Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

My sister confesses that sometimes when she gets bogged down in a book, she skims past a large part of it and reads the section at the end to see how it comes out. I've never done this and am wondering how many other folks might do it.

When a book bogs down, I will either plod on toward the end, reading every page, or I will give up on the book altogether. I hate to do that, but I figure that I shouldn't spend time struggling with one book when I could be enjoying so many others.

Boy, I'm "bogged" at the moment with "Dead on the Island" by Bill Crider. I bought the book in 1991 when it came out and it's been sitting on my shelf ever since. I've picked it up a few times and started it, but never got beyond the first few pages. This time I'm determined to finish it.

For the life of me I can't figure out what it is that makes this one a chore. It's a pretty good mystery plot, not badly written, a nice zippy length, and yet . . .

I had the same problem with "The DaVinci Code," but really enjoyed it once I got beyond the first thirty pages; but so far (though I'm determined to finish) I'm 80 pages in and just not into this one. More to come.

Hi Robert. I almost missed seeing your post. For some reason, it wasn't tagged "new" in red when I viewed the discussion group. I only discovered it by checking the group digest which comes to me by email. Sometimes I don't check out the digest, but from now on I will.

Funny isn't it how some books drag and others grab you. For me to be drawn to a book, it must not only have a good plot and good character development, but it must also have a writing style which appeals to me. I can be turned off by a writing style which doesn't impress me. I can also be turned off by too many names and too many characters, and names which are strange, like those found in science fiction.

I usually prefer a linear plot. I don't usually enjoy flashbacks. I like a plot to move forward. John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meaning_ turned me off with its flashbacks, IIRC. Well, Irving seems to enjoy going off on tangents anyway. (g)

I appreciate good armchair philosophy in a book. Dorothy Gilman's "Mrs. Pollifax" books are a good example. Gilman can be simple and profound at the same time.

I appreciate it when the author displays a keen wit. That's a big draw for me.

There must be a reason why "Dead on the Island" is a chore for you. Come on... you must be able to pin that reason down. (g) What does it lack?

I finally finished all 192 pages of "Dead on the Island." I think the main thing that made this kind of a drag is that the basic set up for the mystery is okay, but the working out of the plot is strictly by the numbers. Characters are differentiated mainly by quircks rather than any real development, so we have the ex-football player with the bum knee, the loyal black hanger-on who might have made it in the pros, the indolent son of former gamblers and pimps who sits home and watches soaps on TV, etc. The hero is pretty bright. He figures out the mystery about page 70, only by then we're at least 30 pages ahead of him. Some of the action syuff at the end os okay, but overall the writing is flat. Sooo, I'm proud of myself for sticking this one out, but it wasn't one of the greats.

Hi Robert - That was an interesting analysis of "Dead on the Island".
(See link below.)

Sometimes a book can serve as an example of what's good and what's not good. You recognized poor character development. That might help other readers become more discriminating in their taste. You also recognized a stale plot. That might help other readers recognize a type of cliche, a plot that's too obvious or commonplace.

As for style of writing, I like the word you used, "flat". The writing style did nothing for you, like food that's flavorless.

Writing styles are like personalities... no two are alike. I'm reading a mystery now by Audrey Friend (entitled _Red Hot_). I find her light conversational style very refreshing. I can detect a subtle sense of humor there. The writing seems natural; it isn't forced. It carries the plot along very well so that I'm persuaded to continue reading. It's almost as if a friend is telling me a story.

The plot of _Red Hot_ concerns a piece stolen art known as "The Portrait of Isabella". I googled for that artwork and found that there are several famous paintings with that same title, painted by different artists. However, the artist mentioned in the book isn't one of them. So I'm assuming that the artist, Salvatore Turini, is a fictional one. Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, it's always a bonus when we learn something from a book or a book motivates to become more knowledgeable.

I pick up another book. sometimes when I go back to the bogged down book, it's better for having taken the break.

Good idea, Jackie. I'm always so disappointed after a book takes off with a great start and then disappoints me as I go on. Sometimes, I just give up on it.

I haven't kept a record of which books that happened with. They're best forgotten. (g)

I tend to skim through boring sections of books. I read a lot of technical stuff, so I'm pretty good at skimming & still picking up the important stuff. If it still doesn't grab me after a while, then I move on to another book. There's too many out there to read to keep on reading, usually.

An exception would be something like Moby Dick. Interesting book except for about 100 pages in the middle, as I recall. I really didn't find all that detail about the whale catch very interesting. It was a huge departure from the central story. I have an abridged copy of that book, one for young adult readers. Guess what got chopped out? Skimming through that section actually helps the book. I got the idea he was trying to convey without falling asleep or walking away in frustration.

Sometimes series start to wear on me, especially when there is a lot of recap of the previous story. Those I always skim through quickly. Sometimes I'll stop reading a series at the end of one book, read something completely different & come back to it. I just did that with Philip José Farmer's "World of Tiers" series, which is a SF adventure. I got through the 4th book, then read The Maltese Falcon & now I'm back to reading the 5th book. I have two other books I'm pecking away at as the mood strikes, as well; Sir Walter Scott's "A Grandfather's Tale; A History of Scotland" & Napoleon's Privates 2,500 Years of History Unzipped, which is a bunch of short pieces of odd history, mostly sexually related. It's a fairly eclectic mix, so the brain cells don't get bogged down.

Jim, I've never been able to skim comfortably. I hate to miss anything. However, toward the end of the Sawtelle book, I just didn't care anymore. So it was easy to skim.

I like your expression, "pecking away" at certain books. It's a great way to express the idea of reading a-bit-at-a-time of a book when in the mood.

I never read Moby Dick. From what I heard, it sounded boring. Aren't I bad?

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "I never read Moby Dick. From what I heard, it sounded boring. Aren't I bad? ..."

I think you're sensible. People who read classics just to say they've read a classic are masochists, IMO. If it isn't a good read, get the Cliff Notes. I've read a fair few of the classics & liked them. I was forced to read more that I disliked. Some enough that I didn't read them - I just read the Cliff Notes & skimmed a few sections. Enough to get past the teacher. I don't consider it cheating. They tried to cheat me first by stealing precious time away from good books. I was simply efficient.

I guess I have flexible morals. I never did upbraid my son for re-programming his graphing calculator into a history database. I figured any 10th grader that could do that deserved praise, besides which, I think that knowing something happened on a specific date several centuries ago is stupid. Knowing about when it happened & putting it into context with the times is important. Pinning down a day is beetle tracking.

I didn't discover Cliff Notes until it was too late. They certainly would have made my life easier.

Oh, look, I found the Cliff Notes for Moby Dick: ====>


:-)

I liked Moby Dick, not like it's my favorite or anything, I didn't mind it all that much. Most times I find the classics pretty boring.

I've been thinking about reading Moby Dick ever since yesterday when I read the following review by "Joseph": ===>
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Among other things, Joseph says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Moby Dick is the American epic. There is nothing even close to it. If you think you know of a book that can rival it, let me read it and prove you wrong. This is the novel that all other novels should strive to be in spirit. How can these people turn it away?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gulp!

He's right in his review. He is a book snob. He says it's difficult to read, but fantastic.

Personally, I prefer Today We Choose Faces. No need to get allegorical by changing whales into the personal problem du jour. 1/3 of the book isn't some horribly detailed description of something I have little to no interest in & has little to do with the story within the story, either.

Ah, Zelazny again. (g) I've got _This Immortal_ on my to-read list. (g)

Thanks for your comment on _Moby Dick_.
At least now I don't feel so pressured to read it. (g)

PS - Say! Are YOU a bad influence on me? LOL

Good or bad, I hope I influence you to read Zelazny! As for Moby Dick, get an abridged version. Some books really need abridging!

Sh-sh-sh! The purists may hear you. :)

I read what I like, I don't care who thinks sci fi is garbage, they've obviously never read it. Pffft on the purists, LOL. I don't think I could ever read a book because someone thinks I should.

Zelazny is awesome, he's right up there with Asimov IMO, and that's high praise. I'm reading The Changing Land right now. I haven't read a lot by him, yet, but I'm remedying that.

Thanks for the link, Jackie. I'm getting curiouser and curiouser. :)

"Dilvish the Damned" is a bunch of short stories that fills in a lot about Dilvish & what happens before the "Changing Land".

Speaking of Zelazny, his son found an unpublished manuscript of his that's 30 years old called, "The Dead Man's Brother". I just got an email from Amazon that they shipped it to me. It's supposed to be a murder mystery only - no SF or Fantasy elements. I can't wait for it to get here.

He really doesn't need fantastic elements to write a great story. "Doorways in the Sand" is a mystery & while it hinges on an alien artifact & is an SF book, it would have been a great story without those elements. His style in the book, to start each chapter in the middle of the action, work back to the beginning & then end the chapter on a cliffhanger, is just brilliant. It added so much humor & depth to the book. It took an OK story & made it one that you want to read again & again.

Jim wrote [re: [author:Zelazny|1031800]]: "His style in the book [[book:Doorways in the Sand|61998]], to start each chapter in the middle of the action, work back to the beginning & then end the chapter on a cliffhanger, is just brilliant."

What an interesting approach.

I searched for a photo of Zelazny, and found the following which gives interesting details about him as well: ====>


Wiki says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Roger Joseph Zelazny (May 13, 1937 � June 14, 1995) was an American writer of fantasy and science fiction short stories and novels. He won the Nebula award three times (out of 14 nominations) and the Hugo award six times (out of 14 nominations), including two Hugos for novels: the serialized novel ...And Call Me Conrad (1965; subsequently published under the title This Immortal, 1966) and the novel Lord of Light (1967)."
FROM:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is brilliant, it gets your interest up right in the beginning of the chapter.

Very interested in your chat about what's worth reading, what makes a good book etc.

I couldn't get on with Moby Dick, but my husband reckons it's great. He can't abide John Steinbeck; I enjoyed the Grapes of Wrath, though I wouldn't put it among my favourites.

There are classics I love, and classics I've read, and classics I've given up on (and classics I've enjoyed that I know I would have hated if I'd been forced to read them at school!). Books are books, imho, read the ones you like and don't bother with the ones that do nothing for you. Because I've always tinkered about writing my own stuff, to me a good book is like a good meal in a restaurant - you know you couldn't have rustled up the same (or better) experience in your own kitchen! A book that takes you somewhere new, makes you think, smile, or cry is a good book. One that does all the above is a great book.

And one man's meat is another man's poison.... ! (said with feeling, as I've just had some very negative feedback on my book to offset the enthusiasm of Jim and Jackie et al. It's very difficult to tell who's going to like it and who isn't - which takes us back to the beginning of this discussion - what makes a book "good" or "bad" ? Why is it one person can find something highly readable and another finds it dry and tedious?)

Note to self - I must progress my "to read" pile to the point where I can get to the Zelazny that was sitting near the top of it until my husband stole it....but I do want to finish Birth of a Nation first, it's an intriguing and entertaining romp around Anglo/American 19th century history.


Sue

Sue wrote: "...but I do want to finish Birth of a Nation first, it's an intriguing and entertaining romp around Anglo/American 19th century history.:

Sue, would you please provide a link to that book?
Thanks.

Wiki says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Birth of a Nation (also known as The Clansman), is a 1915 silent film directed by D. W. Griffith; one of the most influential and controversial of American motion pictures. Set during and after the American Civil War, the film was based on Thomas Dixon's The Clansman, a novel and play."
From:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below is a link to IMDb's webpage re the motion picture at:

Below are the plot summary and the synopsis from the above website:
---------------------------------------------------
Summary:
"Two brothers, Phil and Ted Stoneman, visit their friends in Piedmont, South Carolina: the family Cameron. This friendship is affected by the Civil War, as the Stonemans and the Camerons must join up opposite armies. The consequences of the War in their lives are shown in connection to major historical events, like the development of the Civil War itself, Lincoln's assassination, and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan."

Synopsis (may have spoilers):
"The first half of the film begins before the Civil War, explaining the introduction of slavery to America before jumping into battle. Two families, the northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons, are introduced. The story is told through these two families and often their servants, epitomizing the worst racial stereotypes. As the nation is torn apart by war, the slaves and their abolitionist supporters are seen as the destructive force behind it all.

"The film's racism grows even worse in its second half, set during Reconstruction and featuring the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, introduced as the picture's would-be heroes. The fact that Griffith jammed a love story in the midst of his recreated race war is absolutely audacious. It's thrilling and disturbing, often at the same time."
---------------------------------------------------

I haven't read this one. I'm hestitant to add it to my 'to-read' pile which has become a tottering Tower of Babel, at present. I really liked John Jakes Bicentenial series, as I mentioned in another topic here. I like 'fictionalized' histories, so long as the facts are kept straight. I don't always agree with the author's interpretation of events, but the human feel of them makes them stick in my memory better than a dry recitation.

If you read Zelazny's "This Immortal" & haven't read a fair few classics or at least the Cliff Notes, you miss half the book. The man makes so many references, often subtle, with nary a footnote. That's half the fun of the book & what makes it worthy of a re-read every 5 years or less. Ditto with his "A Night In Lonesome October". I'm SO glad we discussed that one in a group. I got way more out of it than I ever would have alone.

Books can be art or craft. I tend to mostly like books that are well crafted, not 'artsy' as a general rule. Tell me the story in a straight forward way. Don't hide it behind allegories or fancy sentences.

Describe what needs to be described & no more. I have an active imagination & I like to use it when reading. Tell me a gal is hot with a few major details. Too many & you're going to shatter my illusion. The author's idea of a hot gal & mine likely differ.

That's what I liked about your book, Sue. you didn't kill me with unnecessary details. You painted the broad picture, made a likeable, but imperfect set of heroes & 'villans' who aren't really, even if they are against our good guys. Very believable clash of civilizations.

Joy,

The book I'm reading is Birth of a Nation by Julian Rathbone, published by Abacus ISBN 9780349118956. Hey, does this mean I've beaten Wikipedia???

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99...

I was given this book when I went to a writers conference in Winchester (UK) last autumn. I gather there's a whole series of them - not sure I like it enough to read all the rest, but it suits my reading habits - a few chapters a month!!! (You see why my to read pile never goes down!)

Sue

S.A. wrote: "Joy, The book I'm reading is Birth of a Nation by Julian Rathbone, published by Abacus ISBN 9780349118956. ...
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99...

Thanks for the link, Sue. I also found it at Amazon.com:
_Birth of a Nation: The Further Adventures of A Very English Agent"
by Julian Rathbone

The product description says: "A heady cocktail of fact and fiction..."

Wiki says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Julian Christopher Rathbone ... was an English novelist." (1935-2008) ...

"Booker Prize short-listings in 1976 and 1979 brought critical recognition..."

"His novels continued to display interests and talents across several genres, from mainstream through thrillers to historical fiction." ...

"Rathbone always refused to be tied to a single genre..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's interesting, since we've been talking about genres here today.

Wiki also says that Basil Rathbone (the actor) was his great uncle.

Above Wiki info is from:


Below is the Amazon.com link to the book:

The books I love best are the ones that evoke emotion in me, the ones where I really love, or really hate, a character.
I'd imagine it's impossible to please everyone all the time as a writer.

I like a book with a character I love or relate to. I'm not sure I like books with a character I hate. I hated Claude in the Sawtelle book. He really turned me off.

On the other hand, I enjoyed all the James Bond books and they had plenty of characters to hate. (g)

Jim wrote: "If you read Zelazny's "This Immortal" & haven't read a fair few classics or at least the Cliff Notes, you miss half the book. The man makes so many references, often subtle, with nary a footnote."

I'm in trouble already. :)

I really need to relate to at least one character in a fiction book or it just doesn't do it for me. That was my problem with "Twilight" & "The Ethical Assassin". Both pretty good books, but the first was from a 16 year old girl's POV. I wanted to kick her all the time.

I like evil guys that make sense. I don't understand pure sadism. Sadism & greed is OK. Self interest run riot is fine. Evil for the sake of evil just doesn't connect to me well enough. I don't get it.

Evil is a purely human concept. Other animals are guided by all sorts of instincts, but "good" and "evil" don't come into it. That's why the idea of "pure evil" makes no sense to me and - like Jim - I don't "get" stories that feature villains who are evil for the sake of being evil. This is far too simplistic a view of the world for me - it's ALWAYS much more complicated than that!!! (And I'm always so much more interested in why the villain is being evil....)

Characters you love to hate are much more fun. "Serves him right" is such a satisfying reaction to have to a plot - not least because you can so rarely achieve it in real life! That's the appeal of James Bond etc. - sometimes you just need some real escapism.

Sue

Sue wrote: "Characters you love to hate are much more fun. "Serves him right" is such a satisfying reaction to have to a plot - not least because you can so rarely achieve it in real life! That's the appeal of James Bond etc. - sometimes you just need some real escapism."

Good points, Sue. Well said.
Revenge in a novel can be so sweet.

"If thine enemy wrong thee, buy each of his children a drum."
-Chinese proverb

I love the proverb!!! And I have friends with a little boy it was written for...mind you, his mother is a drummer!

Joy,
You hated Claude, it evoked strong emotion in you, that's what I mean, when characters evoke a strong response in us. And hate is a very strong response. It's the idea that an imaginary person can make me feel real emotions that makes the book(s) so good. It's not really about the character I hate, but the emotions and feelings. That's mighty powerful.
I really get into certain books, an emotional investment is the key to it all.

Sue,
Serve 'em right, oh definitely. It feels so good when a villian gets his come-uppance. I feel vindicated and validated at the same time.

Jim,
Evil for evil's sake, yeah, not enough, I definitely need more. The 'why' behind people's actions is very much a part of the story and sometimes it gives us a different view of that 'evil' character. I need a reason. Random acts of violence are pointless to me, there's enough of that in the world already. Maybe it makes me feel better to know villians in books have a reason, I don't know.

Sue said it best: it's ALWAYS much more complicated than that!

Jackie, the emotions of fear and hate inside me tear me apart. I don't like experiencing them. Claude (in the Sawtelle book) was really hateful. On the other hand, the bad guys in Ian Fleming's James Bond books didn't evoke fear and hate in me. They were simply the "bad guys" and I knew they'd get their come-uppance. That made the difference.

As for "evil for evil's sake", there's always a reason. Sometimes the reason is mental illness. But that's another subject.

It kills me too, in real life. Somehow it's different when you know they aren't real.

Jackie, Claude was too real for me! LOL

I don't think there's many random acts of violence in real life. There's always a reason - in the mind of the perpetrator, anyway, even if (as Joy says) it makes no sense to the rest of us. Fiction allows us to explore some of these reasons in safety (and we can always disagree with the author's view of things!). A character so convincingly threatening he makes you feel uncomfortable to read about him may be disturbing, but it's terrific writing! What is this Sawtelle book?


Sue

Joy,
To me, that's a sign of a good book, having characters that are real to us.

Sue,
You and Joy are probably right, while it seems random to me, there may be a reason in the perpetrator's mind.

Sue wrote: "What is this Sawtelle book?"

Sue, the book is: The Story of Edgar Sawtelle A Novel by David Wroblewski.

See: ====>

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47...
(Also see the reviews there.)

and

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
(This is the topic at this book group.)


There are very mixed feelings about this book. It has lots of flaws (pointed out in many of the reviews), but it's a Best Seller.

I also have to be able to connect to the characters and empathize with them. If I find I don't care at all about them after about 50 pages or so, I put down the book. When I was younger, I had more patience (and endurance) and would force myself to finish. Not so any more - too many good books out there. Sometimes I'll hang in there for my book group's sake to be able to participate in the discussion (as with The Lovely Bones which I finished but didn't like because of the disturbing violence/subject). Other times, as recently with Rushdie's latest I just say, this is really just a waste of my time, I'd rather be fishing, or doing my nails or ANYTHING but reading this book.

I really need to do that, put a book down when it's not interesting. I think, I can't realy say I hated a book unless I finished it. But so far, all the books I've forced myself to finish, were exactly as I thought earlier. It would save so much time for the really good books that are out there.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Sue wrote: "What is this Sawtelle book?"

Sue, the book is: [b:The Story of Edgar Sawtelle A Novel|2731276|The Story of Edgar Sawtelle A Novel|David Wroblewski|..."

Looks like I'll need to be feeling strong to read this one! I must admit, the first thing I thought on reading the blurb was "Hamlet" - which I studied at school, loved passionately, and still know pretty much inside out so I'm not sure how I'll get on with a American Hamlet containing anthropomorphised dogs. I guess like the reviewers I'll either love it or hate it and there's only one way to find out... But if I don't like it, I won't read it all. One gets to an age where life is just too short for books you don't like!

Shakespeare, of course, is dealing with Elizabethan politics and ideas of kingship, not family.

Sue

Eileen wrote: "I also have to be able to connect to the characters and empathize with them. If I find I don't care at all about them after about 50 pages or so, I put down the book."

Hi Eileen! Welcome!

I'm finally getting to feel the same way... even though I hate to give up on a book.

Now that I have the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' to-read list, I can see that there's a lot of reading to be done. I don't want to spend time struggling with a book if it's not benefiting me in some way.

Looking forward to hearing more from you at our group here.

Thank you for the warm welcome! There are so many interesting threads to choose from, hard decisions...

I also hate to "give up" on a book. As a writer, I feel in a way that I'm letting the author down. But, I think you just have to go with your instincts.

S.A. (Sue) wrote: "...the first thing I thought on reading the blurb was "Hamlet"

Sue, some people think that the "Hamlet" theme in the Sawtelle book was forced. There's a lot of controversy about that too. As soon as people hear "Hamlet", they think that the Sawtelle book must be a great book too. Sometimes I think it's just a way to sell the book. I've seen a list trying to name the parallel characters in Hamlet and Sawtelle. Like some of the reviewers, I think it's a little too forced. But what do I know? (g)

One of the reviewers, Ruth, said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To hang an inferior book on the bones of Hamlet does not make it a better book. The Hamlet connection is unnecessary and interferes with our ability to see the book for itself, and unfortunately invites a comparison in which the imitator necessarily comes off far on the short side."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can see the rest of Ruth's review at:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

And believe me, Ruth knows what she's talking about. She's very well read.

Certainly sounds like Ruth knows what she's talking about! "To hang an inferior book on the bones of Hamlet does not make it a better book." - an excellent way of putting it.

Ol' Will Waggadagga was a genius, and every time you study his work you discover new reasons why he was a genius.

If you want Hamlet, go read Hamlet (or go see the play). You read Mr. Sawtelle's book to find out what he has to say.

Which is another reason I often don't finish books these days. If the author has nothing new to say, I'm not really interested.

Sue

LOL - Sue, When did they start referring to Shakepeare as "Ol' Will Waggadagga"? Is there a reference you might link me to?