What are you currently reading?

[lisa needs braces]

Pretty interesting work that explains why the internet is strange and so addictive and how it's leading to some bad habits. Not needlessly polemical.

[lisa needs braces]

I'm experiencing that work as an Audiobook through the service Audible.com. Thanks internet!

[Drasko]

[aligreto]

Charles Dickens' Pickwick Papers; very amusing.

[Bogey]

Charles Dickens' Pickwick Papers; very amusing.

A number of fans here of this book, including me. 

OK, I only know, and very much enjoy, the movie.  Let me know if this is one worth taking in.

[Drasko]

OK, I only know, and very much enjoy, the movie.  Let me know if this is one worth taking in.

I love the movie. I'm halfway through the novella and while much of it is very similar there are differences, it's bit more explicit in tone, and for instance the narrator isn't 'a kept man' as in the movie (so far at least). Capote's writing style is very nice and fluid, I like it.

[Artem]

I actually haven't seen the movie, but I loved that book. I read In Cold Blood right after it and it was just as amazing.

[Brian]

OK, I only know, and very much enjoy, the movie.  Let me know if this is one worth taking in.

The book is GREAT.

[Ken B]

The book is GREAT.

I read it in high school, and liked it. ICB is even better.

[Jubal Slate]

I like this Gemmell fella's style.
[asin]0345379020[/asin]

[Bogey]

The Moving Target (Lew Archer #1)



From one of the hard-boiled pillars.

[Mookalafalas]

I teach a teen-aged boy English (here in Taiwan), and decided to try him on Zelazney's "Chronicle's of Amber" series.  I don't know if he'll be "hooked" or not, but now I find myself unable to stop reading them.  A friend lent them to me when I was in high school and I enjoyed them a lot. Apparently still do, as I read the first 3 over the weekend.  It's a little like hard-boiled fantasy--lots of characters, mystery, double and triple-dealings, violence,  and intrigue, and then swords and magic and whatnot.  I've been overworked and have some free-time now and want something page turning and light.
   I generally find fantasy unreadable.  This series, however, is very smart, and has a great premise.  The author won 3 nebulas and 6 hugos, so I guess he is sort of the Babe Ruth of the genre.  The plotting is very good, although the writing is uneven and could have used a better editor.  I can't help feeling that they could have been true classics, if Zelazny had just pushed himself that extra bit,  polished them with another re-write or two. I will not show the cover, as they are embarrassing.

[Ken B]

I teach a teen-aged boy English (here in Taiwan), and decided to try him on Zelazney's "Chronicle's of Amber" series.  I don't know if he'll be "hooked" or not, but now I find myself unable to stop reading them.  A friend lent them to me when I was in high school and I enjoyed them a lot. Apparently still do, as I read the first 3 over the weekend.  It's a little like hard-boiled fantasy--lots of characters, mystery, double and triple-dealings, violence,  and intrigue, and then swords and magic and whatnot.  I've been overworked and have some free-time now and want something page turning and light.
   I generally find fantasy unreadable.  This series, however, is very smart, and has a great premise.  The author won 3 nebulas and 6 hugos, so I guess he is sort of the Babe Ruth of the genre.  The plotting is very good, although the writing is uneven and could have used a better editor.  I can't help feeling that they could have been true classics, if Zelazny had just pushed himself that extra bit,  polished them with another re-write or two. I will not show the cover, as they are embarrassing.

CO-VER! CO-VER! CO-VER!

[Mookalafalas]

CO-VER! CO-VER! CO-VER!

[asin]0380809060[/asin]

  Ask and you shall receive.  This is much more respectable than the super cheesy e-book cover I have. 

[kishnevi]

Preparation for the trip I am planning in May.
Burke Davis, To Appomattox
My copy is a library paperback 1997 reprint.  The original was published when I was 3 months old.  Eyewitness accounts roiled into a narrative divided into sections focused on each army and the civilians around them.  But possibly a bit of bias...sections devoted to the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee) are titled The Army, while those devoted to the Army of the Potomac  (Grant) are titled The Enemy.

[Bogey]

Chamberlain's salute was always a fascinating event within the scope of the proceedings. 

[Ken B]

Chamberlain's salute was always a fascinating event within the scope of the proceedings.

It scares me that I understand that. GMG is like an old couple who talk in fragments.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

So now I've read Dombey. I have to confess that this is not one of the better books of Dickens. I've read that this is often considered to be Dickens's first "mature" novel and one of the first books of his that were elaborately planned from the beginning to end before he started the writing process, in contrast to some of his earlier novels in where he used picaresque style before trying often rather clumsily to knit a plot together, instead of solid on-going plot with distinct purpose from the very beginning. On maturity part... well, I can see the reasons why people think so. For starters, this is the first novel of his where he starts to understand women psychology and create truly complex female characters which later leads to magnificent Rosa Dartle of Copperfield, Lady Dedlock of Bleak house, Louisa Gradgrind of Hard times, Miss Wade of Little dorrit etc. In this book the complex female character is Edith Dombey, the second wife of Paul Dombey senior. She is easily the greatest thing about this book. She is haughty, she is spiteful, she is a piece of work. She is also a loving stepmother to Florence Dombey. a loving stepmother, well what do you know. But I still don't think she is good enough a character to make up for hundreds and hundreds of pages of clutter. The farewell of Edith and Florence still makes me very moved, no thanks to Florence though. She's annoying as hell and literally bursts into tears over hundred times in the book. Edith for me. 

And about the elaborate planning in his later novels; supposedly from Chuzzlewit or from Dombey onwards... Umm. Firstly, one of my favorite Dickens novels, Little Dorrit, has "reveal", towards which the book was going for almost thousand, albeit mostly very entertaining, pages. And the reveal is unbelievably stupid, unnecessarily complicated mess of a "plot reveal" (containing of course the "necessary" inheritance) that makes absolutely no sense. You have to read the book in order to understand it... IF you understand it even then. I certainly can't recall the force-fed narrative in whole at this very moment. And this was one of Dickens's truly mature novels, the one which made Bernard Shaw renounce capitalism altogether and turn to communism (if you consider that a positive attribute). And that stupid plot device and reveal was the product of the same mind that created in the same book probably more wonderful characters than in any other book of his. Several of his earlier novels have far better plots. Oliver Twist although picaresque in style, has Dickens figure out actually a relatively believable and convincing story. The old curiosity shop, although I admit its plot doesn't really make sense and is stupid, is still for some reason so dear to me that I love it nonetheless. Nickleby's "plot" was probably along with Little Dorrit's the worst I've read so far. Nickleby though has far less entertaining characters, while Little dorrit has unbelievably good ones and amazing narrative and hilarious satire, which makes Dorrit one of my favorite Dickens novels, despite mostly stupid plot and the convoluted childish reveal. But the creator of Nickleby was young man in his late twenties, the creator of Little Dorrit was middle-aged experienced writer with several masterpieces behind him. So it is justified to expect better stuff from him as he matures. Now, finally to the point: like with Little Dorrit, Dombey has severe problems with plot IMO even though critics seem to praise it. Or no, I actually think the plot itself is decent but it's just way... too... circuitous and overlong. This book could have been easily the length of Oliver Twist without missing anything significant. For god's sake the eponymous "Son" in the title of the book dies when only quarter of the book's length has passed. To its credit, the remaining three quarters of the book introduce the best character in the book (Edith Dombey) but there is so much mediocre and downright odd stuff along it. And I guess the reason the son dies so early is because this book is more about Dombey's lack of affection for his daughter in favor of his son than about him and his son. Like Miss Tox said: "...Dombey and Son should be a daughter after all." Still, it doesn't make the book any less tedious. The language style book uses is convoluted mess in most parts. Even reading this in my own language is extremely difficult to me. This language seems to prevail in Dickens's middle novels; I noticed similar kind of language style in the second half of Copperfield which makes me prefer the first half. To book's credit, this has also an ongoing motive: Pride, as Dickens himself confessed. But that doesn't make the book much more interesting if it isn't brought about convincingly. Which it is not. Paradoxically, Dickens really seems to know where he is getting at, handles plot lines with great care in his own way, and seems to think this is how he should write it. The problem is, I don't agree with him. At all.

The book's other mostly convincing character is Paul Dombey junior, which allows Dickens show his true understanding of children psychology. Of course Dickens has to kill him then in a most melodramatic fashion so that there will be no more great psychology on his part. **** you, Dickens.

Paul Dombey senior, the villain protagonist of the book, has all the possibilities to be a memorable character, which Dickens even demonstrates in the preface of the book when defending himself against accusations about Dombey's  sudden change of heart:

"Mr Dombey undergoes no violent change, either in this book, or in real life. A sense of his injustice is within him, all along. The more he represses it, the more unjust he necessarily is. Internal shame and external circumstances may bring the contest to a close in a week, or a day; but, it has been a contest for years, and is only fought out after a long balance of victory."

That is extremely convincing psychology. The question is... why the hell you didn't use that kind of reasoning in the book itself!? Dombey's development as a character is not brought about convincingly in the book. He just suddenly stops being an asshole. That's it. The last lines of his in the book which demonstrate his remorse, are pretty effective, I guess. But so much clutter...

The other villain of the book, Carker, is one of the most boring, bland villains I have ever encountered in Dickens. And villains are usually his bravura so for him to mostly fail at that, you know something's seriously wrong. The most interesting part about Carker occurs during the chapter where he dies. His state of mind is actually one of the most naturally flowing moments in the whole book, one of those parts which either doesn't taste like diabetes, or isn't convoluted, or both. Characters he encounters during his flight talk actually like real people and he does as well. He is even given a moment of sympathy. I think the biggest villain in the book is Dombey himself and his struggle with himself. But like I said, I really don't believe in Dombey's development. It doesn't feel natural. And like with Paul junior, whenever the character becomes interesting, the best solution In Dickens's opinion is to kill him and go on with endless melodrama. Smooth. So long, Carker.

[Drasko]

OK, I only know, and very much enjoy, the movie.  Let me know if this is one worth taking in.

Now that I've finished the book I can tell you that even though a lot of, especially Hollys, lines in the movie have been picked word for word from the novel there are significant and pretty fundamental differences between the two, and while I think they both work well in what they are separately trying to do and say if pushed I'd say I prefer the novel, while still loving the movie as well.

Knowing a bit your tastes from the board I think you'd prefer the movie but the novel is definitely worth reading.     

[Bogey]

Now that I've finished the book I can tell you that even though a lot of, especially Hollys, lines in the movie have been picked word for word from the novel there are significant and pretty fundamental differences between the two, and while I think they both work well in what they are separately trying to do and say if pushed I'd say I prefer the novel, while still loving the movie as well.

Knowing a bit your tastes from the board I think you'd prefer the movie but the novel is definitely worth reading.   

I will check it out.  Thanks for the follow up.