Yes,it just doesn't say anything original,not even a word.Further more it's easy to see that the writer intends strike the reader but everytime he fails.Its not about liking or not,it's just cheap.
Printable View
Don't give up on MB Dark Lady, (or shall I call you Dark :D?). It's excellent, but she (MB) is not a sympathethic character. Perhaps that was the problem for Adagio reading it so soon after AK. Whatever you think of the respective books, AK is a more sympathetic character to my mind, and perhaps it was reading them so close together which made MB come off worse.
I agree with you about Gatsby. I found it very disappointing, and I've only read some of Catcher, but it didn't appeal to me at all. However, I will defend WH to the death......brilliant book :D.
Poor Gatsby :( The main reason people don't like it because they try to guess what it will be and then they are disappointed when they aren't right. I love the mysticism of the Eggs and the stark reality of the Valley of Ashes.
Catcher in the Rye was disappointing. Was okay in places but he was a whiny little thing, wasn't he? And the word phoney, grr...
I know we have had the Wuthering Heights conversation, but I'll just copy what I have posted on another thread recently for those who don't know my thoughts on the matter:
As for The Catcher in the Rye and Gatsby I rate them both highly as well. :thumbs_upQuote:
I'd probably rate this as one of the greatest English novels of all time, if not the greatest.
Just one point for all those who hate the characters, this novel repeatedly narrators through double narration, i.e. we come at this story through a narrator, who in turn is having events narrated to him. What's more this narration is so flimsy and based upon threads of long remembered, biased, events that we can't really be sure who is who or what they are really like. It's probably the set text of unreliable narration. So how can you dislike someone who you only have loose fragments of?
Its real success however lies not in the characterisation but in the wild fabric of the novel itself. The eerie moors and the strange and so "un-Victorian" feel to the book. It has been compared critically to the wildness of nature in King Lear and after reading it you can see why.
This is not a novel you can pick up over coffee and read and say "yeah, I've read that". It is a novel that demands so much more attention, maybe like Henry James in that sense, you can hardly do James justice by skim-reading him and in the same way a cursory reading of this novel means little.
As for Jane Eyre yes it is certainly a nicer read, and has more admirers, but Wuthering Heights is certainly the better text and Emily the better writer.
Catcher in the rye was alright for me. Great Gatsby I do think is excellent.
That last paragraph always stuns me when I read it.
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further... And one fine morning -
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
Just sums up the whole book. Everything about those last lines is amazing.
I'm a big Gatsby fan myself. Those last lines of the book, meh!, were my signature here for a while.
For me - "The Grapes of Wrath."
I was going to say 'you can call me anything you like' but then realised that, written down, the tone is left very ambiguous!! ;)
That's okay, despite how I might've come across talking about WH I can enjoy and appreciate books with unsympathetic characters. I'll definately still give it a try. I just have to finish Tristram Shandy. (And maybe buying MB would help.)
I think WH is like marmite; you either love it or hate it! Although it just occurred to me that I don't know if that ad campaign was used outside the UK so a lot of people might not know what I'm on about...
Yes I do think that was part of the problem for me. I had an idea of what I thought the novel would do for me and kept expecting that to happen. When it didn't I was disappointed.
Of course you do. I'm yet to find a text that I dislike and you agree with me on! :D
I have always connected Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary in my brain as well. In terms of plot development, I preferred Anna Karenina - a fantastic story; in respect to character development, psychology, and writing styles, I strongly prefer Madame Bovary, and call it one of the most epic novels in Realism. Flaubert wrote about topics nobody dared speak of, let alone publish, explaining why he had to bypass French laws in order to even distribute it - who can deny the pretentious, neglecting, self-loathe of Emma Bovary, the passive, push-over nature of Charles, the passionate (yet eventually heartless) ways of Léon, the manipulative, frivolous Rodolphe? On the surface it can seem a dull novel, but the profound quantities of psychology, especially behavioral, overwhelmed me with fascination - only in few novels have I felt so soaked into the pages, saturated with its characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adagio
Oh well, different tastes for different readers. As Neely mentioned, perhaps you read a poorer translation, as in its original French form, Flaubert renowned himself in finding and writing "le mot juste."
Ouch! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
Ouch again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lady
Wuthering Heights seemed a very unique novel in its time, and continues to prove its sharp genius even in contemporary times. With my favoritism for Emily Brontė over her sisters, Charlotte and Anne, I always called her the "Brontė with a brain," feeling relieved when reading her novel over her sisters, all of which I have read, too. In order for publication, female authors got stuck in this genre of higher-end romance, something along the lines of a worker-class-woman-usually-a-governess-or-servant-or-heiress-of-the-family-estate-is-lonely-may-not-realize-it-falls-in-love-with-mysterious-man-finds-happiness-in-societal-conformation-marriage-and-children template, copied and pasted by writers like Jane Austen and Charlotte and Anne Brontė; Virginia Woolf would later poke fun at this fact, too, in her lifetime. Authors like Emily Brontė, George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), George Sand (Amandine Dupin), and Kate Chopin, some of whom took up masculine pen-names to avoid the stereotype that "women ought to write this-or-that way," dared to step out of that impeded creativity. Indeed, while having to read Wuthering Heights, I expected something similar to Jane Eyre, too, which I also enjoyed most parts of, but thought it a beautiful work of genius.
Klingon is a language and alien race from Star Trek (wikipedia link here).
Cool posting Mono. :thumbs_up
Certainly nobody can call WH run-of-the-mill romance, quite the opposite it is a highly unique work. I think it is often a misunderstood text. Also Madam Bovary becomes a great novel due to the writing style alone.
Another writer I am disappointed in is Dickens - and Great Expectations is highly overrated (go on Dark Lady, that is one you love yeah?;)) Nobody can dispute the fact that he is a master of constructing good sentences, but pphhfff, there is no real substance to the greater picture; the result is simply tedious.