[nexusofsanity]

Seriously, I feel so alone! All over the internet there's just endless amounts of praise for this novel. I mean, I can't see what people love so much about this book.

Is anyone else in the same position as me?

[nexusofsanity]

... No replies

-_- seriously

[Scout1234]

It took me a long, long time to get into it but once I did I really enjoyed it. No way near as brilliant as it was made out to be though.

[Sanyore]

What didn't you like about it? I thought it was great. Felt a bit soppy sometimes, but I liked it. Will not watch the movie. Though I hear it's pretty **** compared to Blood Meridien.

[nexusofsanity]

Originally Posted by Sanyore

What didn't you like about it?

I just found it quite tedious and uneventful mostly; didn't like the style of his writing (especially the dialogue); a lot of his metaphors were overly complex and didn't really fit in with the context of the novel (i.e. there was a metaphor about "shoppers" at one point) and there seemed to be a lot of things that didn't make any logical sense (having 20-year old eggs for breakfast) or just didn't seem to fit (i.e. the ending). There are plenty of other things, but I'm not exactly gonna write an essay on it.

Sure there was some good stuff, but it was spread very thinly over about 350 pages or so. The father's and son's relationship was quite endearing at first, but despite their little tiffs, it was still fairly dry.

[Enzo-259]

Originally Posted by nexusofsanity

I just found it quite tedious and uneventful mostly; didn't like the style of his writing (especially the dialogue); a lot of his metaphors were overly complex and didn't really fit in with the context of the novel (i.e. there was a metaphor about "shoppers" at one point) and there seemed to be a lot of things that didn't make any logical sense (having 20-year old eggs for breakfast) or just didn't seem to fit (i.e. the ending). There are plenty of other things, but I'm not exactly gonna write an essay on it.

Sure there was some good stuff, but it was spread very thinly over about 350 pages or so. The father's and son's relationship was quite endearing at first, but despite their little tiffs, it was still fairly dry.

As you know, I completely agree.

Most of the plot can be summed up by: Man and son walk along road; Man and son enter house; Man and son leave house; Rinse and repeat. Occasionally something does happen but it's such a rare occurrence that, had I not been reading it as a school book, I would have put it down long before anything did. It also irritated me frequently that he made words up and misspelled things(castiron is two words!!!) I'm just going to pick a line that angers me a lot: "If they saw different worlds what they knew was the same". Now if this makes any sense to you whatsoever, please tell me how! It's on page 192 of the Picador edition.

So yeah, on the whole, this was easily one of the worst books I've ever read! Our teacher kept banging on about the ending being very powerful, but it amounted to a boring, atrocious pile of tripe that felt completely tacked on! I really hope a good question that suits my PS book comes up in the exam(or at least a good poetry/drama one)

[Brevity]

Originally Posted by Enzo-259

As you know, I completely agree.

Most of the plot can be summed up by: Man and son walk along road; Man and son enter house; Man and son leave house; Rinse and repeat. Occasionally something does happen but it's such a rare occurrence that, had I not been reading it as a school book, I would have put it down long before anything did. It also irritated me frequently that he made words up and misspelled things(castiron is two words!!!) I'm just going to pick a line that angers me a lot: "If they saw different worlds what they knew was the same". Now if this makes any sense to you whatsoever, please tell me how! It's on page 192 of the Picador edition.

So yeah, on the whole, this was easily one of the worst books I've ever read! Our teacher kept banging on about the ending being very powerful, but it amounted to a boring, atrocious pile of tripe that felt completely tacked on! I really hope a good question that suits my PS book comes up in the exam(or at least a good poetry/drama one)

According to your barometer of greatness, there aren't really any great books since I can summarise any book like that (e.g. Pride and Prejudice: Girl meets man. Man and girl dislike each other. Man and girl change mind. Get married; Lolita: Man likes little girls. Man marries woman to get to little girl. Man gets little girl and takes her across America. Man loses little girl, etc.). In fact, the only books that can't be summarised like this are book that only have plot, and are usually very bad (Dan Brown, much?).

A very important bit about books are those things that you can't summarise: things labelled under the bland terms 'atmosphere', 'feeling', etc. The Road does this very well, it's language is bleak and forbidding, its plot minimal; language can do more than just make sense, yeah? Maybe try thinking about it a little more, eh?

However, I think you're probably right that the ending was extremely poor.

[nexusofsanity]

Originally Posted by Brevity

In fact, the only books that can't be summarised like this are book that only have plot, and are usually very bad (Dan Brown, much?).

I don't think Dan Brown's awful. Some people seem to think that he's the worst author ever or something. Sure they're not top-class "literature" and he scammed a lot of people by claiming his books to be true, but some of his books are still straightforward, entertaining reads (definitely not the Da Vinci Code, but Digital Fortress for sure)

Anyway, yes, I like books with PLOT! I don't insist on it being so heavy on plot that it just reads as a list of occurences one-after-the-other, but some kind of events in the novel are needed. Otherwise it's just words to me. I mean, the backbone of any story is its plot! Sure you need all this other stuff (like atmosphere or feeling) but that should be used to enrich the plot, not used in place of a plot.

[Brevity]

Originally Posted by nexusofsanity

I don't think Dan Brown's awful. Some people seem to think that he's the worst author ever or something. Sure they're not top-class "literature" and he scammed a lot of people by claiming his books to be true, but some of his books are still straightforward, entertaining reads (definitely not the Da Vinci Code, but Digital Fortress for sure)

Anyway, yes, I like books with PLOT! I don't insist on it being so heavy on plot that it just reads as a list of occurences one-after-the-other, but some kind of events in the novel are needed. Otherwise it's just words to me. I mean, the backbone of any story is its plot! Sure you need all this other stuff (like atmosphere or feeling) but that should be used to enrich the plot, not used in place of a plot.

Well, there's no real arguing with taste. However, I will say that books that are plot-heavy are generally books that can only be read once. I think a lot of people would probably say that plot is not really that important, in fact, it's the other way round. So Flaubert or Martin Amis would say that plot doesn't really matter, plot is just something to hang the language on (which they would say is the REAL point of novels). But then, I suppose Tolstoy would say something quite different.

Basically, if plot is important to you, then go read Anna Karenina

[nexusofsanity]

Originally Posted by Brevity

Well, there's no real arguing with taste. However, I will say that books that are plot-heavy are generally books that can only be read once. I think a lot of people would probably say that plot is not really that important, in fact, it's the other way round. So Flaubert or Martin Amis would say that plot doesn't really matter, plot is just something to hang the language on (which they would say is the REAL point of novels). But then, I suppose Tolstoy would say something quite different.

Basically, if plot is important to you, then go read Anna Karenina

Thank you for that comment on different tastes. Yes people do have different tastes, which is why it is wrong for people to call certain authors "bad" just because they regard them so (while other people may not).

But yes, I definitely put plot first. While I am impressed by clever language, it's really not enough to actually tell a story! Fancy language that isn't used to convey a good plot is just some snobbish display of intelligence to me. That's what I feel anyway.

I don't read books twice, unless there's a significant gap between readings. Yeah, I'm weird like that.

And thanks for the recommendation. I'll check out Anna Karenina.

[fufuakaspeechless]

:0

I liked it, but admittedly it took about 50 pages for me to get into it.

[gcampb]

Mmm I thought it was a pretty weak plot. I didnt hate it, but I dont rate it very highly

[Kater Murr]

I quite liked it; I didn't love it.

I did find it interesting and easy to read though. It didn't take more than a day or two to finish.