or if those sides even exist separately. And of course that's what was going on in the 60s, a national loss of innocence from the post-war Leave It To Beaver, "America the good", stars and stripes and apple pie, greatest generation ever. If post-war America coudl be characterized by the youthful vigor and optimism of adolescence then the 60s were what happens when you go to college and have your eyes opened. This time it was Vietnam and Kennedy (both of them) and Martin Luther King, not WWII, but as Vonnegut would say, "So it goes." There's also a lesson about conformity in there somewhere... What do you guys think?

 

This is a terrific conversation with Vonnegut, for anyone who's interested:

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3605/the-art-of-fiction-no-64-kurt-vonnegut

  • Love 3
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

Well as December starts tomorrow, I hope you will join me in our book for December:  Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.  I don't really know anything about this book, but that's okay.  I've only read one book by Neil  but he's long been on my to be read list.  I found some discussion questions again, to perhaps inspire some  thought or serve as a jump-off point for discussion.  Feel free though, to continue discussing Slaughterhouse-Five, if anyone has anything to add.  Happy reading!

 

1. Do you think that Aziraphale and Crowley are distinctly either good or evil? Why or why not?

2. It is suggested throughout the story that there is some divine plan that lays out every action and event in life. When Adam averts Armageddon at the Tadfield Air Base, it seems to surprise many that are present. Do you think that this surprise is part of the divine plan, or do you think that there was no divine plan in action? Explain.

3. Aziraphale and Crowley made concerted efforts to shape the upbringing of the Antichrist until they discovered that they had the wrong child. Do you suppose that Adam would have found his powers sooner had they been involved in his life? Why or why not? Is it possible that their involvement in Warlock's life made a difference?

4. How do you view the treatment of traditional Christianity in this book, particularly in regards to the characters Aziraphale, Crowley, and Adam? What, in your opinion, is the relationship of free will and “God’s ineffable plan” in the events of the book?

5. What are your thoughts on the recurring theme that no angel or demon could even think up the horrible things humans do to each other or the wonderful things they do to help each other? How do you see the role of humanity in the book vs. the role of the supernatural?

6. Do you find a message in this book? If so, what? Do you think its satire works as intended?

7. In your opinion, would this novel work better if viewed as a “political” novel (as books with religious themes tend to be viewed, currently), or if viewed as a humorous novel that happens to satirize religion? In what ways does the humor add and detract from its message?

8. How do you view the roles of Agnes Nutter and Anathema? Do their prophecies fit in to the satire or are they merely there as a plot moving device? What about the roles of other secondary characters? (Newt, Shadwell, Madame Tracy, The Chattering Order of St. Beryl, etc.)

Link to comment
ouinason

ouinason

I like this book a lot. I've read it several times and I sort of enjoy the way it deals with the end of days and the way it handles religion. I am a christian and I am not in any way offended by it's depiction of angels and the plans of god and so on. It was just the right mix of humor and satire.

And Adam is the best antichrist ever written.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

I just finished this book, I am way behind.   And it was a lot longer than I'd anticipated.  And on the downside, it didn't really pique my interest that much.  I enjoyed it while reading, but would often want to switch back to one of the other books I'm currently reading.

 

That being said, I did really enjoy the humor, and the depictions of Aziraphale and Crowley.  They both fall into the gray area; not as black and white as expected from a demon and an angel.  And they make a great pair.

 

It was interesting that some of themes from Slaughterhouse Five were recurring in this novel; the existence (or not) of free will.  It seems like most of the characters were under the impression they didn't have free will, but broke out of that by the end of the novel.  Adam didn't do what he was destined to do, Crowley and Aziraphale  against their expected natures, and Anathema now has the choice of living a life that hasn't been prophesied for her. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author
(edited)

Well after not much activity last month, I do hope more will join me this month for Nabokov's Lolita.  A wonderful book and I'm excited to get into it.  I'll post some discussion topics in a few days.  Happy reading!

 

Here's some questions for Lolita.   Again they are from Schmoop.com

 

1. How does the Foreword influence our reading of Humbert's "memoir"? How are we meant to regard the Foreword's idea that the memoir is a "case study" with moral lessons? How do Ray's Foreword and Nabokov's Afterword speak to each other?

2.What is the effect of knowing from the beginning that the three main characters involved in the story are already dead?

 

3.How does Humbert draw attention to the act of writing? Why does he do this?

 

4. Can Humbert ever be said to "love" Lolita? Does he ever consider her a being outside of his own imagination? Is the reader ever able to see Lolita in ways that Humbert cannot?

 

5.Is Humbert likable? Why or why not?

 

6.Early on, we learn that Humbert is insane enough to have committed himself to several mental institutions, where he enjoyed misleading his psychiatrists. Is Humbert's madness an excuse or a reason for his sexual deviance? Can we trust a story told by an insane narrator?

 

7. From the start, Humbert sees Lolita merely as an incarnation of Annabel, even making love to her on different beaches as he tries to symbolically consummate his earlier passion. Do we believe this effort is genuine or is it just another example of his mockery of psychoanalysis?

 

8. Does Humbert ever succeed in escaping the past? Why is Lolita able to get past her very troubled childhood, to the extent that she can even move past the abuse inflicted on her by both Humbert and Quilty, and live a somewhat normal married life?

 

9.Is Lolita a moral story despite Nabokov's insistence in the Afterword that it is not?

 

10.If we believe Humbert, Lolita initiates their first sexual encounter. Yet later Humbert admits that "Lolita sobs in the night—every night, every night—the moment I feigned sleep" (2.3.18). Does what begins as a game for Lolita become a brutal and inescapable reality? Or is Humbert been lying to us from the first?

 

11. Does Humbert ever genuinely repent for his crimes, or is even his remorse a sham?

 

12. Humbert's first nymphet love is Annabel Leigh, inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's Annabel Lee (of the poem "Annabel Lee"). Aside from Annabel, can you find any other connections between Lolita and Poe's works?

Edited by sunshinelover
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Jazzy24

Jazzy24

It's pretty late in the month but is anyone reading Lolita? I've always loved this book, mainly for its fantastically unreliable narrator.

I'm still reading it I've been so busy but I should be done in like two days.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

Looks like we're all a little behind ;).  I'm reading it too, I'm just way behind!!  I hope to be done in a few days.  So far though..Humbert disgusts me how cold and calculating he is, while being so nonchalant about it.  He abuses his wife Valeria and doesn't care about her.  When he considers murdering Charlotte, the only thing stopping him is that he'd feel some guilt later on.

Also, he's very unreliable as a narrator.  Such as the letter from Charlotte declaring her love, he writes it out verbatim, leading us believe it as fact, then says oh well I can't remember exactly but that was the gist of it.  Even though it's his story he's telling, he's untrustworthy.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Jazzy24

Jazzy24

How much did you believe Humbert's version of events?

He was very unreliable as a narrator and he seemed crazy.

I didn't like reading how he had sex with a child and how she cried it was all gross. He was cold and manipulative, obsessive, abusive, violent, controlling.

The writing was fine but all throughout the book I wanted it to end. I don't think its bad literature I just didn't like the story of a man and his obsession with a child. Not do I understand what the author was going for in the writng. Was there a point?

Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

 New month, new book!  I hope others are still finishing up Lolita and possibly have something to add.

 

Next up for February is Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin.  I haven't found discussion questions for this book but I will look further.  If anyone has any to add though, feel free.

Link to comment
LADreamr

LADreamr

I think this one might be more than I can do this month, but I'd love to join you guys on the next one. Also, with the news today that Harper Lee will be publishing a new novel, should we add To Kill A Mockingbird to the list?

Link to comment
glowlights

glowlights

He was very unreliable as a narrator and he seemed crazy.

I didn't like reading how he had sex with a child and how she cried it was all gross. He was cold and manipulative, obsessive, abusive, violent, controlling.

The writing was fine but all throughout the book I wanted it to end. I don't think its bad literature I just didn't like the story of a man and his obsession with a child. Not do I understand what the author was going for in the writng. Was there a point?

 

I've already returned the book to the library (New Year's Resolution: stop racking up library fines) so I can't quote exact passages, but I was more fascinated by Humbert than repulsed, although what he did (or said he did) was certainly repulsive, if we are to take it at face value. I swung between thinking he had the cold precision of a sociopath, and thinking he was a very sad, delusional little man. But what made it even more fascinating to me was that if we can't trust his account, then how much can we trust the version of Dolores that he's given us, at any stage of the story? Going back to Nabokov's mention of a gorilla being trained to paint and the picture it made was the bars of its cage... imo we are reading the account of a man who can't see beyond his own madness, and the story takes place entirely inside his "cage". Maybe that's why Nabokov admonishes us not to take this as a morality tale?

 

Or maybe Robertson Davies was right and it's just a story about a man victimized by a young temptress. :)

 

 

 New month, new book!  I hope others are still finishing up Lolita and possibly have something to add.

Next up for February is Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin.  I haven't found discussion questions for this book but I will look further.  If anyone has any to add though, feel free.

 

Have to bow out of the reading for this month but look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts!

  • Love 3
Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

I am way behind.  Still barely into A Winter's Tale.  I just can't seem to get into it.  Hopefully something clicks for me soon since there's so many great reviews for it and I was really looking forward to it.  Anyway, March's book is The Hangman's Daughter by Oliver Pötzsch.   Looks like another good read, but I'm going to hold off on starting that until I finish last month's!  I've got a vacation coming up next week so I'm looking forward to some good quality reading times.  Here's some discussion questions I found for The Hangman's Daughter.

 

1. Why do the orphans refuse to tell the townspeople what they witnessed? How does this mistrust shape their fate? Do you think they made the right choice?

2. What do you think of Sophie and her actions?

3. The man referred to as “the devil” compares himself to Jacob Kuisl: “You’re like myself…Killing, that’s our business…we’re…more alike than you’d think” (p. 379).  Explain why you agree or disagree with this.  Discuss the similarities and differences between the two.

4. How does the town of Schongau function as a character in the story?

5. Many of the book’s central characters are real historical figures. Does knowing this affect the way you read the novel?

6. Were you surprised to discover the identity of “Moneybags?” Who had you suspected? Do you think justice was served?

7. Why do you think Oliver Pötzsch chose the title The Hangman’s Daughter?

8. Jakob Kuisl’s “holy of holies” is a “small study filled to the ceiling with dusty files and old books about what an executioner is and does” (p. 433).  What would your holy of holies contain?

9. At twelve Jakob Kuisl vows: “Never would he follow in his father’s footsteps; never in his life would he become a hangman” (p. 12). Discuss what you think happens later in life to change his mind.

10.  Jakob Kuisl is described as “An angel with a huge sword. An avenging angel” (p. 163). Discuss why the hangman is both respected and feared? Do you think that regardless of his profession, he is an honorable man?

11.  How do you think the Schongau witch trials differ from the more familiar Salem witch trials?

12.  “Jakob Kuisl, too, knew all about potions and was suspected of sorcery. But he was a man. And he was the executioner” (p. 48). Why are these important distinctions? Both Jakob and Martha are viewed as outsiders in their community, but discuss some of the differences between the executioner and the midwife.

13.  “If you want to know who is responsible for anything, ask who benefits from it” (p. 127). Did Johann Lechner’s handling of events hinder or help the investigation?  Why does he think the Landgrave should be convinced the witch controversy has been contained?  Do you think his actions are based solely on greed or for the welfare of Schongau?

14.  Is holding one person responsible, whether guilty or not, justified if it saves a community? Where else have you seen a situation like this?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
glowlights

glowlights

Sunshinelover, did you finish Winter's Tale? I recall having trouble getting through some of it, would be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Unfortunately I don't have time for this month's selection but hope everyone else enjoys it!

Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

Jack Kerouac -On the Road.   Our boosk for April.   Here's some discussion question from Shmoop.com

We counted at least five different times where Remi says, "you can’t teach the old maestro a new tune." Does On the Road make an argument for or against this statement?
You may have noticed that the book is in five parts. How do you think Kerouac's editors choose to divide the story (i.e., what are the starts and ends in each section), and how do these divisions create narrative flow?
There’s a great moment in the book when a guy Sal thinks is a cop asks Sal and Eddie, "You boys going to get somewhere, or just going?" Which do you think Sal is doing?

As the narrator, Sal reflects on the experiences he's telling about, saying things like, "Well, given what I know now," or "Yeah…that never ended up happening."

 

How does this retrospective view effect the telling of the story? Do we view things differently, given Sal’s insights into his past?

 

Sal sings a song in which he says, "Home I’ll never be." Is this true for Sal?

 

What exactly is the nature of Sal and Dean's relationship? Is it idolatry, brotherhood, or does it include fear, awe, love or respect? And how does it change over the course of the book?

 

On the Road is famous for its explicit treatment of drugs, sex, and alcohol. But what’s the point? What do we see in the Beat Generation because of this explicit material?

Link to comment
sunshinelover

sunshinelover

  • Author

Sunshinelover, did you finish Winter's Tale? I recall having trouble getting through some of it, would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Unfortunately I don't have time for this month's selection but hope everyone else enjoys it!

So I finally finished....and I was mostly disappointed.  I liked the parts more than the whole.  Some sections I could get into and enjoy, and then it would switch to a new character.  I feel like it was a bunch of different stories that didn't ever fit together.  I finished it feeling like, What was the point?  Some of the background on every single character felt so unnecessary.  Maybe because it took so long for me to read, or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I just didn't "get" it.  I kept waiting for the moment when it would all come together and oh okay, that's why I kept reading; but I got to the last page and thought "That's it?"  

 

The writing, and the descriptive details were beautiful.  So I guess I liked the writing and the style, just not the plot...or didn't understand the plot enough to enjoy it ;)

Link to comment
glowlights

glowlights

Something went weird... hope this doesn't double post...

 

Anyway, I recall feeling pretty much the same about Winter's Tale. Felt really carried along by the writing in some parts, and in other parts.... "why am I reading this?" I guess for me that book will be one I appreciate, but didn't really enjoy. Very little of the plot has stayed with me. *sigh*

 

On The Road is an interesting choice!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...