Lapo
More like Dr. Douchebag. I thought the main character in David Copperfield was ineffectual, but at least he didn't do any damage. This guy on the contrary has no character whatsoever and does terrifying damage to the people around him. And I don't mean that he is weak or something, no I mean that he is purely a device, an empty point of view for Pasternak to describe the living condition of Russia during the revolution. At three quarter of the book Zhivago gives up the woman he is supposedly in love with for no reason at all–there is no need for it, no danger, no external or internal pressure, nobody is obliging him and he gives her up to the only man she really fears–and she ends up badly. All this just to drive the book toward a gratuitous boring as hell ending (you that when a writer writes, “and now all we have to do is describe the last eight years of Zhivago's life,” nothing good can come of it). Throughout the book you have no idea what Zivagho is thinking or feeling on any important issues. You hear a lot of bs about politics, the landscape, the revolution, Jesus Christ, food and so on, but then you actually have no idea how he feels about Lara. In fact at a certain point you suddenly discover he is in love with her, with absolutely no warning whatsoever. The only thing that is good is Pasternak's ability to describe a place or landscape, which is remarkable. But basically the whole book is a long tedious description. What a downer.
A book long Deus ex Machina that is boring and forgettable, infused with oriental fetish and technical terms that want to make it sound smart, but don't scratch the surface. Characters are flat and without personality–they go along to whatever they are told to do, with no personal goals, no drives or interests. The AI is boring too. Heinlein's AI in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is waaaay more captivating and interesting.
Meh. The book started out much better than the movie and seemed to be heading toward a much better development, but then it kind of flopped for me. It takes too many narrative shortcuts–I know you'll protest that this is a children book, but that is no justification for me. The Hobbit was a children book too and it was perfectly written. It also suffers from shifts of tone in my opinion–it seems to want to make fun of all Norse mythology and Viking lore, but then it adheres to it most strictly for its climax, which in my opinion is thoroughly underwhelming and honestly not very imaginative. It's a pity, because I was really looking forward to reading it. It's not a bad book, but not good either.
Audiobook. Reader performance 5 stars. Story 2 stars. The book started well in typical Dicken's fashion and got my hopes up. It is written in a beautiful first person prose that quite captures you. The technical quality of the writing remains consistent throughout, but that's pretty much all I liked about it. I thought I would never find a Dicken's story boring or useless, but David Copperfield actually brought into my mind the word inane. I can't fathom why the author wrote the story-I just finished it and I feel I was better off before reading. It was a waste of time. The title character is nothing more than a spectator of his own life and his central love story is annoying to say the least. He is insipid, goody-good and maybe one of the most ineffectual man ever written. In short, I did not like it at all. The story though is populated by wonderful characters and Dickens has undoubtedly a great, great hand at characterization. That's probably what captures people. It doesn't work for me on such a long book. I admire the characters, but having no plot, no stakes, and a main character who is only a point of view quite annoyed me.
Not very impressed. I read it because Ioved “The Three Musketeers,” but I didn't like it as much. After a great beginning, it gets dull and too chatty. Nothing much happens in the whole book and the characters speak so much and are so pompous that they turned me off. The biggest flaw for me though was how impersonal the novel is. After the great beginning when we are in Edmond Dantes's head and as soon as he becomes the Count of Montecristo, we stop hearing his thoughts and feelings and he is treated objectively. So much so that by the end of the book we know everything the victims feel and nothing about how he feels. Also, he is given too supernatural powers–nothing comes in his way; his plans roll in undisturbed. In the end also he is so pompous and facetious about his doubts that totally turned me off. The book is overlong like the Three Muskeeter, due to the fact that Dumas wrote in weekly installments at that time and made more money writing longer works. There are still nice things, but not worth 56 hours of listening. Read the “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” instead, if you want something monumental, but worth it.
This is a case where the movie was better than the novel. The writing is very nice, but it goes on forever on tangents and skirts the most thrilling and/or violent scenes. In the end, it reads more like an essay about the mafia, or a political figure than a novel. There are still great parts and Don Corleone is much more magnificent than his counterpart in the movie, but it still fell flat for me.
Fifty seven hours of audiobook and totally amazing. A first rate first-hand account from a journalist who was present at all the major events of the war. First rate historical research as Shirer was able to get his hands on mint German secret files and the diary of one of the most important generals of the time who kept an unimaginably detailed account of all his interactions with Hitler and of all the decisions of the war. Now, I truly understand much, much more about War World II. Highly Recommended.
A total let down.
This is supposed to be her masterpiece and I did not like it, so I don't think I will check out any other books by her. It was fairly trite. It is pretty much a sci-fi story, but then there are inexplicable sideturns into religion. It felt like the kind of cheat a Creationist Tea Partier would try. Overall, though, the story was just flat and trite and the tone changes suddenly toward the end, just in order to bring the story to a conclusion. The reader did a fine job in mimicking different voice and was always very pleasant, despite a really poor recording quality at the beginning. I love children books and was really looking forward to reading this, since it is supposed very intelligent and challenging. It was neither.
Absurd.
I will certainly never read another book by Pat Conroy, but certainly will listen to one read by Frank Muller.
The book left me disappointed. It was a gratuitous exercise in eccentricity. Instead of delving into the psychology of his main character, Conroy transforms the whole story in a circus act. The climax of the book is so ludicrous and conceited, it made me roll my eyes. The ratio by which he went seems to have been “The weirder, the better.” He also seemed to think that more was more in terms of plot, which frankly he does not have a good grip on. There are still some wonderful scenes and great dialogues here in there in the book, but they can't make up for the lack of cohesion.
In the end, I found the whole book absurd and truly unrealistic. The Addams Family seems far more true than the Wingos.
I started listening to the aubiobook, because I worshipped “Seabiscuit, an American Legend.” Unfortunately this book is not on par with her previous work. As with many other epic stories that extend over a long part of a character's life, this book falls into the same trap of becoming more of a laundry lists of facts than a cohesive narrative. I will probably stop reading soon. Maybe, I will reread Seabiscuit.
Update: I still finished reading, out of respect for Hillebrand, but my opinion is unchanged. Unfortunately unimpressing, although some of the events recounted would have made magnificent stories.
A breathtaking account of a calamitous expedition on Mount Everst to which Krakauer took part. Very well written and engrossing. In the old journalist list, it attempts to be fair and not biased in the portrayal of the other men and women who participated and died in the expedition. Also, very informative regarding the extreme psychological and physical conditions in which men operate at such altitude, impairing their judgment and physical skills. A great read.
Awful female voice actors.
Dracula is a masterpiece, but the narrators are another story. The male voice actors are fine. Some are great, others are OK. Unfortunately most of the material is read too fast, which takes away from the experience. The real problem are the female voice actors. They are simply unbearable. They read in an monotone drone that sounds like a flight attendant announcement, plus they make the stupidest voices when they try to imitate men. I was incredibly excited to read this full cast version, but the female voice actors just ruined it all for me.
Whoever cast the female voices should be flogged. They are the worst narrators I ever heard so far. Whoever supervised this recording should also be flogged. Somebody should have told the narrators to slow down.
First quarter of the book is really good: funny, witty, creative. Then the story devolves into stereotypes and boringness. The bit in Wall Street... Really!? Then our detective pulling out the ending without the reader knowing anything about it–seems really ham handed. Not to talk about the religious ending–pure bs.
Better than the first one and a nice introduction to Mr. Bush's character. The writing is still neat and on the point.
Dickens had a great talent for characterization, but like most writers with that talent, had no sense of plot. Passive characters, meandering scenes, endless dialogues about nothing and a plot so wrapped in mystery that I stopped caring about it halfway through.
I really wonder whether Dumas actually wrote this novel or whether it was one of his aids, who wrote it. I never thought D'Artagnan would end up being a despicable man and Athos a ridiculous parody, but that's how they appear here. In the book only D'Artagnan makes plan and solves problem, which is completely ridiculous, given the resources of both Athos and Aramis. Also there isn't a really good villain as in the first book, which makes it terribly weak on all accounts. Two stars is the maximum a could give to this terrible downer.
It could have been written better, since the author keeps on boasting about extensive research, but she narrates everything and doesn't let the characters speak their own stories. Nevertheless it is an eye opening book about the violence women commit and how they participated in genocide.