Book review reviews

Didn't this use to be a thread?

The indefatigable (really!) Jason Pettus always writes a good review. His latest is worth checking out for the cover-art rant alone. In keeping with the rant, he has elected to leave his LT copy coverless.

http://www.librarything.com/work/4065134/reviews/48205743

Check out Jim McKeown's take on a graphic novel version of Dickens' Great Expectations here http://www.librarything.com/work/6547703/reviews/44411775

Yes, slick, yet another thread that rode off into the sunset during my absence . . . Thanks for getting it back going, as this is really the heart and soul of the salon for me: finding great writing whether its from a salon member (of course we'll focus on them) or a non-member like that Anne Lamott review at the top of Hot reviews written by blackdogbooks - my favorite type of review in which the reviewer reveals themself and gets vulnerable with their audience, takes some personal risks ... and the risks blackdogbooks took paid off beautifully.

bokai has just reviewed Ulysses and I must say he's far more honest about his reading of U. than I've been, describing his love-hate relationship w/the text, which, in effect, was how the reading (what I read of it) went for me too. It's far easier just to hate on that beast, imo, than to give it a fair shake as bokai did. Good work bokai!

If you like those kinds of reviews, I hope you've checked out the hot Rabelais review. From a new-to-LT reader cosmicbullet.

The review by "RebeccaAnn" of Great Expectations brought tears to my eyes. It's on the hot reviews presently. Makes me think, I really have been meaning to re-read that at some point for the past 20 years.

Will go check that out pronto, Anna. Thanks for the heads up.

Solla is #2 presently on Hot Reviews with this: http://www.librarything.com/work/7530443/reviews/49041271 Nice work!

And Ganeshaka just reappeared in the 10 slot with a review he wrote last December. Never too late to get the recognition it deserves.

Medellia has just composed what appears to be one of her finest reviews yet . . . on what is arguably the worst book of fiction ever written. A book so bad . . . well, just read the review to find out.

http://www.librarything.com/work/47841

Seems to be a theme - check out the freeque's effing review of this effing monster mash-up!
http://www.librarything.com/review/49146615

That's one effing book I won't be reading!

I did check out the Amazon page, though, to try and see if Allen was printed with the Mr. on the cover too. There, I found this snippet under "Product Info:"

While doing research on Mary Shelley's novel, "Frankenstein", for a film project, I came across one of the most peculiar and earliest works of fan fiction in history. A rabid fan of Shelley, Dorothy Baxter (1802-1861) started writing fan letters to the author shortly after the publication of "Frankenstein" in 1818. In fact, she sent Mary Shelley more than two hundred fan letters and even got to meet the famous author. Then, in 1823, Dorothy gave birth to a stillborn child. The experience apparently traumatized her beyond consolation and within months had become a full blown opium addict. She lived on the streets of London where she panhandled, and continued to prostitute herself. In 1827, she was committed to Kensington Metal Hospital. It was here that Dorothy Baxter wrote the following version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Aside from the question of what constitutes a Metal Hospital...

Wilf has gone Kafka on us! Check it out: http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=WilfGehlen

amaranthic, here's your Metal Hospital for ya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJChh7ghGnE

the lead singer in the above link is dead btw. Cocaine overdose, just a year or two ago. Or maybe I should have mentioned that over in the poetry death thread perhaps?

Solla's Hot again!: http://www.librarything.com/work/670291/reviews/49281969

Salonistas,

I trust you'll give BeckyJG some love too: http://www.librarything.com/work/8535917/reviews/49146615

Enjoy!

WW has two more Hot reviews presently. She's showing us all up again. Beginning not to like her much ;-)

edited to insert pc smiley face so we all know I'm kidding; I know WW knows I'm kidding, but I don't know everybody else knows I'm kidding, and what if I wasn't kidding but serious and really meant it? what then? Yeah I'm not jealous, but I was still just kidding okay? I wasn't being serious by a long shot. So she writes reviews left and right nonstop that everybody loves and admires and gets on Hot Reviews every other second. It doesn't bother me! I'm not jealous. I still like her, okay?!

EF, we are still not sure if you are serious or not.
Can you elaborate on your feelings a bit more ?

( above text is meant as a joke and should not in any case be understand otherwise )

:-P

Heat cannot be transferred by any continuous, self-sustaining process from a colder to a hotter body. Or stated in terms of entropy; the entropy of a closed system increases with time.

And you remember what Robert Montgomery Knight always says.

precisely, poor-ious, that's much more along the lines of what I meant to say

(I think)

;-)

Check out martinmmcarvill going Ancient Greek on us in this, his latest Hot Review: http://www.librarything.com/work/15041/reviews/49419538

Funny and good review,
Guess Martin and me had the same reaction on Thucy reporting

http://macumbeira-macumbeira.blogspot.com/2009/08/ultimate-summer-read-thucydyde...

Our dear leader has yet another hot review! A Pakistani-expat American debut:
http://www.librarything.com/work/1571859/reviews/40183556

23: very good review. I am kind of confused over why a girl's family is worrying abotu a dowry though, because in Islam it is the man who provides the dowry to the woman not the other way around... Looking forward to reading this one nonetheless.

Interesting: my internet research suggests that the dowry (given to the man) has been creeping into Muslim communities in the Indian subcontinent. Hindu culture influencing Muslim culture, I guess?

25: I am not that familiar with the South Asian muslim society but I have never heard of it, because the dowry provided to the woman is so well known in Muslim family law and codified since the very beginning (mentioned specifically in the Quran I believe). Since the author is Pakistani she must know better than I do... but now my curiosity is piqued, I will also ask some of my Pakistani friends, because it still seems really strange to me.

Oh jeez, now I'm exceedtingly paranoid: Did I mix that up in the review?!!! Wouldn't that important point be rather embarassing to mix up!!!??? I will be looking very closely at the book again on my lunch break. Good gosh, what a mow-ron I am if I got that backwards! How embarassing! I will update you once I re-examine the text.

Probably you're correct, EF, based on Medellia #25 above. I'm not familiar with S. Asia, I only lived in Arab countries.

Perhaps the bravest and most powerful review I've yet encountered:

http://www.librarything.com/work/783173/reviews/49132406

Leave it to Richard Derus to pull off such a beautiful piece on such a sensitive, personal, and disturbing topic! Wow.

Wow indeed! Takes reviewing to a new level of personal confession.

30...I love that kind of review.

Medellia strikes again on Hot Reviews with Maurice

http://www.librarything.com/work/2156487/reviews/48080318

I already posted this, but as it still isn't appearing, I'll post again.

I just read Medellia's review and thought it was really excellent.

#31/32: Thanks, you two. And I third the "wow" on richardderus's review.

Hey Richard, I'd like to apologize on behalf of wisewoman for just kicking you out of the top spot on Hot Reviews with her very funny review of Twilight. Sorry about that Sir.

Oh yes. *humbly bows to Mr. Derus* My longwinded ramble has nothing on your clean spare prose!

*graces thread with first comment*

We forgive you, wisewoman. Your review was worthy of unseating Us.

He operates on a completely different planet when it comes to reviewing books. Is there any other like him? No, there is not!

http://www.librarything.com/work/2118/reviews/11035234

I do hope he'll expound for us earthlings what he meant by "Brechtian vergremdungseffekt". Awesome, informative, and an intro to Magic Realism.

After Vikram Seth, now Salman Rushdie !

It is happening right in front of our eyes !!!

Tomcat the sadhu has picked - up its tail and has left Mother Russia crossed the Wolga and is now plunging in the mighty Ganges !

Away Away Gorki and Trotsky and Dostoievski and Gogol and Pushkine and other Bulgakovs !

open the window for the blinding light and the simmering heat.

Superb review Master Tomcat

in one sweep you bring together all the books I recently read : M&M , LOTM, Gogol's stories, Marques

Brechtian vergremdungseffek

Should we not start a collection of these kinds of expressions in order to show our erudition ? I love dropping from time to time a word like that just to, to euh .... show off what !

There is a for instance a lot of schadenfreude in his Weltanschauung, is it not ?

I once claimed that Joyce invented the "alienation effect" before Brecht; but Thackeray had it even before Joyce. Both BARRY LYNDON and VANITY FAIR are classic examples of Brechtian-Joycean artistic judo, constantly moving the reader into highly charged emotional-political situations and deftly defusing audience identification at the most crucial points.

Bernard Shaw attempted something of this sort in his ST. JOAN, explaining in the preface that he was writing tragedy, not melodrama, and defining the difference elegantly: "Melodrama deals with the conflict of good and evil, tragedy with the conflict of good and good." Not quite; it would be better to define tragedy as the conflict of ambiguity and ambiguity. Here Thackeray and Kubrick excel and mutually reinforce each other. The magnificent almost Euripidean complexity of the final dual in BARRY LYNDON is such that, on the emotional-reflex level, one has been manipulated to sympathize with both parties and with neither of them. The alienation effect or the multiple shocks in that scene- the "turn of the screw," Henry James called it - quite obliterates any emotional identification. One can neither rejoyce with the victor nor hate him; nor can one too easily pity the loser. One has been raised above the mammalian politics of the antagonists, cannot take sides any longer, and can only SEE with objective clarity the idiocy of the whole value system that made the tragedy as predictable as a cycle in astronomy.

Justin Case, a film critic for Confrontation Magazine

More help with those ponderous German words:

http://showme.physics.drexel.edu/thury/A-Effect.html

Clear, Mann reaches the same result when both tutors fighting over the soul of Hans Castorp in the Magic Mountain stand against each other in a duel.

Thanks for all your enthusiastic responses, everyone, and for that very interesting link Poor.

Verfremdungskeffekt means alienation effect. Brecht invented this term to describe what he was doing with theatre. He wanted to react against the exceeding naturalism of the Stanislavski/Denisov/Chekhov/Max Reinhardt school. In theatrical terms, he held that naturalism in the theatre would soon be superseded by the movies, in which greater naturalism could be arrived at due to the close up. (He was of course right about that) He wanted therefore to reclaim the theatre as a space for a shared experience that was also political. He sought to jolt the audience awake at every opportunity, creating a theatre of the mind rather than of the emotions. He did not want his audience to identify with characters, but to think politically about their situation. He also gave the same advice to his actors, and devised very interesting exercises to help them stay apart from their characters. He was the antithesis of the method school of acting.

Examples of VE in the theatre include::
puppets
lack of scenery
huge casts
didactic and agitprop songs at key moments of drama
placards and signs to tell the audience when to laugh or applaud
announcers giving plot summaries of scenes
mime and lack of props

The phrase 'breaking the frame' originates from Brecht, the frame being the proscenium arch of the naturalistic theatre. In naturalistic theatre, a basic rule is that one never steps beyond the proscenium. Brecht abolished the proscenium altogether.

One can see the influence of Brecht's ideas in any modern theatrical production. Gunter Grass, a key figure in magic realism (but one who post dates Bulgakov of course) was heavily influenced by Brechtian aesthetics.

and Mackie, I think it's less a case of Schadenfreude in ze Weltanschaung, and more a case of die Pumpernickel in die Lederhosen, nicht wahr?

Ausgezeichnet ! Das war gefundenes Fressen fur Sie !

Woodstock was 40 years ago. There's a new movie coming out taking us back to that time. Or better yet, read this book (not about Woodstock per se) but about the counter-culture that made Woodstock what it was. I so wish I had been there. What was it like Ganeshaka? http://www.librarything.com/work/6451161

She don't need no pimp to pimp her reviews no more. But it's been so quiet round these part of late. Just isn't the same w/out the hottie and her friends to keep it lively. A much more quiet salon w/out the puppets. Oh well. Perhaps someday sock-puppet persecution will belong to the past. I see a day in the future when puppets won't be judged for their cloth or their wool but for the content of their heart, and the content of their character, but for now . . . ah well . . . we must endure.

Do enjoy this piece on connection (or lack thereof), from the salon's own, magnificent Medellia!:

http://www.librarything.com/work/17951/reviews/48379855

Nice review, Medellia! I was not a big fan of the book but it might be interesting to reread thinking about the themes you bring out. Have you seen the film version with Emma Thompson, Anthont Hopkins, and Helena Bonham-Carter? I thought it was fairly good.

#49: Fight the power, bro. (Actually please don't because we like having you here. ;)

#50: I haven't seen the film yet, but I think I probably will this weekend. A couple of weeks ago I watched Maurice (another Merchant Ivory production) and enjoyed it, and a short time before that I watched the MI Room With a View. I had a few nitpicks (I'm hard to please when it comes to adaptations) but I enjoyed them both. Great casts, beautiful scenery, music well-done.

I liked your Twilight review, btw (though I hope you don't mind if I don't rush out and purchase it :).

50, 51...the question is: Will Howard's End have enough steam to unseat Twilight from the top slot? There they go! - wisewoman and Medellia, neck and neck...who will be victorious?

LOL, should I take my vote away from Medellia's review? :-P

Thanks Medellia. Can't say I blame you! My copy is secondhand and I probably would never have read the series if it weren't for some very persistent younger sisters...

Do you consider yourself a purist when it comes to film/TV adaptations of books? I do (with some few exceptions).

Enrique, I would never have the courage to take on wisewoman! She's a powerhouse, she can't be stopped!

Yes, wisewoman, I'm definitely a purist. For example, I thought the 2005 Pride and Prejudice adaptation was dreadful. Mystery Science Theater 3000-esque fodder for my husband and me. (As I recall from the JA forum here, I think your opinion is slightly more moderate than mine?)

Even tiny changes can bother me. While watching A Room With a View, a little voice in the back of my head shouted, "It was violets, not cornflowers, darn it!" Plot changes and additions usually drive me batty but occasionally I find them convincing enough--for example, there were a few of these in the Kate Beckinsale Emma, which I liked. And in Maurice the addition of Risley's Wildean trial seemed like a reasonable way of showing the modern viewer what's at stake and making Clive's worries over societal pressures more explicit. So I'm not completely hopeless when it comes to my purism.

Congrats on vaulting into the top spot, Medellia! :) I was getting kind of sick of seeing Twilight there anyways, lol.

Yay, a kindred spirit! I'm weird about the 2005 P&P... I really am hardcore about the awful changes they made and will rant and rave about them at the slightest provocation, but I can still watch it with some measure of enjoyment (interspersed with cringes at the worst parts, of course). It's a quick fix when we don't have time for the almighty, all-wonderful '95 P&P starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle ;)

Tiny changes are sometimes the most annoying because they're so pointless. There is usually a reason for big changes even if they're awful; I can appreciate that there was some thought put into them. But small changes like violets to cornflowers just say "lazy" to fans.

Hate to butt in, but you're on a subject near and dear to my heart.... the 2005 Pride and Prejudice was dreadful, especially when compared with the 1995 version. And don't get me started on the most recent rendering of Persuasion.

Wisewomen, I read your review to my 13 year-old, who read--and hated--Twilight. She concurred with your assessment. According to her, "It was an interesting idea. Too bad Meyer didn't hand it off to someone who could write."

Kudos to all above-mentioned reviewers. Excellent all!

You're not butting in at all! And I agree, the latest Persuasion was awful. Have you seen the hilarious YouTube video, "The Run of Anne"? Let me find it... Here we go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZsyVm01Dw. And the run is, of course, just one of many issues. Don't get me started on the latest Mansfield Park with Billie Piper!

Sounds like your daughter is extremely mature and analytical for her age. Most of the young girls I know are all pretty much in love with Edward, sadly. There are a few exceptions, but I don't think most of them are mature enough to see the problems without having them pointed out.

#55: (interspersed with cringes at the worst parts, of course)
Like when Darcy walks, soggy and open-shirted, through the misty fields at dawn to tell Elizabeth she has bewitched him, "body and soul"? Ha!

Yes, join in, theaelizabet! I watched the first ~30 minutes of the recent Persuasion, then skipped to the ending and saw the running and the horrible kiss and the last scene where Captain Wentworth buys Kellynch Hall. Oh my goodness no. (This wasn't their fault, but I recognized Lady Russell right away as the Borg Queen from Star Trek: First Contact. So every time they cut to a shot of Lady Russell, my insides gave a little scream. :)

Wisewoman, that video is hilarious. I haven't bothered watching Mansfield Park, since I heard bad things about both of the adaptations (there have been two, right?).

Kudos to your daughter, theaelizabet, she does sound well ahead of her age. And wisewoman, I'm sure your sisters are very lucky to have you around to give them an intelligent, adult discussion of Twilight's flaws.

Look out! Freeque's back, climbing the Hot Reviews ladder with a review of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. (Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to do some jumping jacks and hug a loved one and flap my jaw with a renewed appreciation.)
http://www.librarything.com/work/6478/reviews/49905747

My GOD that's a depressing book. Excellent review, M. le Freeque.

I agree that the 2005 P&P was dreadful. A travesty from beginning to end. Keira Knightly is utterly incompetent as an actress, and is completely the wrong gender (Anyone seen The Duchess? More incompetent acting there -she does have nice teeth though). All the casting was wrong wrong wrong. oh I had a long rant building up, but I can't be bothered to expand the energy on something so worthless.

I'm off to check out Freeque's review. Now THAT was a good movie!

Wisewoman--"The Run of Anne" is spectacular! It almost makes me glad I watched the movie. Almost.

Oh yeah, tomcat!? I thought Keira Knightly was awesome in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. She's hot!! (**whispers** Nobody tell my wife I said that.) I think she's the next Cameron Diaz!

Thanks Richard! I think you’re Hot too, btw . . . as in another Hot Review! . . . http://www.librarything.com/work/419573/reviews/47457111

Har! Woo-hoo! Good job, dude! And on an author not very well known - favorite kind of review! Those up-and-comers or underappreciated need all the free publicity and help they can get . . . right? Amen.

wisewoman, medellia, theaelizabet (and any other salonista Austenites I'm unaware of). . . it's simply, certifiably shameful and embarassing that I've never read any Jane Austen in my middle-aged life!, though I absolutely adored the 2005 version of P&P! Wasn't that an awesome adaptation staying true to Austen's original, unique vision? Keira Knightly rocks! I had no idea that British men in the early 19th century went about barechested with gold chains like disco dancers. Woohoo!

Har (I guess).

#61, #63 I thought Keira Knightly was quite good in Atonement

The Ukrainian writer and socialite Nikolas Gogol made quiet a sensation yesterday when he arrived at the Guggenheim Balboa amidst throngs of photographers and fans who had flocked together at the entrance to get a glimpse of the famous writer.....

read more at :

http://macumbeira-macumbeira.blogspot.com/2009/08/reviews-from-absurdistan-part-...

Bravo Big Mac!

Very clever and creative, that opening especially: Review as historical society piece! I liked it a lot.

Let's see, checking in, Richard has two reviews Hot, like clockwork. Wisewoman is undoubtedly about to go #1 again w/another (oh dear God) Twilight review . . . Listen WW, if your little sisters wanted you to jump off a cliff because, according to them, it's fun, would you do it?

I actually did too, Solla, like Knightly in Atonement. Now, having not read Atonement, I'm not going to make the same mistake I once made re. the early 2000s film version of The Count of Monte Cristo in another group, and say how great a movie it was only to have the hardcore Ian McEwanites come out of the rafters looking to gouge my eyes out for lauding a cinematic effort that perhaps does not remain true to McEwan's vision, so I will not say I thought the movie was great, even though indeed I thought it was. Opinions? Anybody here read Atonement and seen the movie both?

Enrique wrote: Listen WW, if your little sisters wanted you to jump off a cliff because, according to them, it's fun, would you do it?

No, but I might research cliff-jumping so I had good reasons to explain to them why they shouldn't either :-P

I don't care for Knightley as an actress. She has a very insolent aura and it's annoying to watch. Plus she just isn't a convincing actress in the first place, at least not in the roles I've seen her play...

I see we are going to have to get on Enrique's case about never having read Austen. You are hardly literate, sir! ;)

*admits to an exception in purism... also likes the new Monte Cristo movie, but as an entirely different story from the book*

Yes, delightful work, Macumbeira! And more hot reviews from richardderus and wisewoman: these are surely good times.

I'll have you reading Austen yet, 'Rique, but I'll let you finish Forster first. ;)

I've seen Knightley in two movies and didn't care for her in either one. As I told 'Rique recently, I got all excited at seeing that an adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is being filmed--until I saw that Keira Knightley was playing Ruth. The Kathy actress is Carey Mulligan, who played Kitty Bennet in that awful P&P, but she did have a memorable role in an episode of the new Doctor Who.

I am sorry to say that ,like Henry, I have never read Austen. I figured the movies were sufficient to fill the gap.

Knightley is too skinny to draw my attention....

Yeah, I suppose I see what most of you are saying about poor Keira. Check out Atonement, though, c'mon! She is skinny (not that I'm a thinophobe by any means!) but...truth be told, I am more a Kate Winslet man myself.

Personally, I'll take Jake Gyllenhall over la Knightley or Miss Winslet any day.

ETA: Thanks, EF. I think Colum McCann is unjustly underknown. Straight man though he is, poor thing (doubtless poor parenting), he has a gift for the outsider's PoV.

I did read the book Atonement, the first I read by Ian McEwan, and, so far, by far the best. Although Saturday may be the only other that I have read, so perhaps that isn't saying too much. I think the movie was definitely true in spirit to the book, except at one point at the end. And, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I thought it was a great movie, intense, emotional and sensual. And most of that was in the relationship shown between the character played by Knightly and that of the lead actor. In fact, I thought she was so good that it got me over certain negative feelings about sterotypically attractive women that I'd had about how it was her, rather than the Indian actress, Parminder Nagra, who'd been "found" from Bend it like Beckham (about an Indian girl in a traditional Indian family living in London who loves to play soccer, not a great movie, but sweet).

I read Mc Ewan's "booker" Amsterdam and I found it as skinny as Keira. Especially if you compare it to other booker prize winners.
I saw the Atonement movie, which was very good, altough I was a bit confused by the ending.

truth be told, I am more a Kate Winslet man myself.

Now you're talking! Me-ow!

I've thought about watching Atonement. I understand that one of the main actresses (Romola Garai) will be playing Emma Woodhouse in the BBC's upcoming Emma miniseries.

Kate Winslet is brilliant. And sexy and lovely. but I agree with Mr Derus: Jake Gyllenhaal any day.

Knightly: I dunnno, Freeky, maybe it's an English thing. In P&P she reminded me of one of these girls who will slap you for stepping on her handbag down at the disco on Friday night. She doesn't know if if she's as common as muck or as blue bred as Diana.

She does have lovely teeth though. And who is Ian McEwan?

Jake Gyllenhaal is indeed rugged and very manly manly, though personally, I prefer his girl-next-door sister, Maggie.

Now, before our boy Jake got so rugged and manly and good looking and fit for Brokeback Mountain type roles, he was in a little indie w/Chris Cooper called October Sky - great great father son story of disconnection and disappointment but of ultimate reconciliation - fabulous. Then, shortly thereafter, he starred in another indie fave (a much weirder, though no less wonderful, fave), Donnie Darko, that after several viewings I'm still trying to figure out.

And who is Ian McEwan?

I simply adore how well some cats can turn up their noses with the utmost dignity and politeness!

Maki nutshells Greene w/perfect precision (no easy task): http://www.librarything.com/work/8503

I would never have the courage to take on wisewoman! She's a powerhouse, she can't be stopped!

Me neither Medellia! Right now, WW occupies the top three (3!!!) spots on Hot reviews. Since I've been watching Hot Reviews closely for about the past year, I don't recall any member ever pulling off that feat. Incredible!

womansheart has got a great heart for The Good Thief!
http://www.librarything.com/work/5364148/reviews/42936808

Right now, WW occupies the top three (3!!!) spots on Hot reviews.
We're not worthy!

Great reviews of bad books seems to be a new theme around here! Check out our dear leader's latest work of righteous anger:
http://www.librarything.com/work/626410/reviews/50144993

Thanks guys. It's nice that people seem to appreciate my ramblings!

Good one, Rique. My favorite part is when you talk about the "huge, frightful incisors." A glance at the cover then sends me into the giggles. Heehee.

This group is heaving with talent. I love it.

It's like the Oscars everyday 'round here.

hubris comes before the fall !

All I said was it's like the Oscars 'round here, Mac. Geez!

LOL you cheater you erased it !!!!

OMG!!! WW doesn't have a review that's #1 presently! Everything okay? And she only has three HRs at the moment. You are slippin' big time WW!

Not only am I so excited for our impending M&M read; but even more so . . . just 13 days (I can hardly wait) until the new Dan Brown monstrosity (novel) comes out!

Woohoo!

*aims a spitwad in Rique's general direction*

Can't believe I missed the hot actor/actress conversation! Serves me right for not visiting. I am so close to finishing my current reads I will be ready to dive into MnM. I have kept tabs on all these hot reviews. You all are amazing.

Oh, slick, you really missed out man! It was an amazing conversation! And I see no reason actually for it to have come to an end. I like Claire Danes too. And Penelope Cruz! Thumbs up for Penelope.

Nice review of Last Vanities Mr. Freeque!

richardderus has done it again with a very thought-provoking review of 1066: The story of a year.

Thanks, Anna, but I just maunder on...Freiherr von Freeque puts it on the line:

"The irony of her style is that she packs abundant, maximal substance into each short piece. I can't wait to be eminently disturbed by her diminuitive work again."

Fleur Jaeggy could hope for no better compliment than that. Being Swiss and old, she better take her compliments as she finds 'em here in the barely literate Murrikin marches. Last Vanities joins my Wishlist, "thanks" to EF. *grumble*

I think Kate Beckinsale is a fabulous actress as well! And very attractive!

Gracias guys!

Tomcat's right when he speaks of there being a ton of talent in the salon. A lot of that talent, the most of it, in fact, unfortunately, doesn't regularly participate and therefore their work gets overlooked.

I'd like, from this point forward, to put an end to that. So, having just randomly clicked on recent members, I clicked on jargoneer. Excellent reviews jargoneer! Many of you know him well from the Lit. Snobs group. I'd like to call attention to his review of Camus' The Stranger ( or, "The Outsider"), four reviews down on his reviews page.

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=jargoneer

Excellent piece, yes? (among others of his). Too many of you here in the salon have been inadvertently overlooked and neglected and I'll simply not sit by idly anymore and let the reviewing oversights continue to occur. All of you will eventually get pimped (if not by me, then I'm sure by others who pick up the baton).

Back on HR, Richard has charged into 2nd place w/1066, just behind that dratted dominating WWs Bronze Boy piece. Will he overtake her? Can he pull off the upset? Stay tuned to see!

Just playing catch-up on everyone's reviews. Great work, everybody! Rah rah rah!

#95: We haven't seen him around in a few months there, but Jargoneer also kept a reading log in Club Read. Worth a look!
http://www.librarything.com/topic/53301

Oh, and I agree about Kate Beckinsale. She was wonderful in Emma (miles better than Gwyneth Paltrow in the other version) and Cold Comfort Farm. (Sorry, wisewoman, we part ways on the latter. ;)

Guess we are all too busy reading...

or something that rimes with . . .

eating ?

speeding?

brie-ding.

ok just "leev-ing"

or re-lieving.

deceiving?

bee-leaving.

damn, with all these "eevings" it is a miracle we can still contribute to this salon !!

No more "eevings", it's a promise.

The guy on the picture on the left is a pirate, a genuine buccaneer. Oh yes he is! Maybe not a real pirate but certainly a thief and a swindler, a liar and a slaver, he is a drunk, a bum, a deserter and a…

read more at ....

http://macumbeira-macumbeira.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-wicked-wicked-ways-by-eroll...

Did he really castrate sheep with his teeth? Golly! Ferocious!

And Mr Derus has a very moving review about rereading the books of one's youth (don't, in other words) and another hilarious one here: (a book a day richard? Someone please sit on him.)

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=richardderus

biting of the balls ! Couldn't believe it either.
On the internet some sites say it is a myth, other sites mention old farmhands from the outback who still know it and explain how to do it.

The thing is you need your two hands to keep the sheep from kicking in your face, you cannot hold a knife, therfore you just bite, tear and spit it out.... They call that desert pearls...

Flynn describes it quiet graphically

Great review Mac! I've been looking for a copy of Beam Ends. I'm going to pick up My Wicked, Wicked Ways as well. Erroll Flynn was quite a guy. I had no idea he was such a ruffian. I'm afraid I'll think of him biting off sheep's balls with his teeth every time I watch one of his films now.

Mr. Derus has quite a sharp wit. Very funny!

so let me see if I've understood this. Kneeling down here at the back of the sheep, both hands holding both legs.... yes, I see what mean, nothing left to hold a knife....
ok... bringing face up close here... opening mouth.... ouf bit smelly..... mmdfffbrew...... btgrwnio.......mmmmmmnnnnnnnggggggggg.......snap! ooops got hit in the eye there (they're rather elastic these things, aren't they?)... and mouth full of....what? fishballs? preserved eggs?
tastes like.... oh I see you're not supposed to eat them, but spit them out?
oh.

exactly, you got it.
But they work with three on one sheep. I will not tell you what the other guys are doing. LOL

They organize workshops in, "traditional sheep herding" in Kookkaburra.
Any takers ?

And poor-ious, who is on a rural retreat somewhere in the wilds of North Michigan, has recently reviewed three books here:

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=poor-ious

Short, but pithy and full of matter. I espcially join him in recommending Anthony Burgess's Earthly Powers, a great book.

richardderus, I am starting to look forward to your reviews. Every time one of them gets on the "hot" list I'm happier!
http://www.librarything.com/work/673408/reviews/50279528

Thanks so much, anna! It's a lovely thing to be told you're making people happier. Especially when writing about ol' Icky, menace to society that she was.

I love having a day off work to catch up with everybody. The indefatigable richardderus has done it again!

http://www.librarything.com/work/7049476/reviews/50897959

Also, I noticed user RebeccaAnn (don't know her; anybody know her?) has written an exceptional piece on The Crying of Lot 49 too.

I know RebeccaAnn. She's very smart, and very nice too!

Oh good WW. I've read her last five reviews and she is definitely salon material. She's presently reading Hugo & Dumas. Her review of the Ishiguro was stunning.

Would somebody please invite her here to the salon? I would, of course, but I'm not a member of this group, as many of you know, nor can I ever become a member of this group, because when you form a group and then leave it....remember?...you can't get back in. I'm in the salon, but I'm exiled from the salon. Ponder that paradox! Wait, maybe that belongs in compleat and udder nonsense. And in order to send someone a proper invite and not just a link, you must already be a member of the group. I could've just simply asked someone to send her an invite, but I'm feeling verbose, if not lugubrious, and it's been awhile, so please pardon the wordy-nerdyness.

Four (4!!!!) reviews Hot, simultaneously, Richard?

You suck.

And very well, too.

I laughed, but I didn't open my mouth while I was laughing.

Robert

LOL Robert!

I did not inhale.

122-125...Terrible (as in terrific) all of you.

A lifelong pacifist reads & reviews a brutal account of WWI. Find out what happened, and whether or not she survived the experience, right here: http://www.librarything.com/work/8489/reviews/46964716

This book chastened me and saddened me. I feel that I am a different person for having read it - definitely wiser, if not happier.

anna, that just made the shade of Barbara Tuchman grin from ear to ear! Wonderful review.

Macumbeira appears to be on an Erroll Flynn binge, with a Hot Review of Beam Ends today...good stuff!

Go Big Mac Daddy go!

anna's review resulted in an immediate wishlisting. i long ago bought my wicked wicked ways based on a previous review. that book inspires great reviews all around.

it was ganeshaka review which prompted me to read both wicked wicked ways and beam's end. I would have been sorry to have missed both books because they are really entertaining and shed an original light on the actor Erroll Flynn. Today most actors seem pussies compared with the real stuff.

In the past boats were made of wood and men of steel.
Today the boats are made of steel and the men from wood !

: )

I like these kind of Macho one liners...
They always get me wodka for free.

128 Not really hot the review !

I wish I met Flynn in real live, somewhere in a bar along the Mekong river for instance.

After decennies of travel, I can count on one hand my encounters with such "larger than live" figures. Moments to cherish.

>133 Macumbeira: No kidding, moments to cherish! Of course, if larger than life people were common, life would be larger....

How true ! How sad ! Pass me the bottle...

The Body Artist becomes therefore, as much a work of philosophy as it is a work of fiction.

So saith EnriqueFreeque. So sayeth we all (at least in my house). Excellent review, sir.

Gracias, Sir Richard.

Funny & fabulous, both....

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=RSHabroptilus

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=Ganeshaka

The kid is on a roll....

http://www.librarything.com/work/4731/reviews/50940519

>138 absurdeist: Uh oh, Enrique, Macumbeira...that snapping sound you hear is a certain young Texan gentleman baying and slavering at your heels, ready to take down the old bulls....

Good job, RSHab!

Aw snap! You guys! :-*

I had no idea I was on here!

Thanks! both of youse!

Ganeshaka is back, and he's dishing on Melville's maiden voyage. I'm wishlisting it.

http://www.librarything.com/work/130367/reviews/51185464

and richardderus is presently pimping two books by LT author, Susanne Alleyn, over in HR.

Pimping hard, true, and about to pimp the third one. I like history made lively, and she's done it.

Ganeshaka's review made me break a 25-year-old resolve not to read Melville until my fifties...oh wait...uh, never mind. The review's outstanding!

Solla, the salon asks your forgiveness in overlooking your 2666 review of two weeks ago. Solla's taken from what I've gathered is a pretty difficult, complex work and gotten in there and made some great sense of it. Thank you, Solla. I think 2666 would make a great future Salon read.

(her second review down)http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=solla

Ganeshaka has got me scrambling through the moth-balls looking for that Melville novel. M. was pushing the language hard long before Joyce, et al.

I have twice tried to read Moby Dick, only to put it down twice. Maybe Redburn is the book for me.

tomcat on DFWs, A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again: http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2009/09/supposedly-fun-thing-ill-never-do-again.h...

I'm glad you enjoyed it tomcat. Very well done. I think the title essay is one of the funniest (if not finest) works of non-fiction I've yet encountered. I'd always been skeptical myself of cruises, and after reading that piece, have vowed never to go on cruise. I still do eat Lobster, though, no matter what DFW says about them (but that's in a different book).

and I completely agree that in two centuries it'll be DFW & Pynch people will be reading, just like we read Dickens & Trollope today (just got me a bunch of Trollope btw), except for richardderus & rdurick, apparently (any other heretics out there we need to know about? - I'm presently gathering wood for a couple of stakes I'm readying)....I'm kidding! see that smily face... ;-)...that means I'm not serious!

If Dickens is the Devil, then, then, then....then who's worse than the Devil? Because whoever's worse than the Devil - that would have to be James Joyce. Not Dan Brown. Not Stephanie Meyers. James Joyce. Deal with it.

James Joyce wrote one good book: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. After that it was sniggering overachiever masturbates in public daring everyone to catch him. Yech.

But he's still a subdemon, second class, compared to Chuckles the Dick. *HE* never wrote a good book. They vary among horrific (A Tale of Two Cities), revoltingly mawkish (A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist), and grindingly overwritten (Our Mutual Friend, Great Expectations).

The Devil?
the devil???
Satan?
Beezelbubb?
Belial?
The Evil One?
Apollyon?
The Prince of Darkness?
The Old Serpent?
Lucifer?

Dickens was: The Sparkler, The Inimitable.
Joyce: by his own admission Nabokov played patball to Joyce's championship game. Nabokov was talking about his works in English, of course.

Is it possible to be an Artist and not share Satan's unconcern for those about him?

Everyone, should richardderus be suspended from the salon (or perhaps LibraryThing?) for his blasphemous, beyond outrageous blasts on Dickens? I agree, I think he should be suspended from LibraryThing.

Are we going to be able to coexist peacefully w/richard (and any unbelievers like him?!) who so befoul the honorable name of a master?

I honestly don't know! ;-)

And notice, richard, you Dick, I said "master", not "mastur"!

Dearest, I cannot help the bad parenting and societal abuse that left you admiring one of the world's all-time most successful literary con-men unless you *first admit that you have a problem.*

Until then, I shall simply and grandly ignore your perfervid effusions in support of the insupportable.

Burning at the stake for him, definitely. Oh what a nice bright greasy flame he will make!

I have a pitchfork I can bring!

yes! prod the heretic!

( putting garlic smeared silver bullets in my Colt 45 )

Did I hear any disrespectful remarks about my friend James Joyce a few posts ago?

Don't make me angry...

You wouldn't like me when I am angry...

Richard, you better hope you have a lookalike! Where's your Sidney Carton now??!!

poor-ious is #2 on HR presently. All right poor!
http://www.librarything.com/work/309277/reviews/51336844

a far, far better rest that I go to . . . yes, poorie should definitely attend.

I look forward to the day when RSHabroptilus' footnotes in his reviews have footnotes. Until then, I'll be happy with just footnotes.

http://www.librarything.com/work/74463/reviews/30700009

Definitely not a hottie, so don't fan the flames, not tempest-TOS'd, not to me, but you might give this a quick read if you're interested in a review of a literary criticism of The Master and Margarita.

2666 would be a great choice; I'd even join in fer that!

(But first I must read The Savage Detectives!)

Well done Wilf! Read it, thumbed it, was seriously about to link it here, along w/Bokai's very dry review of some horror piece of crap. Be back in a sec with the Bokai link....

Never in my relatively short life have I ever read such a...positive sounding review...of a book which the reviewer gave only one-and-a-half stars.

Very nice of you, Bokai! ;-)

http://www.librarything.com/work/8104302/reviews/51473197

Ah well, the review is to help people make a choice, the stars are where I flex my bias.

It was a crappy book imo but I can't bring myself to say such things in more public spaces. Potato chip books also help me fill in the spaces between more demanding reads, so I can't say that it was without purpose either.

I admire your diplomacy, truly. I'm pretty black-and-white mostly when it comes to review composition. Love it or hate it. The hardest books to review, for me, are your ho-hum, average, not bad, not great, reads.

and congrats, Wilf, on your recent #1 HR!

thanks, EF, quite unexpected for an obscure, out of print piece of non-fiction.

Le Salon Litteraire bin berry good to Weelf.

thanks Richard, for helping me get my morning laugh on!

http://www.librarything.com/work/27788/reviews/51289750

Oh, good! This horrible book served at least ONE positive purpose!

world class review....
http://www.librarything.com/work/2529450/reviews/51611194

The art of the review as rant, or vice versa:
http://www.librarything.com/work/8384326/reviews/41275408

Not Wilkie's best, recommended nonetheless. When WW reviews, le peuple listen:
http://www.librarything.com/work/422448

WW, a herring! nice to know there are other Wilkie Collins fans out there!

OK, I want to hear from RSHabroptilus on his reason for reading Twilight. We know wisewoman's excuse. Color me curious.

Wilkie's my man :D

Yeah Todd! Why did you read Twilight loser.

Perhaps it was for the felicity of writing the review? It's a pleasure many of you have not tasted, reviewing Twilight.

WW, enjoyed your review of Twilight. BTW, a dust moat is the ring around the eye formed when blinking those dust motes out of the eye itself.

It's a pleasure many of you have not tasted, reviewing Twilight.

Gosh, I'm soooo tempted. ;) (I come from a family of women with high blood pressure. Best to avoid things like Twilight, as I don't wish to stroke myself off this mortal coil in my 20s.)

Boy if I had only read WW's review first, I wouldn't have bothered being all snarky snarky. :)))

Hard to believe, but I read Twilight for a college lit. course. Woah!

>181 tootstorm:.

Was it one of those Creative Writing by Bad Example courses?

My Sister-In-Law is gaga for Twilight. And Eragon.

I read Eragon, and thought it was horrid. It's so horrid that it is the subject of my NaNoWriMo project for this year. (Watch for it, this November: Qhoenix! I live-write my NaNos, so you can read them while I write them!)

So, Twilight, probably not for me. I'll just read my daughter's diary, when I have a daughter, and she's a teenager, and is dating a vampire.

Oh, Eragon. I didn't know much about it going in and I honestly wanted to like it. But I had to set it down after 30 pages; the writing was so horridly abysmal. I couldn't stomach it. I wasn't on LT at the time and hadn't even the prospect of a snarky review to motivate me.

Eragon-haters will enjoy this: http://impishidea.com/criticism/8/everything-wrong-with-eragon

Edit: And not to leave the Twilighters out: http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/meyer.twilight.shtml

RSH: seriously?! *speechless*

Dust moat: got it, Wilf. Thanks for enlightening me :D

182-183: I agree that Eragon is not very well-written, but I read all 3 of them to date as the products of a very young writer and that made them easier, for me, than reading a full grown idiot like Dan Brown. I kept mentioning to my kids (who loved them) that they were really super derivative from LOTR, but of course most high fantasy is, so....

>184 anna_in_pdx:.

It's Derivative of just about EVERYTHING, actually.

LOTR, Earthsea, Dune, Star Wars, the Belgariad, Song of Fire and Ice, Pern...

Etc., etc.

Did anybody else notice that the title is essentially the word "Dragon," with the next letter of the alphabet replacing D? Eragon: It's Like Dragon, Only With an E.

And a lot like Aragorn. That's the one I always heard: most names being taken from Star Wars or LOTR w/ slight alterations.

And uh, the class I read Twilight in was a class on adolescent lit. (basically the only reason I know anything about the subject--one of my fav. classes b/c it really flipped my ideas on what AL was right round & let me know that Hey, some of this stuff is p. damn good! (e.g., John Greene's Looking for Alaska--marvy; like a DeLillo for teens! (IMO))), and the prof., while attempting for a whole five minutes to stay neutral on the subject of Twilight, was definitely using it as an example of how not to do things.

Also, it's practically an anagram for Garion, the protagonist of the Belgariad, who also has a glistening palm blister.

I forgot, there's also an oblique reference to Doctor Who in Paolini's disasterpiece.

Hey Todd, look, your review of Twilight is being critiqued and analyzed presently in the #1 Hot Topic on LT! Congratulations! Boy, you really know how to set off a firestorm of controversy!

http://www.librarything.com/topic/74575#

You're making me want to read Eragon. A few years ago I looked at Paolini's website and saw in snippets from interviews him talking about his main influences him comparing his prose to that found in Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf & Tolkien's LOTR. He's a stuck up little bastard of a boy.

Has he improved w/ each book at all?

Boy I tell you what I've been hungering right strong lately for some epic fantasy series. I don't think I've read any since LOTR in 'o4. Suggestions? Belgariad series? I want something that's OVER and DONE WITH, so no G.R.R.M. S.O.F. & I. business please!

On topic: Waldstein's two reviews of Cakes and Ale by Maugham are p. good. Never read any Maugham, tho.

@ EF: Holy shit!

That zoe really has it in for me. I even told her it was just an act!

One guy said my post wasn't insightful, which is kinda mean, b/c while sloppy/unorganized, I thought I was being pretty informative w/ the whole history of A.L. and her effect upon it. :(((

EDIT: I do agree with one of her complaints. I didn't really like putting "mentally retarded" in there. I couldn't decide on what to put in its place and then gave up and put that b/c Wikipedia sez it's PC.

And here I just thought it was nogare spelled backwards. Silly me!

190...having lived firsthand in the world of "special needs" for 11+ years, I'm still not up on all the pc lingo, though "developmentally challenged" seems not to offend anyone. "Developmentally disabled," I don't mind, either, but some people find the word "disabled" offensive, since people with special needs are often quite "abled" more than you might think. "Mentally retarded," while, not personally offensive to me - in the strict context of your review, it's not offensive to me - is pretty risky lingo these days, as the negative reaction you got on your review demonstrates. It's rarely used these days other than as a pejorative, especially in it's offshoots, "retard" or "tard". I take offense to it in most other contexts because it's a dehumanizing, devaluing word, used by people who don't give a shit about the humanity of special needs populations - they're people believe it or not, with feelings too - and who think it's okay to make fun of people who typically don't have a voice or the ability to defend themselves.

Another good phrase might be "chromosomally challenged," or even "mentally challenged" isn't that bad, but I think some people take offense with "challenged" because it implies a certain "less than-ness" compared to people who aren't "challenged," at least mentally, presumably, or compared to people who are “normal” whatever “normal” means.

"Handicapped" is definitely out these days too.

While I'm embarassed to do this: here's a review I wrote last year of a really great book - Disabilityland - which touches on what I'm talking about here in this post a little more clearly.

http://www.librarything.com/work/7938000

Well said. And brilliant review as well.

My wife's in the biz and the professional term in use these days is 'developmentally delayed' until the age of eight or nine. If it becomes clear that development is not just delayed, a more precise, targeted term such as 'intellectually impaired' is then used.

Thanks guys. And yes, developmentally delayed, I hear a lot - I think that, for what's its worth - is probably the most inoffensive descriptive of the population coined yet.

I recently heard it called "not typically developing."

Is anybody else offended when their sheet music says "ritardando" for tempo? I'm more rubato, if you know what I mean.

I prefer a nice morendo. But at least when they abbreviate the above-mentioned as "rit.," I can pretend they're talking about the dye.

Twilight Review Sports Update:

Wisewoman:......58 thumbs
RSHabroptilus.....33 thumbs

OK all, I just read the latest hot review of Fahrenheit 451. I liked this book when I read it in high school. I have nothing against 99% of the review (by user merechristian). But why do people actually with a straight face compare governments like the dystopic one in the book, Nazi Germany, and Chavez' Venezuela as if they even have similarities?

I am not necessarily a Chavez groupie and I know he has a lot of controversial policies - but come on. He actually distributed books to citizens for free, including Don Quijote and I believe something by Voltaire or Hugo (escaping me at the moment). He is a very pro-reading person. Hardly comparable to Fahrenheit 451's book burning government. Or Nazi Germany, that's just silly.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussions, sorry for the political digression there, but I just sat there going "you've got to be kidding" and feeling tired, and had to vent to someone.

Maybe this HR by Makifat will make you feel better, Anna ;-) It made me feel good and want to go buy this for my kids.

http://www.librarything.com/work/5521/reviews/51735062

I read Tuck Everlasting as a kid! I loved it.

I've toyed with placing Tuck Everlasting on my eventual top ten. Beautiful book.

*knows MereChristian from other online haunts*

Why don't you ask him, anna?

203...your toying with the idea of Tuck Everlasting in your list has made me consider pulling together my list for the top Children's Books of all time. Give me a sec, and I'll begin ruminating on that; but first, a very important update for the salon (while most you are working today - HA!!! - I'm off):

TWILIGHT REVIEW SPORTS UPDATE

wisewoman.....58 thumbs
RSHabroptilus..49 thumbs

Hang in there WW, I'm pulling for you to hold off Todd down the stretch run....

brilliant brilliant brilliant....you make me purr, Pekoe. Thank you, you clever cat you!

http://www.librarything.com/work/10151/reviews/51820751

it's getting extremely close now; almost too close to call....c'mon you wisewoman fans! where are you to help her fend off wonder boy?

wisewoman.....58 thumbs
RSHabroptilus..57 thumbs

>200 anna_in_pdx:

I think the only parallel merechristian was making to those governments was the process by which they obtained power, and that was that the people gave it to them willingly and with fanfare. If I'm reading him correctly he's making reference to radical populism, but Fahrenheit 451 is tirade against an awkward sort of liberalism. I don't think I've read another bit of fiction in which the root cause of everyone's problem is an over-capitulation to the cries of the offended minorities. Maybe if I read more conservative stuff I'd find it, but the point is that only the Totalitarian part shows up in Fahrenheit. Unless my memory is dead Communism is never brought up, nor is it responsible for anything that happens. That's usually where I find most people go wrong with the story. They bunch it in with Orwell and his commie hating classics, but it's apart from all that.

And I've read enough critiques of Twilight to fill all the pages of the book itself, so I think I'll stay out of this competition.

Very, very thoughtful - and balanced - review of God Is Not Great, Martin!

Presently on HR, everybody. Quality reading.

And, 384 reviews?! Wow! Any big plans for your 400th?

Don't know which specific book yet, but it'll be a classic German book, read and reviewed in German, as will every tenth book thereafter. (I am forgetting the tongue of my fathers). Free knackwurst and almdudlers for all!

Oh, and danke sehr, mein herr.

Dieser Turbokapitalismus muss gestoppfed werden!!!!!!! Himmel!

Wo sind die Herringen?

It's a shame you weren't with us for the Hoffmann read, Herr Martin.

'Tis! Especially if it was all like that. But, you know, better late than never, especially when there's herring. Speaking of which, I think it's 'bout time to get up and start gorging myself on those toothsome little guys, plus whatever other delights await. Happy German-Canadian Thanksgiving everyone!

solla weighs in first amongst the salonistas - and very well - on The Octopus.
http://www.librarything.com/work/98156/reviews/51881837

womansheart weighs in wonderfully on a Pulitzer Prize winner, Olive Kitteridge, presently on HR:
http://www.librarything.com/work/3782972/reviews/44976067

and Geeze Louise, richard is over there on HR again too! I love all youse guys (and girls)!

And Enrique forgot to mention his review of Shock Treatment, http://www.librarything.com/work/195152

>216 absurdeist: ...I had a Hot Review? What of? I missed it. Oh well, I haven't been touting my reviews after the embarrassing five-in-a-day inicident.

I'm making an exception now since I've posted my ONE HUNDREDTH review today! It's of "The Octopus", and it's in post #136. It takes a little of the sting of being *second* away.

I'm inordinately pleased with myself for writing a hundred reviews in a year. I don't think they're all worth reading, so I think I'll keep going to get the good-to-~meh~ ratio up, practicing for next year.

Nice job, Richard (& Brent's, too)!

Hee hee, after reading the comment'ry here on the Octopus, I ended up deciding to pass on the opportunity to read it. $3 is wayyyy too much for that one.

>219 tootstorm: Good decision, Todd. Not worth $1, even. I checked mine out of the liberry. It was the first time that it'd been out since 1978.

Not worth a dollar! Wow dudes; I'm sort of enjoying it.

Yeah, lay off of Frank Norris! Nobody puts The Octopus in a corner! Maybe it's your liberry that stinks Richard, rather than the book! And Todd, please, you don't have to call me Brent...it's Dick.

Can't wait for Martin's positive review!

#221 Hey wait a minute, you just gave it a 3 star rating. And I thumbed up your review. Now it's not worth $1. Of course, I got mine from the library too, but I read too much to afford to buy all those books.

Solla brings up a most excellent point. 3 stars = not worth $1? Hmmm! a mystery!

1978? If you want popular, check out Twilight.

The review, laddies and germ plasms, says it gets three stars for hysterical...oops, historical...interest! And it's not Norris's fault the book sucks. He was only 30 when he wrote it, no one can be blamed for doing stupid shit before 40. (Except Dickens. Oh, and James Joyce. Maybe Pynchon.)

My current research read, The Making of Domesday Book, was checked out in 1969 before me. Popular? I ask youse.

Norris wouldn't get much older, but then, there is no such thing as death, or evil. Only the absence of life, or good.

richardderus, regarding your review of The Glass Castle. I have to know, did your Mr. Man still love his step-father after the abuse?

>229 semckibbin: No. He could barely stand talking about him. I wasn't surprised, I have to admit, that Jeannette Walls still loved her charming daddy. I think the character Dinitia would be closer to Mr. Man's attitude.

way to take advantage of a man crying on a bus Richard!

230: Thanks.

I am in the minority but I see Walls' book (and Walls, for that matter) as a moral failure. Her attempt to straddle the fence, tell us all the harm her parents have done and yet still love them, was very sad. She seems like she is suffering from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

232: Yesterday after reading richardderus' review I went back and read yours, which I had read previously, to make sure that I was remembering that this was the same book.

I sort of agree about the stockholm syndrome based on the details you've included in your review. However I have not read the book myself so maybe should not have an opinion.

>231 absurdeist: Oh shut up, Dick Misanthropic. You'd just let some poor soul cry and cry, being as big a meanie as you are.

>232 semckibbin: Stockholm syndrome is as good an explanation as any for the fact that one clings to the known and resists the unknown by force of nature. I can't resist the facts of my own upbringing without putting them in context, and that context defines my emotional frame for the upbringing. I hope for Walls's sake that her emotional frame is forgiveness and kindness, not simply the blind Stockholm-syndrome ingrained love of an abused for the abuser.

>233 anna_in_pdx: Dangerous to have opinions around this place....

233: Hey, thanks for taking the time to read the review. Like I said, I am in the minority (1 in 100) on this. Most talk about how uplifting her story is.

Thanks Dick!

semckibbin, it's time the salon paid your reviews more notice! Thanks Anna for getting that ball rolling. Quality reviews right here: http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=semckibbin

And poor-ious, speaking of quality reviews, your Barbara Pym piece is on HR right now. Have you seen, poor, this new Barbara Pym group that's blowing up?: http://www.librarything.com/groups/barbarapymfanclub

If you've no plans of ever reading The Octopus, just read Wilf's superb review. I'm sure it will suffice: http://www.librarything.com/work/98156/reviews/52017908

I will not read the octopus, but I will buy "the collection of Wilf's reviews" if ever they are published : )

Is there any sense of reading the art critic jOHN bERGER today ? I am wondering if I would put him on my reading list.

Thank you, EF & M!

I've yet had time to read them, but just glanced at HR only to see our beloved urania and wisewoman making a poweful one-two punch at the top!

Who cares what we write as long as we're at the top? lol

Very, very nice, Wilf! I love the lyrical passage in which you pull out the connections with other works. I love that you (and Norris) make the realism/naturalism distinction in that deft way. i love that you clearly want to acknowledge the worth in this book, but don't fall over into making excuses for it. Radical.

Yes, wisewoman's lovely review of Jane Eyre has deservedly skyrocketed into first place.

Since I had no plans of reading The Octopus, I thank you, Wilf, for giving me the gist of it.

243: I concur! Very good review, Wilf.

Hey Wilf, can you read for us "Les Miserables" ? I'll wait for your review

Yes, Wilf's review definitely surpassed the book. (haven't looked at the others yet)

Somehow I missed seeing this hilarious review by Enrique, sandwiched in between two others: http://www.librarything.com/work/12797

EF, you are a master of all sorts of subterfuge, are you not? TheNHattie got the best of me one night last summer, good for her, you know I actually have come to miss her. I can't believe it, but I do. She kept us from thinking our waste material smelt like ice cream. She certainly kept me honest.

oh poor-ious, I miss you so much too, you beastly (grrrrrrrrrr) man you! I've always liked my men, you know, the way I like my wine: well aged. I soooooo miss our late summer nights together last summer. I'm so sorry I upset you then, though what a turn on it was for me, I must say, to see you beat your chest like that all angrily. Woo-hoo! Say hi to everybody for me will ya? I'm stuck in photobucket, but hope to get out soon.

Excellent reviews everyone!!!! So glad I decided not read Octopus.
BTW anyone seen Geneg? has he been devoured by the beast?

I'm still here trudging away. I'll let you know when I', done.

The book is all too brief. The review is all too brief. Both the author's brevity and the reviewer's brevity leave me wanting more. Thank you, slick! I want to read this book. Who is this Robert Kelly author? Never heard of him. Could you briefly elaborate on his writing for us?
http://www.librarything.com/work/1417495/reviews/34120266

The review is barely worthy of being noted here. Others have delivered far more learned and witty fare. Hopefully it is of some use to those looking for a good book or wondering whether this might be that book. The Scorpions is all unselfconscious showing off and the young(ish) author's naked wish fulfillment. It is really well written without being too well written if you know what I mean. Unfortunately, Kelly became an academic poet and his subsequent work reflects that shift. The book is nearly worth picking up for the author picture alone. I'll see if I can scan it in - but I am unlucky with scanners lately. They break.

I doubt whether it will ever make it on to the hot review page due to it's arcane subject matter, and will therefore probably pass unnoticed, hence I humbly alert my fellow salonistas to my review of A History of Russian Thought. I know many of you have been waiting with baited breath in a pother of suspense for this review, otherwise I wouldn't have presumed to publicise it.

Ok guys and gals !!! Thumb time !!!!

My apologies tomcat, for not catching your review sooner, thus forcing you to pimp yourself. It is now on HR, where it belongs.

But you know, tomcat, since you're like our, oh, I don't know, in-house Salman Rushdie, say (assuming the swirling rumors about you are, in fact, true, and I believe they are true; that is, what I mean to say, that you are indeed Salman Rushie, underneath the TomcatMurr costume) you are welcome; nay, encouraged, to pimp your work at will!

Tell us more about the creation of your masterpiece, Midnight's Children, if you'd be so kind.

Not hot review material, but a heartfelt snort of irritation. I just finished and reviewed The Cave of John the Baptist on my thread http://www.librarything.com/topic/73753 and the book's reviews page.

In summary: Case not proved. Book not needed. Writing not interesting. Next docket item, please.

ouch, if that's just a "snort of irritation," what must it be like when richard's claws come out! LOL

That Russian Philosophy stuff sounds pretty interesting, and your review seems full of some provocative notions - my favorite is the notion that Orthodoxy somehow separating Russia from Greco-Roman traditions?!?! I think a bunch of the folks I was just hanging out with in Athens would find the notion of Orthodoxy separating one from Greek traditions, even those of dialectical thought, rather difficult to take. Makes me wonder what was happening in Russian Orthodoxy.

Damn. I hate reviews that make it seem like I've got to read something else. Thumbs up!

Nice one Todd!
http://www.librarything.com/work/3341312/reviews/51518643

fannyprice and "crabby pants"...well done!
http://www.librarything.com/work/5474584/reviews/50186222

devondoyle with her first HR, on Heinlein's first book! http://www.librarything.com/work/3327097/reviews/49514787

263: That's fanny's review again. :| You're looking for this.

Thank you Todd...fixed it! Duh!!!

Golly, thanks everyone! I'm delighted, not that my review is Hot (although of course that's nice), but that Russian philosophers and Russian ideas will get more exposure as a result.

A_musing, it of course must be remembered that I am referring to classical Greco/Roman thought, not Byzantine Greek, specifically the logical scientism of Aristotle and the forensic advocatism (can I create this word?) of Cicero and other Roman jurists. This tradition was almost totally absent from Russia. Distance and climate of course played a role in this.

Interestingly, this is how many of the Russian thinkers themselves saw their own philosophical tradition. Herzen especially attributed the power of Orthodoxy in Russia and the character of Russian philosophy to the absence of the classical Greco/Roman tradition and the habits of thought that it created in the West.

Secondly, it's worth bearing in mind the subtle but crucial difference between Russian and Greek Orthodoxy, which at first glance appear to be the same, but which are in fact quite different. Greek Orthodoxy has a long tradition of debate and polemic, of dialectic: (an orthodoxy of the word) while Russian Orthodoxy did not have this tradition, and was much more static in its nature, (an orthodoxy of the image, the icon). In fact, while Byzantine Orthodoxy was riven with debate and schisms throughout its history, it's noteworthy that Russian Orthodoxy only had one schism in the whole of its long history: the crisis of the mid 17th century. For more on this I recommend the first few chapters of Billington's book The Icon and the Axe from which I have learnt much.

Welp, Martin's finished reading the Octopus, and undoubtedly his commentary shall skyrocket to the top of the HR list where it belongs.

Todd's new review for On the Road is love, check it out: http://www.librarything.com/work/6139234

M. Murr, most interesting. I have a little pet theory which is that the Byzantine inheritance of the Classical Helenic is at least as faithful and continuous (or more so) than the Latin inheritance (and I'd add the Arab inheritance shouldn't be dismissed, either). I think many of us read Aristotle in particular through very Romanized eyes, much as our view of the Gospels, even reading in English, is more shaped by the Vulgate version than the Koine Greek version. In other words, I'm very unclear on the concept of a Greco-Roman inheritance as an inheritance (I might well think of it as a "mangling" as much as an "inheritance"). It's a term I struggle with.

I'd profer another possibile explanation for the Russian Orthodox Church's apparent differences from the Greek, which is that it's glory days occured during a period when there was a strong and continually expanding empire; by the time the Russian Orthodox Church was really getting off the ground, the Greek Orthodox had already been riven by a few hundred to a thousand years of splits and was mired in the death throes of the Byzantine empire. I'll admit I've probably read more about Islam in Russia than Orthodoxy in Russia, and that my understanding of Orthodoxy, such as it is, is very much centered in Greece and the Balkans.

>268 devondoyle: Devon, good catch! Jack abandoned everything he loved in order to drown himself in Catholicism-induced despair and alcoholism over a 10-year span right up to his ugly cross-haunted death...what a good line from such an unexpected source! Such a young lad, so innocent in the ways of art, and still manages to skate off such good lines!

Ah well, the truth of "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" is reaffirmed yet again.

;->

Thx both of youse guys. :-* It tweren't but nuffin'. (blush)

And this review here of a fascinating book by our very own Salon Laureate Porius.

http://www.librarything.com/work/2449031/reviews/52119837

Porius, you are a very very funny man! You made me crack up. Thank you!

Entertainer-in-Chief?!

Great stuff.

:|

Whoopateeyowthereboy.

So, if anyone's listening, I come out of the closet in my latest review...The Great Inflation and its Aftermath by Robert J. Samuelson...as an opponent of the unbridled capitalism that's led us to the current economic crunch. Details on the book's reviews page, or in my thread http://www.librarything.com/topic/73753 in post #218.

Richard, I gave you a thumbs up in your review, and now I am cheating and giving you another thumbs us here. Thumbs up!

Quite humbly appreciated, Msgr. McCarvill. I am so out of fashion that I wonder on sleepless nights when the Thought Police are going to come knocking....

I'm a Msgr.! Purple socks!

And yeah, keep the fire, dude. It's been a long / long long long / long time comin' / but a change is gonna come.

Quite true; but will it be a change for the better (as I see it) or a further descent into hell? Goodness, I'm gloomy.

Yeah, I really thought the bank fiasco would get regular folk angrier. I guess the just society of the future will look nothing like anything we can imagine in the present?

Certainly it won't! Would King William II of England recognize anything in today's world? He was born about 900 years before me, and it might as well be a different planet instead of a different time.

The S&L bank robbery, particularly Bush's son Neal's part in it (do the words "Silverado Savings and Loan" mean anything to you? Thought not), didn't make people angry enough either. We're still paying for the Resolution Trust Corporation's management of toxic assets. It's all "off budget" spending, though. The PTB like hiding their most egregious pocket-pickings from us pocket-fillers.

I see my mood hasn't lightened any. I'll go now.

Yet another redundant HR update....(as if this is news anymore)

Richard presently occupies the top two slots on HR, and....

WW has two reviews on HR.

In other news, U2 will be performing at the Rose Bowl tomorrow night, the concert streamed live on YouTube! Woo-hoo!

Hey Guys and galls, a super book !!!!!

http://www.librarything.nl/work/101114/reviews/50738584

well done Mac, great review!

ditto! Keep 'em coming Mac!

I wish we had some automatic link or alert system here in le salon that would automatically notify us whenever a member has written a review because I'm missing way too many of late. I know cowboy has written a bunch of late and solla has one on HR presently, but I just can't keep up with everybody....(sigh)

I agree. With so many new members who are prolific writers, we need a system. Also, Tim loves systems, so that will make him happy.

When anyone writes a review, just pop over here and tell everyone about it.

Dont be shy, it's an automatic alert system (AAS.)

Hurrah for the System!

Errrmmm...as the least and the last in the tech field, I feel a little embarrassed to bring this to the collective attention, but has anyone ever noticed the "RSS" option for a person's reviews? It's on the person's profile page. Now that means you'd get a copy of *every* review they write, so the volume would be, well, substantial, but it would solve the problem. Perhaps Mac could subscribe to some, Le Freeque to some, and Murr to some?

ok, I see a red and a blue button.... which one should we click ?
Can we also automatically thumb the clicked once so they appear in the HOT Review LIst instantly ?

lol

General Announcement:

Les Folies Freequetaires will be steadfastly ignored by one member from now until December. I am participating in National Novel Writing Month. The goal is to produce a minimum of 50,000 words, which is considered winning, within November's 30 days (1667 words/day).

I have already started posting character-development sketches on a thread in the NaNo forum http://www.librarything.com/topic/75687 for anyone interested in following along. These prep-work posts will be followed by excerpts, or such is the plan.

I'm not attempting to out-Joyce Joyce. I'm writing for a market, to which I belong, that wants to laugh and smile while orderly things like bad people being punished and good people being rewarded take place. It's always fun to see the *right* people suffer!

Feel free to wander by, leave comments, report on the politics of the day which I will also be ignoring, what-you-will.

That is all. Normal activity may resume.

>291 richardderus:.

You too? I normally aim for 2k words a day, so I can have some rest at Thanksgiving.

In tradition of one-upmanship, and in my NaNo tradition: I will be live-writing my NaNo Novel, 'cause with the way I write 'em, it'd be a miracle if my NaNo books were published by any respectable publisher.

Link: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dpqhrrb_145dd9mh9cw

Watch for it this Sunday (which, by the way, is the DST thinger, so you get another hour of writing bliss)!

You're welcome!

This is an example of a grand slam: http://www.librarything.com/work/1154769/reviews/52522481

So is wisewoman's review of Vilette, already hot.

I see also a fabulous review of 2666 by kromestomes.

semckibbin (am i spelling that correctly) has a thoughtful treatment of Within a Budding Grove up. Or should that be In the Shade of the Blooming Young Girls?

Our very own Chocolate has mused upon The Two Towers here: http://www.librarything.com/review/51883912

You may feel "in awe of your stupidity" for not loving Tolkien before, Chocolate, but you've shown your brilliance by being willing to try it once more. Bravo!

>296 slickdpdx:, I heard they were really boys.

296: Thanks, slickdpdx, for noticing.

Martin wrote a very personal review of Bercht's book---I wouldnt have had the courage to write what he did.

299: thanks, semckibbin, for noticing! I like your Budding Grove review too, with the way it captures the affect in the narrator and the narrative of Odette and Gilberte.

My Husband's Affair Became the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me is the title. Excellent review. Just...great.

A_musing's review of The Hour of the Star is up. It deserves all the thumbs up you have.

Aw, shucks, and thanks.

(review is here: http://www.librarything.com/work/221304/reviews , thumbs can come from the living or dead)

301: I am in tears. Unfortunately, I am at work. You needed some kind of warning (although really the title should have tipped me off). Wow....

>304 anna_in_pdx: I know exactly what you mean, and I can't stop thinking about this brave, brave review. Wow wow.

Anna, Richard, thank you both so much. It means a lot. I will confess to being a little teary myself after reading your responses, although thankfully not at work!

Really. Thanks.

A_musing, nicely done, sir or madame!

Did anyone mention Mac's review of Ishiguro's Remains of the Day? Apparently he owns a folio society edition, that lucky Belgian devil!

Well done, Mac! I loved it as much as you did. (And as you know, I have the Folio edition, too! *my precious*)

306 Yes, definitely, very good, honest review.

Mac and A_musing, also very good reviews. They both seem to get to what is essential about the novels.

The Salon has such good writers.

Thanks for your kind posts

two bookers in a row and two good one's too. Check out Farell's siege of krishnapur, it is really good, you'll love it, trust me on this

http://macumbeira-macumbeira.blogspot.com/2009/10/siege-of-krishnapur-by-jg-farr...

the review is also on LT, feel free to thumb it.

Medellia, i think we have that same fetish thing about books. : )

Just for you medelia :

Bound in cloth, blocked with a design by Francis Mosley.

Set in Perpetua. 352 pages; frontispiece and 8 full–page colour illustrations.

9" x 6¼".

We understand each other : )

stop talking dirty, you two. it's disgusting for others to watch.

No one understands our love.

if womansheart likes it, so do I.... http://www.librarything.com/work/123508/reviews/50276222

While looking on line to see if Jennie Archibald was a real life chimp - my daughter gave me a novel to read which starts with a preface that talks as if she is a real character - I came across this real life review which the authors of the book posted. Perhaps we can find out what publication it was written for and apply for a position: http://www.prestonchild.com/rogues/index.html

To the Sour Reader

If thou dislik'st the piece thou light'st on first,
Think that of all that I have writ the worst;
But if thou read'st my book unto the end,
And still dost this and that verse reprehend,
O perverse man! If all disgustful be,
The extreme scab take thee and thine, for me.

Robert Herrick, ca. 1648

Both Solla and Booksfallapartifyoudon'tbuyakindle have reviews up on The Hour of the Star: http://www.librarything.com/work/221304

Give them as many thumbs as you give the star stars: all deserved. It strikes me that this month's Salon read is pretty damn successful.

More Herrick, More Herrick!!

>319 A_musing: My Kindle falls apart when I hurl it across the room in a rage. Thanks for the shouts out--coming from the reigning King or Queen of Hour of the Star LibraryThing Review Thumbs Ups, they mean something.

Wise Woman very nice review of LOTR volume 2 (audio edition) on the HR right now.

A-musing reviews Müller.

"It is a mass grave of images." Nice.

Would it have been more accurate to say "...certainly is the meme copied by the Nobel committee."?

Exceptional work everybody.

I'd just like to point out that at the time of this post, wisewoman - the review machine - presently occupies that Top 3 slots of HR, while also Anna has two reviews on HR simultaneously, and RSHabroptilus has written some interesting pieces on Doctorow and The Awakening recently, among others.

>322 semckibbin: You've hit on the weakest sentence of my whole review, damn you. Truth be told, the word "meme" is pretty lazy and imprecise of me and some better concept ought to be substituted altogether and that entire phrase replaced by a better one. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of Müller and her later work to know whether the Nobel committee's read of her work is a good one focused on the later work or a facile one prompted by good marketing. And I don't know where the "meme" came from - was it original to the Nobelists, drawn from some reviews by various tools of the German publishing industry, culled from scholarship? I don't know. But the "meme" does not accurately reflect this work, admittedly her first. Indeed, if the rest of her work is like this, the Nobel Committee's assessment of her, in my view, would be completely ridiculous. But since I don't know, I opted for a fairly flat tone in my assessment for now.

Or am I overthinking this whole review thingy?

Overthinking or not, it is quite entertaining! :)

Just wanted to thank all you guys for thumbing up my reviews. Glad you liked them. I shall endeavor to write them more often.

Yes anna, congrats on having two HRs right now! Review-writing is highly addictive...

Take a look at this review by http://www.librarything.com/work/5056952/reviews/51889696 by dchaikin. It is excellent.

RSHab's review of this early Faulkner work made me smirk:

http://www.librarything.com/work/29397/reviews/24443876

This is all fascinating and/or delightfully obscure stuff. But it can be intimidating. There's a language (du peuple) here to learn, I think. Maybe that would help.

Kaminariman's review of neil gaiman's book stardust is delightful:

http://www.librarything.com/work/6983924#

The Cowboy is calling in all favors! (sorry if this deviates from the general purpose, but it deals with reviewing a review!)

My review of An Image of Death is here: http://www.librarything.com/review/51314805

(I'm NOT linking it here so yous guys can thumb it or anything of that sort, so, uh, don't feel compelled to).

Now, if you'll be so kind to give it a once-over, I'd like to direct your attention to a public comment on my profile. For posterity's sake, it's here:

I'm not even sure exactly how to articulate my disbelief at your so-called “reviewing” techniques. Personally, I find it exceptionally juvenile to attack a writer personally in a review. That alone causes you to lose complete credibility. A legitimate BOOK review addresses elements of the book, period. Since the first post I read from you spent the first four paragraphs attacking the author personally as well as another author you know nothing about, I don’t need to read any further. While I won’t be reading any further on what you have to say, I just thought you might like to know that’s the reaction you’re creating with your obnoxious rants.

I'm not going to respond to this individual, (and I expect the same from every last one of you!) as one important lesson I learned from reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Science Fiction" is: Don't respond to negative reviews.

But...

Did I come off as being juvenile? Did I come off as attacking the author and another author I know nothing about? Was she just being a grumpus? Am I the target of some vast right/left/middle-wing conspiracy? Do I just think I'm a hypochondriac? If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, does it make the sound of one hand clapping? Am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a cowboy, or a cowboy dreaming I'm a butterfly? {Insert other questions of varying relevance here}!?

Do you (and be honest!) think that this comment is justified? Don't spare my feelings! I wouldn't do the same to you. Well, maybe I would, but you have carte blanche w.r.t. repercussions for hurty-wurty cowboy feelings. Cowboys don't cry, except for at weddings, funerals, and bar mitzvahs.

And maybe bris.

One of the first two or three things I was taught in the one and only creative writing course I ever took was, "Write what you know". It sounds to me, from your review, this is what Ms. Hellmann did. Nothing wrong with that. I imagine lots of people write semi-autobigraphical fiction, even the ones we cherish. Consider Typee.

I think I would have gone with the criticism, not so much about attacking the author, which, I agree, is irrelevant to a good book review, but stick to the book itself. I agreed with the critic. You were too harsh on the author for things that don't really address the quality of the work itself.

Consider how the book works apart from what you know of the author.

In another group I belong to, there is a fellow who adores the writing of de Sade and Celine while readily admitting that the subjects of their writing and they themselves are execrable. Knowledge of the author or the author's life can be useful in understanding where the story may be coming from, but the telling is what is important.

The thing is, I felt that the author's day job made the book less enjoyable. To liken it to, say A Farewell to Arms (Or Never Cry Wolf or Papillon), which is equally semi-autobiographical, I come up with some je ne sais quoi as to why Hellmann failed where Hemingway, Mowat, or Charriere (and Melville) succeeded.

I suppose if I had to try to explain it, the familiarity of the character to the author seemed to cheapen the utility I was to derive from the book. As the author was the protagonist (but at the same time was not), it felt as if I was instead listening to the author tell me about this one time she had a run-in with the Russian mafia, instead of being pulled into a world of criminal intrigue and mystery.

When I read the other works, I was there in Italy with Frederic Henry; I was there by Neutlin Lake, eating mice, with Mowat; and I was trapped on Devil's island, plotting my next escape with Papillon. When I read An Image of Death, I was in the Hyundai service center, reading a lousy book. And it's not because I was in the Hyundai service center that I wasn't able to get into the book, as I had also read Farewell in the same place, and read Papillon in a mall food court during Christmas.

Appendix:

I'm pretty sure it's not some latent sexism, as I can think of at least one female author whose semi-autobiographical work even gave me chills/nightmares: The Yellow Wallpaper by Gilman.

What I thought you were critiquing is the Mary Sue-ism of the main character. I have made similar comments about Dan Brown's main character in his Da Vinci etc. books.

In order to say "I think this is a Mary Sue and as such is painful to read" you have to mention that the character sounds like the author's idealized version of him/herself - and you can't do that without referencing the author and his/her personal traits.

>336 anna_in_pdx:.

Ah, there is a word for that! Let me just scratch it off my JNSQ list...

Thanks, Anna.

I enjoyed the review. It was readable, at times funny (some of it at the expense of the author but that's life.) I know what you didn't like about the book. I didn't read it as a personal attack on the author - only on her story, her story telling and her protagonist. Also, when you are a prolific reviewer you need to bring fresh perspectives and some personality to the review. You certainly did that!

Your critic writes thoughtful reviews but they leave me completely puzzled about why she gave many books fives and a few threes or fours. I think she just doesn't like being hard on the authors of books. Book reviewers on the other hand? Watch out!

My suggestion, leave her a public comment "Thanks for the feedback!" and move on...

You spend a lot of time in the Hyundai service centre!

Anyway, it seems like there are a lot of unexamined assumptions on this site about what a "legitimate" book review consists of. It's all context, right? An academic book review, say, has a certain consistency of form with other academic book reviews: it can be expected to place a work in its intellectual/historical context, employ a specialized vocabulary and assume knowledge of standard works common to the discipline, and follow other shared strictures (of which "review the work, not the author" is one). A journalistic book review does not necessarily do any of those things, and almost never holds the author sacrosanct (consider e.g. the New Yorker's late penchant for drawing dubious psychosexual inferences about e.g. Philip Roth or Tom Wolfe). If an Amazon review has rules at all, they still allow things like "STEAMING PILE LOLOLOL", etc.

A LibraryThing review, to be legitimate, must says something about the work's content, must not be plagiarized, and must not be an abuse of the terms of service, which as exhaustively covered on reviewer threads do not preclude personal attacks. Those are the (mini)genre conventions at play. So the worst this review makes you is dickish, rather than substantively outside the bounds of the acceptable. So you can dismiss that, I'd say.

Does it make you dickish? I have felt the occasional twinge of conscience reviewing a book negatively when the author's all a regular person trying to get by or whatever. (One of the reasons I changed my profile from my former real name was to allow myself more wiggle room when reviewing people I know personally, but I find in those cases the issue is more being unduly forgiving than the reverse). And an author is a public figure, participating in the marketplace of ideas, etc., etc. And Hellmann is obviously doing fine, with her many publications, so it's not like kicking a mangy dog. And you put your finger on something--the shallow, as opposed to interestingly complicated, identification of author with character, which we've all identified and laughed about/been annoyed by (it's not quite Mary Sueism--it needs a name of its own). So I don't see the problem.

I know there is a stream of thought on LT that disesteems personal attacks on principle, but I remember Tim Spalding making the point succinctly: do you exempt Hitler from criticism? If not, then why Stalin? If not Stalin, then why George Bush? If not George Bush, then why Dan Brown? And so on. I mean, if someone reviews my sister's cute kids' story with ungrammatical attacks on her hygiene and sexual history, I'll tell them in no uncertain terms they're a pathetic cockbag, but I won't attack their right to have an opinion. It's all just degrees of dickishness, and the line--I don't have the stats vocabulary here--but it's one that rapidly approaches infinity in one direction and rapidly falls off to nothing in the other, and the dividing line is somewhere around the point where an author publishes. But not at, as evidenced by the sister example. Um, if you follow? It is/i> complex.

I do have one question--"Shylock"? Really? I get that it's a snappy line, but you're aware that "Shylock" doesn't just imply "Jew", right? That at its best it has specific implications about the pathos of the Jew in an anti-Semitic world, and at its worst it's just a slur? I assume I'm misreading you here, but I was just curious:)

Good review!

Ah, I see Anna already made my Mary Sue point (although isn't a Mary Sue more an idealized version of the author than a fictionalized translation? Like, I haven't read the book, but if Ellie solved the mystery and then went on to marry Prince Charming and live in his golden palace on the moon, wouldn't that be more in Mary Sue territory?

Also, I am HTML-inept and I am sorry.

Wait, the open tag carries over from message to message? Really? Really?

Cowboy,

I like slick's idea about leaving a nice comment, but what I'd like even better is getting your permission to invite the person who critiqued your review here to this thread that we may further discuss the issue. Would that be all right with you?

>339 MeditationesMartini:.

The Sherlock/Shylock thing was mostly for its consonance, but also to indicate that I considered the protagonist to be "sterotypical" (which is why I used "Shylock" instead of "a Shylock," to dampen/deaden the connotation.)

>340 MeditationesMartini:.

She seems very idealized. I think the most Mary Sue feature of her is the fact that the mystery unravels itself for her, without her really doing anything to actively solve it.

>341 MeditationesMartini:.

Yup. Thanks for fixing it.

>342 absurdeist:.

If you would like to, I don't mind. I've planned to not leave a comment to the individual, as it's my general policy to not respond to unsolicited negative feedback.

339: Yeah, perhaps Mary Sue is not quite the right term. I don't know if a term exists for it, in that case.

Also, I agree the Shylock term jarred with me too. I understand it was for alliterative purposes but that term has quite a loaded history.

>344 anna_in_pdx:

A more general Mary Sue is an author surrogate.

As far as the Shylock reference, I too felt it was jarring, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought it fit my feelings of how stereotypical the main character was being with her Judaism. Of course, I'd be glad to change it if anybody has a good alternative.

344: Alter ego? Doppelganger? Cheri Lou?

This is an interesting discussion. Re the whole author/character thing, this is a well known theoretical problem in literary studies. One should never assume that the 'I' of the narrator is the same as the 'I' of the author. The one is a mask for the other, and they only appear to be the same. There are reams and reams of work devoted to this problem. I can dig out some references for you if anyone's interested.

One thing puzzles me a little bit about negative reviews, of which several members in this group are fond, writing pieces which are clever and witty about a book's perceived weaknesses. Writing such reviews and savaging bad writing is fun, and often necessary. However, it is also safe and easy.

AC, you are obviously quite an intelligent chap. Why don't you read and review things which are not such an obviously soft and easy target? I had the feeling, reading your review, that the whole book was beneath your level of intelligence and perception; and I wondered why you were bothering with it. this is often a feeling I have with some of the reviewers in this group. We have some fiercely clever people here, but not enough wise or clever reading. Why not review something which is really going to stretch you, and at the same time give your readers a more interesting insight into what you are learning?

In response to narrator vs, author, a snippet from a book I'm working on, working title, "Digging Deeper":

“But one thing puzzles me … ”
I put down the cup. We’d been discussing work long enough for me to recognize the oblique way Frank moved toward criticism.
“You capture Patrick’s his egotism, his brilliance … why he captivates you. You don’t miss a thing. So what’s the ‘mystery’ you mention here … You see what I mean? Either you’re an omniscient narrator or you’re not.”
“Well,” I said, “though I write in the first person, and the I character is also me, they aren’t the same.” It surprised me that I had to explain it. “I didn’t see then what I see now. What my character, so to speak, found mysterious, the narrator, looking back, might have figured out.”
“So it’s your character who has doubts, not the narrator.”

347> Murr, very well said. I concur completely. I'm guilty myself of having written several "easy" reviews as you say. In fact, I've taken a break from even bothering with reviews of late because I've become bored with what I'd call my reviewing formula. I definitely want to do some more of that "wise, clever reading" you're talking about - lose the easy schenanigans - and get serious. Your post is challenging and I plan on taking it to heart.

348> Thanks for that, Peter! Btw, I'm almost 100 pages into your book I Think, Therefore Who Am I. Your book, is indeed, stretching me, as tomcat speaks to in his post above yours. I think your book, so far in what I've read, whether you intended to or not, de-romanticizes or demythologizes the hippie era and particularly the use of LSD. Was that a goal of yours in writing the book, if you don't mind me asking?

Without these "easy" reviews the Interwebs would have no SpoonyOne, or Nostalgia Critic. So much comedy gold would...just...not exist! Among other things. (Half of my poorly-written neggy "reviews" still have important points that go ignored by other reviewers (IMO).)

I dunno; that sort of 'tude, to me at least, just comes off as arrogant and elitist and narrow-minded and holier-than-thou and miserable and cranky and humourless and just no fun at all and c.

On bringing the author into the work, one of the more famous examples is W.C. Williams and his poem that's come to be known as 'the red wheelbarrow.' Should you take into consideration his inspiration, or just look at it as simply another image? Eh. I like knowing the author's story or intent, and sometimes I can't help that it affects my opinion of the novel, or....whatever. Yeah, I'm not really offering much.

"I dunno; that sort of 'tude, to me at least, just comes off as arrogant and elitist and narrow-minded and holier-than-thou and miserable and cranky and humourless and just no fun at all and c."

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or tomcat or both of us. I think maybe someone is feeling a bit overly-defensive. I was speaking for myself in post 349. I wasn't proclaiming what everybody else should do when they write reviews; nor do I think tomcat was necessarily saying that either. Tomcat, as I heard him, was challenging an obviously talented writer - aethercowboy - and in general, members of the salon, to challenge and stretch themselves (and their writing) with weightier work, and there's nothing wrong - or arrogant or elitist - about that in my opinion.

And for the record (not that he needs my defense) tomcat's a published, seasoned, established writer with by far the finest collection of reviews written by any LTer, approached in quality only by the reviews of Jason Pettus, so even if he were being arrogant or elitist (which he wasn't) he'd have every right to be since our collective work blows compared to his. And few are funnier than tomcat on top of it. So if he offers us some unsolicited advice, we'd be well advised (and very wise) to take it.

I want a review to 1) interest and/or entertain me and 2) give me some more information that may help me decide whether to pick up a book when I'm browsing. I aim only to do the second. I admire those who also do one or both of the first which I think is just about everybody else who has weighed in here and quite a few who haven't. Also, I noticed that although I criticized cowboy's critic, I don't give reasons that would help you see why a three here and a four there either. I guess I regard it as an extra piece of information - I pegged it on my personal scale an "X." You take the info for what it is worth. Most other folks see it the same way it seems.

Jajajaja, didn't mean to sound like that. Which...goes without saying. (Why would I intend to?)

It's this way of dismissing things so lightly. It can get to me and I can misunderstand it.

SO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH SALON DU FAULKNER? (OR SOUTHERN GOTHIC?) I've been whoring the idea around, asking folks to join if it's made.

Well, yeah, Enrique (post 349). That is, I wanted to capture and tell the unvarnished truth, which in the case of that era (or any other) would of course deromanticize and demythologize ... as well as strip my own assumptions and illusions bare, in which respect I can appreciate LSD as a catalyst.

Hey I could create the group, Todd, but I think it'd be better if you did. That way it would be your Faulkner/Southern gothic baby, backed by Le Salon, linked together, but with you having control of what's on the title page and content, etc.

What you'd want to do is go to Groups, click on (I think) "Add new Group" or something similar, and then give it a good title - "Le Salon du Faulkner" sounds just fine -, logo, etc. Go for it, man! Let me know if you need help and I'm there.

Ahhh, thanks, EF, my good sir!

I thought there might be some different, extra process to tie it into the main Salon as a minor offshoot.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/lesalondufaulkner

:D

354> and I thought it was like Woodstock or Easy Rider every day during the hippie era! I'm way too naive and obviously have believed everything I've seen in Hippie era documentaries on VH1 about how wild and great and liberating the era always was. Your memoir definitely paints a different (and I'm sure more accurate and poignant) picture of what really went on - the mundane and not just the magnificent.

>347 QuentinTom:.

For the simple fact that I am a bibliophile, and am addicted to the Member Giveaway program. For that reason, I am figuratively, if not literally, drowning in books a variety of levels of good and bad.

Plus, I'm a completist. I have on the order of 200 unread books, and am slowly, but surely working through them all, good and bad alike (fortunately, I'm working through mostly (3.5/5) good books right now).

You're right, though, writing scathing reviews is fun. And reading them is too (ever read Lucius Shepard's film reviews?). But they're also easy, and it would be selling myself short to only write about stuff I hate.

Once I hit equilibrium on my unread (or as I jokingly call them "green") books, I'll probably have a more steady outflux of reviews for quality prose. But until then, it'll be Russian roulette.

359: I receive books through the early reviewer program and there is no way to predict if they will be really good or not, though they have to be reviewed. I tend to write reviews as if I were giving the author constructive feedback, hoping they are not too negative but pointing out flaws if I see them.

Not everyone has the wit to write these funny reviews that trash the book (like some of the great reviews I've read on this site, Tanstaafl's review of the Book of Mormon). I admire those reviews as they sure are amusing to read but I would never try to write one.

I'm middle aged and there are so many more good books out there than I have time to read, so I try and focus on ones I will like. Outside of the Early Reviewer program, I am almost invariably going to like a book I have gone out of the way to seek out. If I am between serious books and am reading mysteries or something, they're light and silly and I am not going to take the time to review them.

I am glad others write snide witty reviews, though sometimes I feel (with Tomcat) "gee, too bad you wasted your time reading this tripe, since you seem intelligent enough to have spent that time reading Ulysses instead."

> 359 well, you choose your reading material not just by running down the "best books ever" comprehensive list--sometimes you expect to like somethng but hate it,or expect to hate it but give the author a second chance (me and Henry James), or have a fondness for trash fiction of some ilk but still feel a powerful need to differentiate good harlequin romances from bad ones, or whatever. A lot of my low ratings are for comic books, but that doesn't mean I haven't given other comics five stars or that it's that easy assessing things in advance. And like, I gave Ulysses 4 stars; Enrique gave it .5.

Ganeshaka, resident mystic reviewer, hits another one out of the park: http://www.librarything.com/work/187418/reviews/52963788

Aw, I love Ganeshaka's everything.

And a fantastic review of Gide's The Counterfeiters from Mackie here:

http://www.librarything.com/work/3736280/reviews/32643094

C'est vraiment formidable!

Very nice one, Talbin! Presently #2 on HR: http://www.librarything.com/work/150163/reviews/53221765

Are there a few Jane Eyre fans hereabouts? Apparently, if we're to believe Jason Pettus, Jane Eyre brought out his inner 12-year old girl. It's the second review down...

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=jasonpettus

hippypaul (not a salonista - not yet anyway) reviews a book I'm presently reading, I Think, Therefore Who Am I?: http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=hippypaul (2nd review down)

Pretty cool being mentioned alongside William Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson, eh Peter?

What I find more interesting is what Hippy Paul most liked about my book. Maybe it's because of the discrete, stand-alone story/chapters in my collage structure: when I ask people what they liked most (naturally, I don't fish for the negative), there's a wide array of answers. And Paul was struck, more than others, by the down (but not quite out) portions depicting homelessness and crash pads, along with the acid trip depictions. Clearly he'd been there.

#366 EnriqueFreeque - Jasonpettus does great reviews - oops - I see that's already been said here. Anyway, I agree, this one is particularly fun to read.

dchaikin,

I don't think it can really be said enough that JP does great reviews. Someone should invite him here. I would, but I can't, since I'm not a member of this group, and can never be a member of this group, since when you form a group and then leave the group, you can't rejoin the group, and in order to send an invite, you must be in the group. Hope that makes sense.

Speaking of making sense, Martin, I don't pretend to understand everything you say in this review, but I recognize quality when I see it, and so wanted your review to be my Thanksgiving Eve morning pimp.

ditto what he say. Excellent piece.

oh snippity snap! I give thanks to you guys.

And Tomcat, your review of A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism filled me with the assurance of a boundless future. Always new crap to learn!

Freeque - you left your own group? I sent Jason Pettus and invitation referencing this thread.

374: Don't ask. It's a sordid tale, complete with sock puppets, Yetis, avalanches and James Joyce.

Pettus is pretty busy promoting and keeping up his Chicago Center for Literature and Photography. Its worth a daily visit. Check out his recent review of Last Tango in Paris.

http://www.cclapcenter.com/

373 Thank you sir! my sentiments entirely!

The one whose socks smell like chocolate (she's admitted as much here in le salon) is presently at or very near the top of HR: http://www.librarything.com/work/3203356/reviews/51895255

WW is also on HR presently w/her review of Emma.

Their pal, ncgraham, is also on HR. When exactly does ncgraham plan on joining le salon, Ladies? I expect the both of you (and you too Medellia!) to do your darndest to get him in here asap.

I have set the cogs in motion, Rique, so ncgraham will soon be caught in a web of our making... mwahahaa

Thanks for adding hotness to my review.

Honored to be mentioned and invited to the highest echelons of LT, Le Salon. *double-checks meaning of "echelons"* I've had my eye on this group for a while, so I suppose I'll join now, although I don't see any group reads coming up that I see myself participating. I do want to give Dostoyevsky a shot, but papa dearest says I should start with Crime and Punishment.

Welcome ncgraham! Good to see you here!

I agree with your papa, and please disregard my note to ChocMuse a few minutes ago (I was over there before checking in here). We won't be reading the Brothers K. until Oct., so why not read C&P over summer break (at the latest - just a suggestion) and you'll be ready for the granddaddy of all Dostoy reads (and maybe you can sneak in Notes from Underground too; it's short (under 150 pages) but so dense (yet philosophically overarching his entire work, especially what came after) that it might as well be Dostoy's Cliff Notes.

Welcome indeed ncgraham!

Aha, success! It's these alluring chocolate socks of mine. That's my secret. Where I waft them, people follow. Welcome ncgraham!

Welcome, Nathan!

This is the first I've heard of chocolate-scented socks, I must say. I want some!

Clarification please. Are the socks actually chocolate or merely chocolate scented?

As to Fyodor, Brother's K is a fine beginning and the one I took. It is philosophically more difficult than Crime and Punishment, but I have visited places where the salad is served after the main course and found it quite pleasant.

I've had chocolate socks, before. All they did was make me sick. No one told me not to eat them after wearing them for a week. I heartily recommend not eating them after wear.

Are chocolate socks color-fast, or do I need to wash them with my other chocolate garments?

Separate according to dark, milk and white chocolates, of course.

I love chocolate, but will only eat the dark kind, and unadulterated by sock.

please disregard my note to ChocMuse a few minutes ago

You know, I might not have even have noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it, but now you do, I shall not so disregard. In fact, I may call you out for it. Although how exactly I shall do so and what sort of language I shall use has yet to be determined. :P

Alas, the Hotness of my review waneth and dwindleth, and it disappeareth from the face of the Home Page....

I'm so way late to this George Eliot party, but work is kicking my hind and I can't keep up but simply had to take a breather regardless and checked in and saw that Medellia is currently numero uno on HR, deservedly so, and just in case you haven't read, do yourselves a favor and read it now. Okay, break's over, bye...

http://www.librarything.com/work/10108/reviews/52194997

My socks are not only chocolate scented, but also chocolate flavoured. Unfortunately, they tend to melt in hot weather.

Anyway, that is a brilliant review of Middlemarch. Particularly the comments on the intrusive narrator.

Thanks, you guyses. 'Rique, I'm going to move Eliot ahead of Austen on the list of authors I'm pressuring you to read. ;)

After reading your excellent review of Joyce's PORTRAIT I can't for the life of me see why you so abhor that great welter of a novel that followed after. It took Joyce 7 or so years to write it while he battled poverty, family issues, bad eyesight, etc, etc. Man he DREDGED for that book. Every word burning as old Pater said it should burn. Bloom at Dignam's funeral, you must have a heart of stone . . . ? Next time you attempt U, please read it aloud to yourself a chapter at a time. No more than a chapter in a day. When things begin to get dense, etc. etc. etc., read on aloud without bothering about what it all means. That just spoils the pfun. Or just say pfuck it and go bowling.

Porius, you are my man !

You're not so bad yourself Mistah Mac. Though most here don't understand your sense of humor. It requires a thicker skin than the skins around here. Yes it may sting for a while but it won't do any lasting harm. It wasn't meant to, or maybe I have mistook you all this while. It's never good to be too sure, is it?

Excellent Joyce review, 'Rique. I'd give two thumbs up if I could.

Dchaikin is also working his way up the hot reviews ladder with his interesting review of Marilynne Robinson's Gilead. I enjoyed the review--always like to hear about a reader's evolving relationship with a book. Will you write us another review after your third reading, dchaikin? :)
http://www.librarything.com/work/16914/reviews/4034367

I picked up a copy of Gilead at Strand a while back and plan to get to it next year.

394> You know why I abhorred Ulysses? Personal, selfish reasons I might as well relay now as a melodramatic confessional; and perhaps it's the first step on my journey toward considering tackling U. again.

Ulysses publicly humiliated me. No book has ever induced such stress and insecurity in yours truly as U. I had committed at the time, perhaps you may recall (I don't remember if you were around way back then when this group was The Quest for the Last Page of Ulysses) that I had my own journal thread that I had publicly committed to write in daily of my journey up the peak, Mt. Ulysses, loftiest of all literary summits. A few others did the same, and their posts were fabulous: insightful, funny, interesting, while my posts (since I couldn't figure out what the %$^# I was reading half the time) stunk it up. Forced, searching for something to say. And that made me angry! Ulysses made me feel so STOO-PID day after stream of unconscionable day, and so rather than own what that book was doing to me internally (psychologically, spiritually and emotionally) I LASHED OUT AGAINST IT!!! Was it folly to LASH OUT AGAINST IT? In hindsight, maybe so.

Will I ever attempt reading it again? Probably. Will I ever attempt reading it again publicly (for the whole LT world to see me fail and flounder and get killed in an avalanche of Ulyssean proportions)? Not on your life! Perhaps in a private group read, but never publicly. Oh no. Humiliate me once (your fault, Joyce!); humiliate me twice (then that's on me, EnriqueFreeque).

So there you have it. In essence, my loathing of Ulysses could be construed as an acute, temporary psychological disorder, for all the anxiety and despair and deep depression it caused me. It was like a manic panic attack of Everest proportions - and it just went on and on and on....

And for the past eight months I've been seeking treatment. Reviewing The Portrait (thank you all for your uber kind words of support and encouragement during this difficult time in my life) has been a truly large leap in my recovery from Ulysses. I promise to attempt scaling that mountain again some day, but there will be no cameramenorwomen allowed along for the journey, there to record (I'm choking up just thinking about it, pardon me) should I MISERABLY FAIL (God help me!) again.

Most readers would be lying if they admitted to understanding every page of ULYSSES. Maybe harold Bloom (that master of transumption), maybe Nabokov (he understands everything), Hugh Kenner has a pretty good idea of what's going on; as for the rest of us, well, we do what we can. Certain sections are easier to absorb than others. Some sections are just downright funny. Don't be too hard on yourself, Joyce hardly meant it to be easy. He took 7 years to write U. and 14 to complete FW. Like Gurdjieff he buried that dog deep. Empson talked about 7 types of ambiguity, old Joyce was chasing 'damned things', things that sometimes passeth all understanding - especially in FW. He gobbled all of daylight knowledge in ULYSSES, and with FW he set his sights on night time 'knowledge.' One reading, publick or otherwise will not do the trick. ULYSSES was written by an extremely rare man with rarified knowledge. Most of us, including yours truly, must forever remain in the cheap seats. The best we can do is to take our fun where we can find it, there's more than enough to go around, though.

dchaikin's review of Gilead was very nice.
However this line

theology put into action

stopped me. It seems like an oxymoron to me.

Very well said, Por. Now of course my tongue, I'm sure you noticed, was pretty well planted in cheek when I went on and on about U. causing me "manic panic" and "deep depression" and "requiring treatment"....over a book? Not quite. But the experience was disquieting and humbling nonetheless. Especially after I'd read Gravity's Rainbow the previous summer w/out much difficulty and The Recognitions a few years previously - novels arguably as difficult if not quite as classic. And nobody likes feeling stupid, right? And that's essentially what Ulysses accomplished in me: like I knew the language but suddenly couldn't understand a word. Something like that. I wasn't able, as slick (very wise reader, that slick) pleaded with me over and over during the process, to just go with the flow and ride the waves (reading it like poetry)....Next time around I won't be so uptight in terms of a page-by-page comprehension of the material when I approach it. I guess I'll have to read sort of like I'm watching a movie, letting it happen to me rather than always attempting to make sense of what's happening in it.

Slick is indeed a wise reader.

The best way to read Ulysses is to have Homer's Odyssey at one elbow and Stuart Gilbert's James Joyce's Ulysses. A Study by Stuart Gilbert at the other -- read a book in Homer, then the corresponding chapter in Joyce, and then Gilbert's elucidations. It's actually rather fun and quite illuminating.

I love Ulysses. I've started reading it many times, but never finished. But I've had a great time about it anyways.

You're not alone 'rique. Some mountains really aren't meant to be fully climbed. Hilary made it up Everest, but only managed to explore one thin trail on the mighty mountain. Conquered?

Jane, thanks, that's a nice recipe for my next failed attempt.

404> Joyce said his collaboration with Gilbert was "a terrible mistake." Ellmann, p. 616

aethercowboy:

Where you ended your review of my book, I Think, Therefore Who Am I?, rhythmically speaking, seemed a diving board from which you'd jump. Like in: Me, personally, I'm not interested in that era ... drugs or whatever. But then, that wouldn't jibe with the questions you asked me the other day about Hunter Thompson.

As I sometimes flag (a copy editing term) a passage in a manuscript I'm editing: Please clarify.

I am eternally grateful to EF for believing that I was capable of reading Ulysses and inviting me to the group. I managed to read the whole thing and I think I probably understood less than half of what Joyce was trying to get at. For some reason this did not bother me. There are other writers who do bother me by making me feel stupid (Lawrence Durrell, I am looking at you!). I guess Joyce seems like he'd forgive my stupidity whereas Durrell seems like he'd sneer.

>408 copyedit52:.

Let me look at the review again. Sometimes I write stuff out of order, and go off on rabbit trails, and forget to clean up after myself. I call it Quentin Tarantino syndrome.

The point I was trying to make is: "This book is good, but you won't like it if books about drugs are problematic to you." And at the same time, say "I enjoyed this book."

Again: let me take a peek at it. I've been running all day without my normal benediction to St. Caffeine.

Edit:

I see what I did. I made the wrong implication. I meant to say (assuming x are people who like the book, and y are people who dislike drugs):

∃ x, y ∈ Z; x ∩ y = ∅

Instead, I said:

∃ x, y ∈ Z; x ∩ y = ∅; y' = x

(which is a more restrictive statement)

Sorry for the confusion. Time for my sacrament.

Now that I see those formulas, it's all quite clear.

>411 copyedit52:.

Oh, good. Now I don't need to draw a Venn diagram.

Very nice review by Solla of a very weird little book about a hedge in India.
http://www.librarything.com/work/49239/reviews/53869439

Nice one Solla!

Here's another nice one from ChocMuse on Ishy.

Regarding what Porius said earlier about the difficulty of Ulysses: very wise words. Some books resist complete understanding. I have read Ulysses twice and still don't get some sections of it, but I still enjoy reading it each time. There are sections of Karamazov I don't get, huge swathes of Gravity's Rainbow, and The Recognitions (now that's a difficult book!) that remain impenetrable to me, but it doesn't bother me. I will try them again and see if I can get more.

The important point is that in the attempt to understand we are stretched and made better readers. No one should beat themselves up for finding books difficult and failing on them. But on the other hand we should not beat up writers like Joyce and Durrell and Gaddis who have the courage to stick to their guns and write the complexity of the world as they see it.

Oh forgive me Father Joyce for berating your most blessed baby, Ulysses. Tomcat! I promise you, before skygod and everyone, to repent of my Ulysses-loathing and to try and love Ulysses again someday! Please give me a second chance, Father Joyce!!!

Tomcat, should we really punish ourselves something good, and pencil in The Recognitions...or, actually, I think JR is indeed more difficult because it's 95% dialogue; only Gaddis doesn't differentiate specifically who's talking, but has created such distinct voices that it is possible, reading carefully, to figure out who's speaking to whom where and when, but it's taxing and time consuming (and there's no paragraph breaks in the whole blasted 750+ page novel)....so, I know we're doing a Gaddis novella later in 2010, but I think arguably the greatest-most-underappreciated postmodernist of them all, William Gaddis should be a tome lock in the year, 2011. Don't you?

yes, I agree. I'm happy to read the Recognitions again, or JR whatever is decided.

The first of the Pierre reviews : http://www.librarything.com/work/50228/reviews

More discussion of it on the Pierre thread.

A splendid review by Chocolatemuse of an Ishiguro novel.

http://www.librarything.com/work/7357/reviews/53640382

I've looked at this several times in the bookshop, CM, as the setting, old Shanghai, is one of my favourites. Your review has persuaded me to pick it up next time I see it.

Yes, it is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you! I hope you like it as much as I did.

If anyone hasn't read Ishiguro before, I would just like to point out that The Remains of the Day is even more brilliant than When We Were Orphans.

The review, ie.

Much more than just another brilliant review (arguably his best yet), but esteemed Professor Tomcat's review of The Name of the Rose is an education in semiotics in and of itself. Is there any book too complicated this cat can't parse?

Who needs school or university, if you can have it all in the salon ?

Thank you gentlemen.

Murr, I intend to ponder further on your enlightening review to try to take more of it in. I think I've learned more from your review than I did from the book itself, back when I tried it before having my brain stretched by Salonistas. I was absolutely not ready for it at the time.

And Porius and Murr, thanks. Your kind words on my review made my day.

Don't mention it CM from the land that brought us all those great old tennis players: Kenny Rosewall, Tony Roche, "The Rocket" et al.

Dang it I've been in negotiations with McDonalds sponsors for like months with no luck.

I've just posted my first review since joining this group. It's a review of James' The Bostonians. Reviewing is not my strong suit, so any knowledgeable feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Unfortunately, this review is attached to my LOA copy, rather than The Bostonians work page. I will try to fix this.

Great job Gene!

P.S. Does anyone else find that flags have the opposite of the intended effect. Now I go through an extra step to see something I would have quickly passed over! Who can resist the "show" button? Not me!

Just wonderful, Gene. I plan to get started on Henry James next year. When I get around to The Bostonians, I'll return to your review as a guide.

Slick- agreed. I can rarely resist that button.

MurrMurr dear- I gave you your props on your profile page, but let me shout it from the rooftop here anyway: we are not worthy, *bow*

I usually look at flagged messages to make my own decision, but I have flagged a few users and have not been tempted to look at their posts.

Robert

I hate those flags! Counterflag 'em whenever I see them, especially whenever they appear on tomcat's posts. There went another potential sponsor - Acai Berry - just like that, because people hereabouts took offense to some unwanted, irritating, unsolicited advertisements. Sheesh. He said he was happy to see us all hear didn't he? and that's the thanks we give him for his sincerity: red flags? Are we salonistas or communistas, is what I want to know. And I sure hope it's the latter.

Tomcat is #1 on HR, and Gene, w/his first ever review since joining le salon, is also on HR. Nice job! You pimp yourself here anytime, Gene. Wish more folks would pimp themselves as it would save me the time and trouble. Selfish jerks making me do it for them. And pimping has a pretty pejorative connotation associated with it too, and can make one engaged in its regular practice feel icky over time.

what sort of killjoy would flag anothers comments, even if vulgar, etc.?

Its the killjoys who have it in for Spam, Porius.

Me? Call me a backwards cretin, but I like Spam. My mama used to make it every Sunday night: Fried Spam w/mashed potatoes and Spam gravy made out of that gelatin stuff that surrounds the Spam in those sardine-like tins they're packaged in. Yummers.

I am not a communist; does that mean I am not a communista?

I spent a few hours a few separate times being what I was first told was a pambiki in Yokohama in the seventies. Later I was told it was a kyakubiki. In English these gentlemen were called pimps; they were actually touts for hostess bars.

I touted a bar to some passing Greek merchant marines. A competitor cautioned me quite seriously not to; they are dangerous, he said, and have their own bars. He also let them go, and I noticed the Greek bars a couple of blocks over a little later. And I naively thought it was only Greeks bearing gifts of whom we were to be wary.

I dislike Spam although I have never tried the extra spicy version they made or make for Guam. It irritates me on LibraryThing too, although I am a little loose as to what constitutes it.

Robert

>426 ChocolateMuse: You're welcome CM. Actually, when I was rereading TNOTR this time, I realised that I also did not get much of it when I read it the first time as a young tomcat. (I read it when it first came out, in one sitting, on a flight from Sydney to London. I couldn't sleep, either because of the seat, or the book. I was gripped.) It definitely stands up to a reread.

Thanks Meddy!

A big "job well done" to both tomcatMurr and geneg. TNoTR sits on my TBR pile and Portrait of a Lady is my next James. I've read "beginner" James--Washington Square, Turn of the Screw and Daisy Miller--and now I'm ready to graduate to the next step (though I may take on Aspern Papers first.) Great reviews. Great group.

humbly submitting

http://www.librarything.nl/work/755018/reviews/32498617

Salonistas! URGENT REQUEST

She's not a salonista, but her Agatha Christie review is presently #1 on HR, but there's another Twilight review in the #2 slot threatening to overtake BeckyJGs fine review. While it would be a tos violation for me to suggest you all do anything to ensure that Agatha Christie remains in her rightful place above that hack, Stephanie Whatever-her-name-is, I'm willing to take the risk of merely pointing out to you all the dire scenario, the outright crisis, LibraryThing presently faces of having yet another Twilight review become #1.

I trust (w/out asking you do anything, mind you!) that your opposable digits will get working pronto!

Wow Mac, nice job! I am wishlisting that book post-haste.

Have you ever checked out: http://www.wernerherzblog.com/
If not, do. Immediately! You probably ought to start at the beginning. http://www.wernerherzblog.com/?m=200704&paged=2

Slick, that site is AWESOME!!!!! Fucking AWeSOME (Am I getting the American youthspeak right?)

excerpt:

I have also noticed that certain toilet tissues use images of babies on their packaging. This is highly misleading, as babies are the only people who do not use toilet paper.

What a mensch!

Great review BeckyJG!

p.s.:
why is she not a member of le salon?

Guess I am not the only Herzog fan here : )

Solla's splendid review of Les Mis.

I especially like what you said about Hugo's knowledge and his compassion - that's what matters most to me too, now that I think about it, about the book. Especially the compassion. Very well done, Solla. And you're first to review a salon group read as usual.

Great site. Now who is going to start the Fassbloger site?

I'm speechless....You want clever and creative on steroids? Look no further than Martin's Classic review of Clarel!

A masterwork! Martin (Booksfallapart), Well Done!!!

That poem alone makes the Clarel reading worthwhile.

Martin. Outstanding!

Aww, thanks, dudes! Rhyming couplets make lookin' good easy. (So what went wrong with you, Melville?)

M. Christmas/approp. abbrv. holiday greeting to you all.

Let's get out there and cast a vote for EF for his excellent review of Tolstoy's CONFESSION.

I second that emotion and exhortation. I was in an unserious mood when I read it, and the review sobered me, brought me to a better place.

Gracias guys, and apologies for sobering you up.

Here's another sobering one on a similar subject (sort of):

bardsfingertips on the broom...

Thanks for the pimping!

Excellent review of Tolstoy's confession Freeeeeky. You showed how a personal private documentation of one 19th century writer's anguish is universal and relevant to us today. Sounds like T's confession knocks the socks off all those stupid self-help/self improvement manuals that are the trend nowadays.

Bravo!

456> He certainly does know how to write a review.

Another great review of Lonelyhearts out now, this one from theaelizabet.

I'll second that slick. We do have a new review thread here since this one is approaching 500 posts, but I'll be damned if I'm going to call you, the original salonista, on the carpet about it. You can pimp at will wherever you want whenever and however with whomever in any manner you want.

With that said, Cowboy Aether is also presently sittin' high in the saddle in the #1 slot on HR w/his super "grosser" review of an LT author's book called, The Canal. It's a sick review if there ever was one.

And I'd like to say too that I think Alex's post over in the Miss Lonelyhearts thread would make a great review, assuming one were inclined to do so.

too long thread

Yes, I know Melissa (aged?) 45?

Do you see in post 459 right up above where it says "here" in blue? That's the link to the new thread.

I'm curious, what style of socks do you wear?

Melissa-- I've seen you around on a whole bunch of threads. You appear to be trying to find some conversations to participate in. I'll post this message to your profile as well, so maybe you'll see it.

I suggest you try this group for new members You'll find a warm welcome there:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/welcometolibrarythin

If you are a young adult (pardon me for the assumption if it's not true), you might try these groups:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/readyalit
http://www.librarything.com/groups/teenagebooknudgers

Oh you're so sweet Medellia. I feel awful for automatically assuming the worst, but not so awful as to delete my post....just in case....

;-)

Here's my review for Kafka on the Shore: http://www.librarything.com/work/5819/reviews/53725537

Hey bardsfingertips! Since this thread has gotten really long, we're now "pimping" our reviews over here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/84068

I suggest you post a link to your review there if you would like more opinions on it. :)

Ooops! Will do.