I wish I had more time. If I had more time I would read this book at least three times more. Not simply because I enjoyed it, but because the book desI wish I had more time. If I had more time I would read this book at least three times more. Not simply because I enjoyed it, but because the book deserves it and even more so, and most importantly, it's composed to be read multiple times. I mean, reading a book or watching a film a few times will give you deeper understandings of the work anyway so that's a yah duh. But with this book, with the structure it has, it is made to be read from the beginning, circling around again.
I enjoyed the book, though by the end I felt a bit burnt out of it. It's a lot. A lot of information, a lot of absurdity, a lot of footnotes. And I knew there'd be no wrapping up or closure, at least in the traditional sense. I started losing details and information along the way (I've been through several personal tragedies and major events this year, bear with me). This book is meant for either a super good reader or a book club. It's easy to get lost in. Which I think was intentional.
But holy smokes. There were parts of this book that stood out for me like nuggets of gold. Not that the rest wasn't good, but here and there the writing and everything just synchronized and the nugget is this beautiful piece of very open eyed, witty bit of fantastic insight and storytelling.
I don't know why the book is as large as it is, though I don't think it'd have the impact its had without the size it has either. I have this theory that, just like with the characters narratives in the book, Wallace writing the book was also an addiction. Much of the writing has this urgency to it, this drive to put everything down, no matter how strange or obscure or hilarious. Everything. Just like the characters, the writing is a brief escape from life, something that eats up time. I have no idea of this so I'm probably wrong, but I did wonder such a possibility while reading the text.
Ultimately, I am glad I read it, and I enjoyed reading it. Wallace was a wicked smart dude and it shows, in this book, with wonderful variety. ...more
Look, I get we’re not supposed to compare this to the movie. But it’s extremely difficult not to. The film is stapled into our imaginations. The word Look, I get we’re not supposed to compare this to the movie. But it’s extremely difficult not to. The film is stapled into our imaginations. The word “iconic” is also associated with it. So I tried my best to take the novel as its own story, as its got the same DNA as the film (character and place names, basic plot elements, the shark). But takes it in a very different direction.
Sure, the whole summer vs winter folk thing is interesting, but do we really need the mayor having another reason besides that for wanting the beaches open? Does the story really need a mob boss on top of a killer shark, not to mention a serial rapist, and a cat corpse?
Not to mention the love triangle…and very, very long scenes at the dinner table. All of it feels dated and superfluous. We’re here for the shark. Everything else should be stacked on top of that idea, not in front of it, dressing the story as allegory. ...more
I don't think I would have listened to this if it weren't read by Burroughs himself. The way he speaks is so singular, so recognizable and interestingI don't think I would have listened to this if it weren't read by Burroughs himself. The way he speaks is so singular, so recognizable and interesting that it adds much to the reading. One of the aspects that intrigued me most was his physical descriptions of people, especially other addicts. The way they carried themselves, the way their fingers moved. Very good use of imagery and detail there. I had read Naked Lunch before (I'd barely call it reading, I struggled with it, and read it off and on for months), to find this book written so differently, much more direct and dare I say traditional was a surprise.
This is a one-off sort of book that has nothing to do with the Tower (well, not nothing, but it's only mentioned maybe once or twice), and almost entiThis is a one-off sort of book that has nothing to do with the Tower (well, not nothing, but it's only mentioned maybe once or twice), and almost entirely stands alone. I don't know if reading the books in order would be a beneficial experience, this feels like an epilogue that takes place in the middle of the story instead of the ending.
That's not a complaint, however. I was hoping it would be a standalone, one that would add more to the overall narrative. Something new. I think in some ways it does, by pretty much doing an Inception and being a story within a story within a story. If you love the Dark Tower series, and even more so, the world in which the characters inhabit and want to be in it again, the book is worth it. ...more
Besides capturing a bit of the time period, the book is also interesting for showcasing the respective authors’ style in its early stages, and some ofBesides capturing a bit of the time period, the book is also interesting for showcasing the respective authors’ style in its early stages, and some of the qualities already inherent in their works. I think they should have added Ginsberg’s writing about the murder as well, to round out the work a little more. The book is nothing mind-blowing, but if you want to see young writers at work trying to create art from an experience that would change their lives this is a good example. ...more
I’ve read some of Harrison’s poetry and watched some Yotube clips of him and memes on Facebook, and dare I say I got curious as to his prose.
I don’t I’ve read some of Harrison’s poetry and watched some Yotube clips of him and memes on Facebook, and dare I say I got curious as to his prose.
I don’t think this book is his strongest outing, but is probably the most recognized due to the Brad Pitt movie. There’s also the Kevin Coster one, too, but that movie is probably best forgotten.
All three novellas are written in this past tense, summary style that never shifts, diverts, but stays on this surface level, birds eye view of the events. The sentences are often beautiful, but I found it hard to dig in due to this. Its like when someone tells you a summary of their day without any emphasis or setup and then when its over you feel zero connection or emotional response.
The middle story too is a cliche product of a writer prone to heavy drinking and writing about the female body. It feels very dated, overall, and it was the least enjoyable of the 3 stories.
Upon first reading I thought Harrison was a huge Hemingway fan, I later learned he preferred Faulkner, which explains why every so often he chokes a sentence with an unnecessary, large and overcomplicated word. ...more
I want to say I've read this in high school, however, I don't remember most of what I read in high school, and most certainly didn't know how to read I want to say I've read this in high school, however, I don't remember most of what I read in high school, and most certainly didn't know how to read back then (or, considering this is an audible audiobook, how to listen). But I'm marking here on Goodreads as if it's the first time.
I listened to this on the way to and from work, now that I have a commute. The rough/gruff narration would spark some life in me to get me home, or energy to face the work day ahead. I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I had read it a lot sooner, at an earlier age. But I could still see its quality and why it was rightfully considered a classic, of course. Also, a lot more violent than I was expecting. Wow lots of jugulars were ripped and such. I guess back in the day they didn't worry about children being exposed to such violence in what they read.
I've never owned a dog of my own, but damn does this make me wish I did. The bond here, the relationship between animal and man, is on an interesting display here. I know a large part of this tale derives from London's time as a gold prospector, and maybe, hopefully, the outright cruelty to animals prevalent in this book is outdated and no longer practiced, but such moments are not easy to stomach for some. Buck's loyalty isn't so sugar coated like a modern day children's movie, that it's more about the nature of such a relationship rather than a sentimental plot ploy. Buck had a life of cruelty and brutality and was balanced between the wild and the tame, the cruelty and the kindness.
The constant information dumps and very dry, rudimentary narrative made it hard for me to chug through this novel. The jargon was interesting and I caThe constant information dumps and very dry, rudimentary narrative made it hard for me to chug through this novel. The jargon was interesting and I can tell that there was a lot of research done for this novel, but in the end I think it got in the way of the story. ...more
i honestly don't understand how this book got so much attention and won so many awards. Was everything else that was selected only "chicken soup for ti honestly don't understand how this book got so much attention and won so many awards. Was everything else that was selected only "chicken soup for the soul" titles?
Honestly though, it's not bad (it really isn't), but I had a lot of the same problems that most of the people who gave it two stars did, and additionally a few of my own. including one of my big pet peeves: overuse of the question mark.
Seriously, I don't understand why the narrator, who seems to know everything, has to do this:
"(had the word "sisters" brought it on?)" -page 20 "--twenty years ago was it? More?" -also page 20 "Why? [...] Why this longing for yesterday, even this morning-- for the relative peace of knowing he should look for Sasha but failing to do so? He didn't know. He didn't know. --page 218 (also, why on Earth does she repeat that he didn't know? Ok I get it, the repetition doesn't add ANYTHING).
The book is littered with examples like this. In fact I highlighted them. Here's a few more that really bugged me:
"he said quietly". --page 18 (I honestly don't know how a sound can be quiet. Maybe SOFTLY, but quiet is the absence of sound) "acid streetlight" --page 199 "Alex snapped open his eyes" --page 340 (honestly how do you make your eyes snap?) "He and Bennie both turned--whirled, really," --page 340 (well is it one or the other? Because it's a waste to put both if one is incorrect).
The worst chapter (or short story, i guess) for me was the general chapter, which was terribly written. The powerpoint, even though from what i've read is the one that got people more annoyed, wasn't such a problem for me-- even though it was a tad tedious towards the end.
Anyway, beyond the problems the book is interesting, i guess, though I cared for none of the characters. They weren't characters, really, just cardboard cut ins in place of people. I didn't understand them whatsoever, so what if they have habits and addictions? so does everyone in the entire world. WHY do they have them? They had no blood in their cardboard veins.
Read this book for the second time now (first time in 2014, it is now 2016), and I am so pleased that I had to read it again for a seminar class this Read this book for the second time now (first time in 2014, it is now 2016), and I am so pleased that I had to read it again for a seminar class this time, the first round was on my own and for some reason my lack of time or stress during that period of my life caused me to miss quite a bit that this time, I was able to soak in and discover.
What a haunting, powerful and magnificent piece of work. I read the book in public, often with a beer or a smoke and people would come up to me and be in awe of it. They know. They were haunted by Beloved the same way I am. When you read this book it's clear due to its subject that the weight of history bears down on the characters and on you as a reader. No matter how far away from the terrible pasts they try to run it catches up with them. No matter how much you try to piece together the characters, pin them down and what their pain is, the truth is always far more horrible, more scaring.
Toni Morrison said in an interview with the Paris Review that she had to write this book this way. The first time I read it I didn't quite understand why it was told the way it was, blurring POV and time and perspective almost at whim (of course it isn't but it can seem like it if you aren't reading slow enough), but now I get it. If the story were told in any simplifying, simplistic, reader-pandering way, the impact would be lost. This book is haunting and haunted. It rattles you and takes a piece of you with it in a very profound way.
I can still see Beloved, naked out in the forest, in the shadow, walking into the water. Chilling. ...more
I really want to give this five stars, but I just shouldn't. I feel truly ambivalent on where I stand with this one. On one hand, I think it's a beautI really want to give this five stars, but I just shouldn't. I feel truly ambivalent on where I stand with this one. On one hand, I think it's a beautiful piece of work. On the other, I felt some of it was so contrived and artificial (which is a double sin because it's a realist novel, the first of its kind), especially some angles of the characters. But I get why they are that way: Flaubert had ideas to express, though whether or not I agree with those in the end doesn't matter, I don't live in that century nor do I live in France. However, what does matter is the fact that there's a husband who is way too oblivious, a wife who is far too naive in her passions, and other minor characters who are devious on par with Loony Tune characters. But holy Hand Grenades, the writing. The descriptions. The psychological probing. I get why most of the characters are the way they are, especially Emma. I think, as Flaubert was trying to ultimately impose on the reader, that she is a victim, or in the least that that we should feel empathy for her. While reading the scenes about her reading books and getting ideas on love that are not based in reality I couldn't help but be reminded of my brief time in sociology class when we studied women's advertising and learned that it was basically attacking them ("you're ugly if you don't have our product!") and giving them false hopes and ideas ("if you buy two of our products, you'll have allll the men!"), and was terrified of the idea of people being manipulated. Charles was oblivious to most of what she was up to, and wasn't exciting. He's like wheat bread, sliced square wheat bread, and what she wanted was fresh out of the oven dutch crunch because that's what she read about in her novels. This is the kind of book where its very important to understand what the author was trying to achieve and how he achieved it before the reading is undertaken. At least in my opinion. Although, I still don't understand why certain phrases, nouns and sentences are italicized. ...more
I have been wanting to read this for a good long while. Not just for it's influence on American history, but also for the very unavoidable fact that iI have been wanting to read this for a good long while. Not just for it's influence on American history, but also for the very unavoidable fact that it's American literature's first major bestseller. I love all forms of literature and history, but American holds a special place because it's my home. At any rate, I was slightly disappointed with the book, as my experience of it is as a 2014, "non-believer", reader.
For one thing, the melodrama. It's everywhere. People are crying all over the place. Every time it comes around I roll my eyes and grown and just keep chugging along until something happens. Granted this book was written as entertainment in order to capture readers. Imagine if Twilight or 50 Shades had a strong set of ideology behind it, say, saving the environment, i'm sure the end result would have been the same. So it's very Hollywood-esque entertainment in that regard (Uncle Tom, not the previously mentioned...groan...novels), which again is okay for the tactic used (gained a large reading fellowship, which then started to change people's minds on once popular notions and opinions), but since then this simplistic, melodramatic and ultimately cheesy tactic comes across as not only outdated but also tacky and slightly painful to read. Stowe does what most writers workshop teachers tell you not to do: put yourself in the story. She points at her characters and tells you how sad they are or how much pain they have, and how god is listening, even though it doesn't seem like it, as if to reassure us. Yes, we get the point.
This leads me to my second point. I consider myself an Agnostic Humanist, but I'm pretty open minded in the field of theology, and don't mind that Stowe's entire vision revolved around Christian theology. That's completely fine and in fact, I find it interesting in many ways. However, there are elements I found jarring. For example, the main antagonist is considered "atheist" multiple times, and also that atheists are considered more superstitious due to their lack of faith. Which is silly--but then again, this is a 2014 reader, not an 1856 reader. Non-Christian, "non-believers" are not evil or superstitious--they certainly can be, but i have met more people religious in nature that are superstitious than the other way around. For another such example, Stowe's idea of feminism is the kitchen, which is a location used frequently in the book. So Uncle Tom's Cabin is no doubt outdated, but at the same time, has a very important place in history and literature, and I am glad that I have read it and scratch it off my list.
I've seen both films, and was eager to experience the novel. I was not disappointed. The best bits of dialogue are all here. The characters are flesheI've seen both films, and was eager to experience the novel. I was not disappointed. The best bits of dialogue are all here. The characters are fleshed out and interesting. This is one of those stories i always go back to and think about, in terms of the form and the experience of it (as a film, now as a novel as well). It's really quite good. Good dialogue, good plot, good first person narration. Solid novel. ...more
The book can sometimes be frustrating, it can make you feel lost or shocked (sometimes due to outdated values, but other times I think it's intentionaThe book can sometimes be frustrating, it can make you feel lost or shocked (sometimes due to outdated values, but other times I think it's intentional for flash, shock value), but overall the book is very impressive and very Kerouac. The section that is transcribed was fascinating, though i think the conversation ended up not quite what Kerouac had in mind or on the ball as he hoped it would (Ginsberg said the same thing in his words at the end of the book), but its still impressive how well he articulated every little thing and captured the conversation. But the section before it was probably my favorite out of the entire novel. The still moments, the details. Such beautiful details. Patience and stillness required him to capture stuff like this.
It's not my favorite and though impressive and important, the sexism just rubbed me a little wrong and reminded me of the darker angles of Kerouac, why many of my friends don't like him. For the most part I can separate the elements of his work, of his view on life that i appreciate, that I can be inspired by, and that that should be left behind. But on this occasion I found it a bit more difficult. There's only so many times I can read C words and N words.
But it's better than it all being cut out and censored, I guess. ...more
"I am crudely malely sexual and cannot help myself and have lecherous and so on propensities as almost all my male readers no doubt are the same" -pag"I am crudely malely sexual and cannot help myself and have lecherous and so on propensities as almost all my male readers no doubt are the same" -page 5
I've been reading Kerouac for some time now, and although I enjoy picking apart his prose and listening to it, the older I get the more naive he becomes. But then again, he's also extremely honest with himself and his confusion. Kerouac admits he's ----ed up, and admits that he will continue to ---- up. The way he can write both from the perspective of the time he's describing and the perspective some distance provides is quite intriguing.
This seems to me to be his most superficial novel, and in many ways, his most misogynistic and even racist (especially with a contemporary viewpoint-- Kerouac is a product of his time, though that defense can only go so far), which is one of the reasons it took me a while to get to this book. I couldn't help at times feeling like I was reading a teenager's blog at points, I mean he dates a girl first off for her ethnicity, then gets jealous of her after some heavy dreams. He ditches her at one point, but comes back briefly only to ditch her again after finding out she slept with someone else. Just, yikes. But he's not trying to make himself look like a hero by any means-- I think in some way he does love Mardou, but because of his own messed up mind (namely his relationship with his mother), Lou could never reciprocate and get his head straight. This is a tragedy tale, intended to be I suppose.
One more very important note: Mardou's real name is Alene Lee, and she of course did not like this novel, nor spoke to any of the Beats afterwards. There are a few photos of her online, and some of her writing, though I can't seem to find where. But I think if we continue to read Kerouac and the other male Beats, we should read more from the women of the Beats just as much (if not more so). ...more
The true sequel to On The Road (not to knock The Dharma Bums, my personal favorite, but in essence it felt like he was trying to capture the same magiThe true sequel to On The Road (not to knock The Dharma Bums, my personal favorite, but in essence it felt like he was trying to capture the same magic, not a continuation), this is the hangover after the party is over. This is Kerouac, drunken, paranoid, depressed, and going back to his Catholic roots. The guilt had been with him all along, in all his previous works, but here it crescendoes into a burst of paranoia and madness. The hopeful note at the end I feel is either Kerouac in denial or a last minute request from the publisher. It is definitely Kerouac at his most bleak, and his isolation and self abuse aligns with the mental breakdown written about in this book. The lie he tells you is that the madness pursuing him in this tale is behind him, that it happened and that was it. But in truth, it remained, haunting him behind every bottle.
The writing is good, its Kerouac at his clearest and most emotional. This is a troubled but experienced writer putting down his psychological torment for all to see, in a language from his time and place.
The poem at the end is the perfect epilogue, a repeating rolling of the waves as the lights go out. ...more
It's been a while since I've read anything from Jack's world. Reading this book has made me want to go backpacking, hiking or mountain climbing or somIt's been a while since I've read anything from Jack's world. Reading this book has made me want to go backpacking, hiking or mountain climbing or some variation of any of those. The thirst for adventure is apparently contagious. But reading this book was a much more interesting reading experience than On The Road. Though, while reading OTR I was traveling on the California Zephyr on my way to Nebraska, which fit perfect with the material that i was reading, I think The Dharma Bums is not more of the same but rather something more layered and almost contradictory in structure. The first adventure of hiking, for example, with its highs of Zen and nature, is followed by a suicide once the setting shifts back to the city. Talk about a sudden shift to dark territory. But I think this suicide, even though its so brief in the overall context of the story, is part of the novel's core element. It hangs on Smith (aka Kerouac) head and troubles him, especially after reaching such a high climbing the Sierras earlier. Coming down he thought he could teach others to reach enlightenment, but after the suicide, he learned that other people could not be so easily reached, the spiritual enlightenment he had obtained was only in himself. There's a lot going on in this novel, especially set beside OTR, where all their actions are more carefree.
Another aspect of the novel is the nuclear age of the 50's. The fear of the atom bomb, and the fear of the mass conformity. Reading passages where Kerouac passes by people's homes where every single house watches the same television show and eats the same meal, while Smith goes by the train yards and cooks himself a simple meal under the stars, you can't help but feel the romanticism of the independent, con-conformist, Dharma Bum life. That type of mass conformity is something we see even more clearly today.
While reading about the book during my breaks from it I became concerned with the comments on the novel's misogyny. In my view, for the most part the misogyny elements are just from the times the book was written in. I'm not justifying what Jack and the others have done to their women, but rather that they simply didn't know any different due to the society they lived in. But i'm no scholar, but I have read the book and from the way Kerouac has written the women in the story its a lot like a 50's noir novel or any other trope from the period. No doubt his focus is on the men in his life, in this book specifically it's Japhy, while with OTR it's Dean, and the two characters are completely different but both are so intriguing and bring something to the story and, for the real life characters that they are based on, bring vivaciousness and ideas to Jack's life. I think if the book were written today, for various reasons the book would be completely different. I think Kerouac writes honestly about things that stimulate and intrigue his life, and above all he is a human being and therefore imperfect, far from it. For me, as a fan of the Beats, i accept the parts that i don't like or agree with not only because it dates the writing to a degree but also because its honest and I enjoy these books not for moralistic choices but for artist merit, artistic style. I don't think we should only read books we agree whole-heartedly with. in fact if more people read books that pissed them off the world would be a slightly better place.
My writing mentor once told me this was one of the scariest novels he had ever read. I loved The Road and wrote the recommendation down.
I have to admMy writing mentor once told me this was one of the scariest novels he had ever read. I loved The Road and wrote the recommendation down.
I have to admit the book made me feel unsettled and at times shocked me, but for the most part, felt like a true precursor to The Road. Outer Dark is more meandering, vague and cryptic. Which is both intentional and distracting to my reading experience. I think the intention is to leave you empty, the same as the characters. There’s no grand conclusion, which is perfect for the theme of the novel.
And of course the same as other McCarthy novels, the language is bleak, beautiful and interesting. I wonder if he keeps a thesaurus handy while he writes, or just has an incredible grasp of words. They go from very specific to perplexing upon first read. The way he can conjure up an image in the imagination with words is as always impressive.
Definitely recommended if you enjoy either any of McCarthy’s other novels or southern gothic in general. ...more
Loading...
