I just finished re-reading The Drawing of the Dark by Tim Powers. Enjoyed it. I recalled specific scenes from my read decades ago. I might try On Stranger Tides, which I never read by have a copy of sitting somewhere one of my shelves.
The Stormy Petrel by Mary Stewart. Her environmental descriptions are lovely, but the plot is not her best.
I've never read anything that had such an effect on me, but I did read one of the most depressing books ever last winter. I forced myself to read it several times before I chugged it in the bin. I never throw away books but it had to be done. It wasn't really a "bad" book per se, it was just dark. Very, very dark. There wasn't a speck of light. Just depressing moment after depressing moment. I gave up when the MC's mother drowned kittens inside a bucket. And that's not even scratching the surface. It's just that I'm particularly sensitive with cats. The author must have been some kind of masochist. Nothing else can explain it. I'm glad I went on Goodreads to check the score and find reviewers who had similar thoughts to me. But I also have a feeling that this book was semi-autobiographical in a way. If it was, well, let's just say that I truly feel sorry for the author.
I'm not averse to violence. I rather like it. It just depends on why the book is written. Like "The Girl Next Door" was sadistic and left me feeling disgust, not at the author but at the real-life events. I will never read that book again. I try not to even think about it . . . But I loved "The Wasp Factory", which was arguably worse in what occurred. It was just so joyous in how it organized the violence on the page. I think of that scene with the kite and I still laugh, heh. I should try to get a first print of that for my shelf.
Agreed. Gimli, in particular, is a much deeper and more likeable character in the books than in the movies. And Legolas is much less of a badass, but that's OK - it makes him a more rounded character. I also liked Aragorn much more. He's more confident and much less reluctant to become the King of Gondor. He is a true leader. I don't remember Merry or Pippin being ruthless, though? Can you please expand on that, Seven Crowns?
Ever read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis? A pornographic level of violence compared to, say, Blood Meridian, which is a more biblical level of violence. Both equally disturbing, but the Ellis reads more like violence for violence's sake.
Yes, I liked that book a lot too. Not because I aspire to become like any characters in it, but because of how the story is shaped. The only time Patrick is ever really human is when he's describing his music in those between-chapter interludes. I liked that aspect of it. It's as if his humanity is bottled up into one purpose, and for the other aspects of his life, he's a deranged hedonist who feels nothing. The story has that sarcastic bent to it too. It's a good book but I do understand why it would be too much for some.
I liked how each of them independently swore allegiance to a king and then was so eager for battle. I didn't realize how necessary Merry was in killing the Nazgul leader. This is a being who would destroy the will of men, but Merry stood directly up to it and his strike created the opening for the final killing blow. His attack almost did himself in too. I don't remember that in the movie. Maybe it's in the Extended edition . . . stabbing the Nazgul King will kill the attacker because the Nazgul are so corrupted. And then at the end when Merry/Pippin have to save the Shire, there is zero hesitation. Frodo was weary with death because he'd seen too much, and so he wanted to send the invaders on their way (the remnants of Saruman's men), but Merry and Pippin were ready to draw steel, and they did. Even after everything is resolved and the Shire is rebuilt, they're still dressed up like cavaliers as they wander about. They had this whimsical need to be in the fray. I know the movie showed them charging in at the end at the Gates of Mordor (they weren't supposed to be there, I don't think), but the book really drove home their heroics.
Ah, got it. I agree, Merry (or Meriadoc Brandybuck, to give him his full name) was certainly heroic; it takes incredible courage to stand up to the Lord of the Nazgûl, also known as the Witch-king of Angmar. (It's worth mentioning that even Gandalf the White, powerful as he is, cannot stand up to the Witch-king). The film (and possibly even the book?) don't go specifics, but the film shows Sauron giving the future Nazgûl the Nine Rings, and shows them becoming undead. This happens roughly in SA (Second Age) 1693, and the Second Age lasts until 3441, when Isildur defeats (but doesn't destroy) Sauron. Then, the battle when Sauron is finally destroyed happens in TA (Third Age) 3019. So the Nazgûl (or Ringwraiths) have existed as undead for ... *calculates* 4,767 years. Blimey. In contrast, Merry was born in TA 2982, so at the time of the battle, he was 37 years old. Imagine standing up to an immortal, undead master of sorcery, armed with nothing but a sword, knowing that even if you win, you'll probably die. It takes great courage to do that. What he tells Eowyn when they meet in battle ("No living man may hinder me!") is true, not just boasting. The Witch-King of Angmar was present at the Battle of Fornost, almost 2,000 years previously, and although his army was crushed, he himself escaped, and Glorfindel (one of the most powerful Elves from Rivendell) warns Eärnur, last King of Gondor (until Aragorn) not to pursue the Witch-King: Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall. At the climactic Battle of the Pelennor Fields, the prophecy is fulfilled and the Witch-king finally meets his end, as Éowyn is a woman, and Merry's sword (an enchanted Barrow-blade) is one of the few weapons that can penetrate his defences, and breaks the spell that binds his undead flesh to his will. While the Witch-king is thus distracted, Éowyn drives her sword where the head of the wraith would have been, and slays him. Anyway, sorry to go on about this. I just think Merry and Pippin's character arcs are awesome, seeing as they start off from (basically) being pranksters, and they end up being such Big Damn Heroes.
Yeah, that's it! I was really impressed with how those two ended up, especially that blow on the Nazgul king. The whole battlefield was in despair because that thing's mere presence could debilitate an army, but this little guy stands up to him and is bold enough to strike him. It's worth noting that Merry also wasn't a man. I'd never thought of that before. Eowyn of course gets the killing blow because she's a woman, but Merry attacks too, as a hobbit. I like that.
My favorite part of the hobbits' arc is the Scouring of the Shire end chapters when they get home, see the Shire has been taken over by bad hobbits who try to menace and detain them, and kind of roll their eyes are go, "Are you really going to make us fuck you up, too? Okay." Now I'm reading The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. I seem to remember reading something by him when I was a teenager and not being impressed, despite his reputation. This one is good but weighs a ton. 963 pages. I dropped it and the whole house shook.
I just finished Agatha Christie's Crooked House. She write that it was her favorite book and the most fun to write. It's one of my favorites, too. Just Started The Man in the Brown Suit.
I really loved Crooked House! I think it's one of her best casts of characters, and the interactions between them is some of her best work. Finished reading Blood Meridian for the first time. It's weird to say, "I enjoyed it," because the misery and anguish of the book is the point, but I thought it was a good long look at the atrocities mankind is capable of and makes you want to be a better person if only so you aren't like Glanton and his crew.
Well ... technically speaking, Merry is male. (Yes, I know I'm splitting hairs). But I agree, Merry is a hobbit, not a man -- not in the same sense as Aragorn, Boromir, Denethor etc. IIRC, Frodo allows the hobbits to detain them, to show good will. (As a whole, Frodo tries to avoid battle and bloodshed, probably because of what he'd seen). But the Shire wasn't taken over by bad hobbits, but also by brigands and evil Men, led by someone called Sharkey. (Since there are some people who might not have read LOTR yet, I won't reveal who Sharkey is, but everyone who's read LOTR know that he is Spoiler Saruman.) Hmm. I've read the whole Poirot canon, which is still my favourite Agatha Christie character. I tried reading some Miss Marple and Parker Pyne books, but wasn't too impressed. I was even less impressed with Tommy and Tuppence - I found them tiresome. On the other hand, I thought Ordeal by Innocence was marvelous.
You do realize that people often choose brevity, paraphrasing, and emphasis on key aspects rather than firehosing pedantic minutae and pointless facts?
Yes. And were you aware that people who like specific books enjoy delving into what, to you, would be "pedantic minutiae and pointless facts"? To you, my exploration of the hobbits' arc may be pedantic and pointless. To me, summarising that arc in one sentence is inadequate and condescending. Of course, if we're not allowed to speak our minds or share our views freely and frankly, that's fine...
Sigh. Homer, I have no idea where you got this idea that I correct everyone at every turn, because I don't. Just wondering: did my posts about LOTR harm, offend, or insult you in any way? If not, why are you sniping at me for sharing my opinion? And is it the forum's policy to abuse its members, or are you trolling me "for the lols"? Here's an idea: If you don't like something I write, don't read it. And if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.
I have to read everything, but I'll be more mindful of the second part. Do me a favor as well, please, and keep the error correction of other people's posts to a respectful minimum. I appreciate your opinion and forum contributions, but it can become annoying in access. Apologies for not expressing myself more tactfully earlier. I don't try to be a dick intentionally.
All right. Thank you, and I also apologize about the error correction. I'll try not to do so again. I don't know if it makes a difference, and I'm not saying this to justify or excuse any hair-splitting. But all my life, I've trained and worked in programming (and later, in accounting), so I guess that it's a lifetime habit of trying to be accurate. *blush* This is useful in my job (and since I write historical fiction, it's also useful when doing research for a scene in a book). But I understand that it's a drawback in small-talk. Please pardon me. I certainly don't mean any offense by it, and if I have offended anyone, I sincerely apologize.
Any opinions/experiences with the following authors: Martha Grimes Fredrik Bachman Elizabeth Strout Louise Penny My mother cycles the bookshelf at our family house in the mountains and has half a dozen books by each here now. Strout won a Pulitzer for Olive Kitteridge, so I grabbed that already.
While I thoroughly enjoyed it, I'm not sure I laughed at any particular part of The Wasp Factory. In fairness, though, I didn't find Fargo all that funny the first time I saw it, and that movie's hilarious. ("And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper.") I'll have to revisit The Wasp Factory one of these years and see how it ages. The Girl Next Door, on the other hand, is not a book I can even fathom anyone wanting to reread. I'd compare that experience to something more like Requiem for a Dream, something I'm glad I saw but will never watch again. (Then again, I could possibly see watching that movie with my kid someday if I ever decide I need to scare the shit out of him vis-a-vis drugs.)
Finally finished Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson. This one took me to the halfway point before it grabbed me fully, which is a rarity for a Larson book. It ended the way his always do, though, with me in deep thoughts about what I've just read. Next up is something a little lighter, The Little Book of Hygge by Meik Wiking. I've also promised my brother I'll finish Fires of Heaven before the end of the year, because I've been reading that since last December. I told him it's safe to say this one is my least favorite of the Wheel of Time series so far.
Just finished The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Firstly, hats off to Victor Hugo for writing an instant classic just to save a church from being demolished! Secondly, this is one of the rare occasions where the villain is my favorite character. I don’t like him as a person, I just enjoy every scene that involves him. Finally, I’m still coping with the ending. Did not see that one coming…
Oh, my friend, the first 8 books of WOT are pure gold compared to the valley that lays ahead. However, you get through it and the last 3 books make the decades all worthwhile.
