What are you currently reading?

[Brian]

I grew up on the Potter books - got the first two for my 10th birthday back in 1999. When the final book in the series was released, I re-read the first six in preparation as something more of an adult than I had been at age 10.

The series' biggest asset is its imagination. Like all great kid-lit, the Harry Potter books just overflow with imaginative touches which make the book's world a fun one to spend time in. And it's not like Rowling does all the imagining for you; there's plenty of room for kids to conjure up mental landscapes.

Aside from that, I can't say there's too much innovative about the books. Dumbledore is basically Gandalf. There are a few characters who are much more entertaining now that I'm older (like the alcoholic fortune-teller Trelawney), but a great many who are simple stock characters. Worst of all is Harry himself, a rather dull sullen teenager who benefits from a lot of luck and a great many smarter, funnier, more interesting friends. Of course, fantasy heroes have always been rather flat - I liked Bilbo a lot more than Frodo, for instance, and can't remember the names of any kids from Narnia.

It's an entertaining series and it has its pleasures. The writing can be sometimes witty, sometimes cliche-laden. "Dry" can be a good word for it too. But then you have chapters where people choke up on ear-wax-flavored jelly beans. There's charm and generosity and humor and a sometimes compelling storyline (the best book may still be the first, but reasonable readers can disagree; I liked 3 and 4 too), but if you have a lot of books to read and not a lot of time, Harry Potter certainly doesn't demand a spot on the list. I don't expect to ever revisit them.

[Cato]

I grew up on the Potter books - got the first two for my 10th birthday back in 1999. When the final book in the series was released, I re-read the first six in preparation as something more of an adult than I had been at age 10.

The series' biggest asset is its imagination. Like all great kid-lit, the Harry Potter books just overflow with imaginative touches which make the book's world a fun one to spend time in. And it's not like Rowling does all the imagining for you; there's plenty of room for kids to conjure up mental landscapes.

Aside from that, I can't say there's too much innovative about the books. ...

...but if you have a lot of books to read and not a lot of time, Harry Potter certainly doesn't demand a spot on the list. I don't expect to ever revisit them.

That was my main impression also.

Brian: you might enjoy the book I mentioned earlier: Patrick Süskind's Die Geschichte von Herrn Sommer (The Story of Mr. Summer). 

[kishnevi]

Thanks for that, Jeffrey. Chances are, I shall remain a Potter agnostic, but it is a refreshing change on this thread to have the books defended by gents of even keel whose opinions I hold in high regard.

Thank you for the high regard!

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Returning to Tolkien, to me his best book is and probably always will be Silmarillion. I love for ex. Fëanor's characterization and how awesome and charismatic Sauron is in this book. A real magnificent bastard!

I kind of hope someone would make a movie of it, even though it wouldn't be as easy compared to LotR concerning how many plots there are going simultaneously. I just hope Peter Jackson won't go and ruin it like what he did with LotR...

[North Star]

Returning to Tolkien, to me his best book is and probably always will be Silmarillion. I love for ex. Fëanor's characterization and how awesome and charismatic Sauron is in this book. A real magnificent bastard!

I kind of hope someone would make a movie of it, even though it wouldn't be as easy compared to LotR concerning how many plots there are going simultaneously. I just hope Peter Jackson won't go and ruin it like what he did with LotR...

It would be totally impossible to make one movie out of the whole Silmarillion.
Silmarillion is actually the one I read first, then Hobbit and then LotR, I think. All of them in junior high, together with the last Potters.

[Karl Henning]

Silmarillion is actually the one I read first, then Hobbit and then LotR, I think. All of them in junior high, together with the last Potters.

Hm, that makes sense in Middle-Earth chronology, but . . . well, much as I do enjoy the Silmarillion, it's certainly a post-mortem compendium with its inconsistencies of tone and narrative granularity.

[North Star]

Hm, that makes sense in Middle-Earth chronology, but . . . well, much as I do enjoy the Silmarillion, it's certainly a post-mortem compendium with its inconsistencies of tone and narrative granularity.

Most certainly agreed.

[kishnevi]

Hm, that makes sense in Middle-Earth chronology, but . . . well, much as I do enjoy the Silmarillion, it's certainly a post-mortem compendium with its inconsistencies of tone and narrative granularity.

But you could actually make several different films out of Silmarillion without artificially stuffing in irrelevancies or cutting in arbitrary places, like a certain director has done with both LoTR and Hobbit.

[Daverz]

But you could actually make several different films out of Silmarillion without artificially stuffing in irrelevancies or cutting in arbitrary places, like a certain director has done with both LoTR and Hobbit.

Did they add a love interest in the Hobbit films?  A sexy hobbitess or gobliness?

[North Star]

But you could actually make several different films out of Silmarillion without artificially stuffing in irrelevancies or cutting in arbitrary places, like a certain director has done with both LoTR and Hobbit.

Absolutely, and the Christopher Tolkien edited Hurin's Children would be a natural choice for one.

[Karl Henning]

Did they add a love interest in the Hobbit films?  A sexy hobbitess or gobliness?

You're thinking of the Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings.

[Daverz]

You're thinking of the Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings.

Those bastards!  They put me off Tolkien for a while.  But I've still managed to read LOTR 4 or 5 times over the last 40 years.

[Karl Henning]

Well, but I still smile on remembering odd bits like, "Aiyee! A Ballhog!"

[Parsifal]

Those bastards!  They put me off Tolkien for a while.  But I've still managed to read LOTR 4 or 5 times over the last 40 years.

  5 Times!  I've read it once, and I think that will do for me, although I've reached a point where I am reading things for a second time (Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Conrad and Faulkner).

[Drasko]

Have you read Huysmans's "La-bas"? I think you'd like it.

Hey Corey, very sorry for replying this late, but somehow missed the post completely (I blame it on The Curse of last post on the page).

No, I haven't read any Huysmans before, but it sure does seem like something I'd like. Thanks much for bringing it up! I've bookmarked Serbian translations of La-bas and A rebours. La-bas is first part of some sort of trilogy, have you read the other two as well: En Route and La Cathedrale?

just starting:

Emil M. Cioran - History and Utopia

[Florestan]

just starting:

Emil M. Cioran - History and Utopia

Excellent! The name, though, is misspelled: the correct spelling would be Čoran, because that's exactly how it is pronounced in Romanian. Sioran is the French erroneous pronunciation, but then again to pronounce Č is torture for a Frenchman. 

What other books of his have you read?

[Drasko]

Excellent! The name, though, is misspelled: the correct spelling would be Čoran, because that's exactly how it is pronounced in Romanian. Sioran is the French erroneous pronunciation, but then again to pronounce Č is torture for a Frenchman. 

What other books of his have you read?

Pronouncing č, poses no problem whatsoever for Serbian (since we have it in our own alphabet), but still French erroneous pronunciation is the one wholly accepted. I never ever heard him pronounced Čoran here. 

I've read only some articles and excerpts before, and I might have read Fall into Time, but that was really long time ago, so this is more or less the first.   

[Geo Dude]

I need to read that Ives bio.

Yes you do.

[Florestan]

Pronouncing č, poses no problem whatsoever for Serbian (since we have it in our own alphabet)

I know; that's why I wrote the proper spelling was Čoran (as a rule without exception, Ci in Romanian is always pronounced as Č, irrespective of what vowel or consonant follows). 

, but still French erroneous pronunciation is the one wholly accepted. I never ever heard him pronounced Čoran here. 

Yes, of course, because of the French cultural imperialism... Just like George Enescu (proper pronunciation DŽORDŽE ENESKU) is incorrectlly transliterated Georges Enesco.     But pray tell, as a Serbian what is easier for you to pronounce, Sioran or Čoran? 

I've read only some articles and excerpts before, and I might have read Fall into Time, but that was really long time ago, so this is more or less the first.

You're in for a treat. Enjoy!

[kishnevi]

Yes, of course, because of the French cultural imperialism... Just like George Enescu (proper pronunciation DŽORDŽE ENESKU) is incorrectlly transliterated Georges Enesco.     But pray tell, as a Serbian what is easier for you to pronounce, Sioran or Čoran? 

Thank you for raising a smile--I'm thinking of how often complaints about American cultural imperialism seem to have a French accent....and I must say the proper Romanian spelling would probably be easier for an American  to handle than the French, which inevitably provokes a pronounciation on the lines of  "See-oran" (as in "See Oran on Tuesday and Tangiers on Wednesday", or, more likely in America,  "See Orrin Hatch run again for Senate")