| Current music: | Moby-Mission Impossible remix |
I'm not going to bother hiding anything behind a tag, but if you've just started reading Diana Gabaldon's series, or are planning on reading Gone with the Wind, then there are a couple spoilers. I talk about Catch 22 also, but no spoilers there.
I got a bunch of books for xmas this year (actually, I only got books for Jordan and my aunt), but its enough to tide over my reading for the next few months. I'm a slow reader, and I'm surprising myself by actually taking time to read, because I had practically all-out stopped reading for pleasure through most of my undergrad life. And when I did read, it wasn't all that enjoyable, although that could've been my selection in books.
For instance, I don't like Diana Gabaldon's series. Each individual section and mini-story makes sense and is often well-written, but the plot as a whole seems poorly tied together, and I simply wasn't drawn into the main character. She goes back in time and tries to stop some Scottish uprising, and she doesn't think at all about consequences of altering time (worse is that the idea is mentioned and immediately brushed off), and then when she discovers that she probably can't alter past events whatsoever, they just keep trying foolishly at it. Furthermore, although it IS the main plot, it got paid so little attention to it that it's infuriating. And then she gets all uptight about finding her dead husband she marries while in the past's grave, and gets all upset that he's dead and about the circumstances of his death, but only because she wanted to stop it. The storyline has a lot to it to drive the novel forward, but I kept feeling like things were just happening, and after one event was done, there was nothing to look forward to, and you had to forceably read through until another incident, with nothing to hold suspense or make you look forward and think 'Ohhh, I want to read about what's coming next!', and the adventuresome nature of the book invariably cries out for such techniques to make it to work.
I don't know, it's been over a year since I read the first book and a half, and I forget a lot of things, but all these supposedly meaningful things weren't made meaningful to the reader, despite what seems a huge effort to make them so. I dunno, maybe I just didn't like the main character at all because I didn't understand her at all. Grrr, unless you've already read the first book and liked it, don't bother with them. They're trash. Moving along.
I finished Catch 22 not too long ago, which Jordan got me for my birthday, which is a pretty good book. I found I couldn't devour it though in that I couldn't take reading more than a couple of chapters at a time. Too much...something, too much of that style of writing would make me go crazy, and I think I'd lose a lot of what the book has to offer if I passed that certain point of 'I've had too much.' The entirety of the book would become...hmm, what's the word...frivolous! that's it, which would include the parts that aren't supposed to be (seeing as a lot of it IS frivolous.) It's definitely a good book though, whose writing and style lends itself to not needing a driven plot (unlike the books written by Diana Gabaldon.) I've been told that the sequel isn't as good, and I would say that ANY sequel to that book simply couldn't be as good. It definitely has its own style and charm which I've vaguely seen attempted in the crappy writing of internet novelists (SO much garbage out there), and it involves a very skilled writer to make the style of the story work, and Joseph Heller does. The book is over-the-top, but is written oppositely, and it hits off. The characters are awesome.
The other book I just finished reading is Gone with the Wind. (Yes, the one I got at the garage sale when me, Mon, Nathan and Jordan went down to St. John in August. Ha ha! I used 'me' not 'I') That was also a good read. Most of the incidents leading up to the ending seemed rather abrupt, possibly only because the rest of the book was very long-winded, however, I would've preferred if some of the scenes were actually 'lived' instead of described. For instance, Rhett's relationship with his daughter would've been more powerful I think if they had actually gone into a couple scenes involving her, rather than, still very aptly, describing his relationship with her. However, don't take this as a huge flaw -people seem to denounce movies and books who's endings aren't as good as the rest of the story, even though this ending is very, very fitting- it certainly isn't, and it is actually a very small role in the novel as a whole. I was immediately drawn into the book with an amazing setting. It rivals the setting quality of Robert Jordan's Eye of the World, which I happen to absolutely love. The story starts to develop, all the while keeping in mind that necessity of getting a solid background and cultural understanding. In both stories, the setting was unknown to me (well, all fantasty settings are unknown, and woe to the fantasy author who doesn't develop their setting well, for I shall not finish their book!), and I immediately fell in love with the Southern US before the American Revolution, all the while seeing its faults. Most of the novel is spent describing society and the changes it undergoes, which is itself a main theme of the story, and every single action Scarlett, the main character, takes is put into proper cultural perspective. Now this is an example of what some guy whose nebulous psychological metatheories were alluding to when he said something along the lines that all people are psychologists in that we have enough understanding of ourselves such that we can make up a characters and plots and everything else which follow all the 'rules'. Margaret Mead follows the rules to a T and successfully creates a masterpiece; Diana Gabaldon, although understanding these rules or else her novels wouldn't work out at ALL, seems to not understand how to implement them properly in her writing.
It's odd; I didn't have any plans of anything I wanted to write about tonight, except that its been a week and I wanted something to talk about, and out of my head comes something which seems could easily be turned into an English paper with a little (or lotta) work. My God I'm boring.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cavernio) wrote,
