Date Finished: 15/01/2012
My Rating: 4/5
It was so lovely to read a good Pratchett book again. Not that I have ever read a 'bad' Pratchett book, you understand. I just mean that I haven't read enough Pratchett books in the last 10 years. As a teenager I was a complete Discworld nut, and I'd sort of forgotten how easy I find them to read. Earlier in this Big Read challenge of mine, I read the first in the series, The Colour of Magic, but it was never one of my favourites - I think Pratchett hadn't quite settled into the style and flow that the later books, including Night Watch, have.
For anyone that has read any of the Discworld books before, you will be aware that they generally fall into categories, with stories focussing on the wizards, Death, the witches or, like Night Watch, the city watch, which is led by one of my literary heroes, Sam Vimes. However, this book wasn't about the city watch that we have already met, it was about the city watch that Vimes joined as a lad. At the start of the book, Vimes ends up in a scuffle with a baddie, falls through the somewhat magically charged library of the Unseen University, and ends up back in time. The rest of the book is about how Vimes takes charge of a city watch that includes his younger self, under the name of Sergeant-at-Arms John Keel. I loved how we met some of the familiar characters before they became the personalities we know from the other books: Dibbler, Nobby Nobbs, Reginald Shoe and Rosie Palm to name but a few.
I really enjoy how Pratchett can play around with time and physics and just blame it on 'quantum'. I like to think of myself as a science fiction fan, but I am very, very picky about it. My rule is that it has to be a mere side-step away from reality, and I find myself wanting to believe that the Discworld exists. The city of Ankh-Morpork seems too vibrant and colourful and, well, just too smelly not to exist somewhere.
So, who should read this book? It struck me while I was reading it that perhaps people who find Michael McIntyre funny would enjoy Pratchett. There's something about his observations of normal situations, that the reader has more than likely been in themselves, that makes them funny. For example, a room full of people don't notice an assassin in their midst because they are too busy concentrating on holding a glass of champagne and a plate in one hand whilst trying to eat cake with the other. I don't know about you, but I've definitely experienced that awkward claw hand feeling trying to hold too much in one hand just because I want to indulge in buffet food and can't find a table to make everything easier. The other great thing about the Discworld novels is that, although they are a series, the books stand alone. So anyone could read it. Mind you, if I were you, I would read all the city watch books in chronological order, one after the other. I doubt it would take all that long.
Next Book: The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell.
Monday, 16 January 2012
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
74: Matilda, Roald Dahl
Date finished: 10/01/2012
My rating: 4.5/5
The second Roald Dahl on the list, and I enjoyed Matilda slightly more than The Twits. I am trying to put my finger on exactly why, but I have to say that I'm not entirely sure. I think perhaps Matilda is aimed at an older age group (it certainly took me longer than expected to read - The Twits I could have read in a single bus journey), but that in itself is not reason enough as to why I enjoyed it more. I suspect it is more to do with a secret desire to have been so clever as a child that I could make things move with just the power of my eyes. Is that just me???
The magic of Dahl comes through again so clearly: the simple language he uses and the feeling that he is telling the story directly to you as the reader. I also love that he thinks that evil people must be ugly, but that ugly people needn't be evil. Furthermore, through re-reading Matilda I learnt what 'precocious' means, which I have spent my life thinking meant something quite different to what it actually does. You see, books for children can be educational even for us grown-ups.
So, who should read this book? Matilda, more than the other young kid's books on the list, would be good for someone who turns their noses up at re-reading the books from their youth. It's fun and sweet and the bully gets her comeuppance at the end. What's not to love? Good for children and grown-ups alike, I think.
Next book: Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
My rating: 4.5/5
The second Roald Dahl on the list, and I enjoyed Matilda slightly more than The Twits. I am trying to put my finger on exactly why, but I have to say that I'm not entirely sure. I think perhaps Matilda is aimed at an older age group (it certainly took me longer than expected to read - The Twits I could have read in a single bus journey), but that in itself is not reason enough as to why I enjoyed it more. I suspect it is more to do with a secret desire to have been so clever as a child that I could make things move with just the power of my eyes. Is that just me???
The magic of Dahl comes through again so clearly: the simple language he uses and the feeling that he is telling the story directly to you as the reader. I also love that he thinks that evil people must be ugly, but that ugly people needn't be evil. Furthermore, through re-reading Matilda I learnt what 'precocious' means, which I have spent my life thinking meant something quite different to what it actually does. You see, books for children can be educational even for us grown-ups.
So, who should read this book? Matilda, more than the other young kid's books on the list, would be good for someone who turns their noses up at re-reading the books from their youth. It's fun and sweet and the bully gets her comeuppance at the end. What's not to love? Good for children and grown-ups alike, I think.
Next book: Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
Thursday, 5 January 2012
75: Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding
Date Finished: 04/01/2012
My Rating: 4/5
I think this was probably the 4th or 5th time that I've read Bridget Jones, and I have seen the film a bunch of times too. In fact, it was the first DVD I ever owned - I won it in a competition about 3 years before I had the means of watching it. I was excited about reading it again, and I knew that it would only take me a couple of days and that I would enjoy it.
The thing that surprised me this time, though, is how dated it seems now. The sentiments of the book and the self-doubt of Bridget are ageless and still relevant to today's world, but the part about being unable to set the video to record... I can imagine girls reading that now and thinking "can they not just watch it on iPlayer??". Also, facebook has been invented since this was written, and I can just imagine how obsessed Bridget would have been about that - checking Daniel's friend list, analysing all the comments made by any girl on his wall, and being annoyed because Mark Darcy wasn't even on there. I also suspect Bridget might be one of those girls that puts far too much information in her status updates about the dramas in her life. There is also a lack of mobile phones, and I can quite imagine Bridget wondering whether she should text Daniel, and how many kisses to put at the end. Oh, and the drunken text message sagas that would have ensued would have been brilliant!
All of that, however, just goes to show how far we've moved on in the last 16 years or so since it was first published, and the fact of the matter is that any girl who has ever got involved with someone she probably shouldn't, who has felt stuck in their job, or wondered if they were ever going to meet that special someone or has a hugely embarrassing mother will enjoy this book. Reading it this close to New Year just made me want to go out and buy a diary and write some New Year's Resolutions. I laughed loudly at many points of the book, often in public, and that, to me, is the sign of truly funny book. I think I'll dig out the DVD at the weekend and enjoy it with a glass of wine or two. Actually, I might just make that a bottle.
So, who should read this book? Any woman that has ever made outrageous, unachievable New Year's resolutions about weight loss and healthy living, obsessed about the wrong man or been shown up in public by their mother. It's definitely re-readable if you have read it before, and if you've only seen the film, I think the book offers a few more subtleties that make it even more endearing. It won't take you long, and you'll probably feel better about yourself after you've read it!
Next book: Matilda, Roald Dahl
My Rating: 4/5
I think this was probably the 4th or 5th time that I've read Bridget Jones, and I have seen the film a bunch of times too. In fact, it was the first DVD I ever owned - I won it in a competition about 3 years before I had the means of watching it. I was excited about reading it again, and I knew that it would only take me a couple of days and that I would enjoy it.
The thing that surprised me this time, though, is how dated it seems now. The sentiments of the book and the self-doubt of Bridget are ageless and still relevant to today's world, but the part about being unable to set the video to record... I can imagine girls reading that now and thinking "can they not just watch it on iPlayer??". Also, facebook has been invented since this was written, and I can just imagine how obsessed Bridget would have been about that - checking Daniel's friend list, analysing all the comments made by any girl on his wall, and being annoyed because Mark Darcy wasn't even on there. I also suspect Bridget might be one of those girls that puts far too much information in her status updates about the dramas in her life. There is also a lack of mobile phones, and I can quite imagine Bridget wondering whether she should text Daniel, and how many kisses to put at the end. Oh, and the drunken text message sagas that would have ensued would have been brilliant!
All of that, however, just goes to show how far we've moved on in the last 16 years or so since it was first published, and the fact of the matter is that any girl who has ever got involved with someone she probably shouldn't, who has felt stuck in their job, or wondered if they were ever going to meet that special someone or has a hugely embarrassing mother will enjoy this book. Reading it this close to New Year just made me want to go out and buy a diary and write some New Year's Resolutions. I laughed loudly at many points of the book, often in public, and that, to me, is the sign of truly funny book. I think I'll dig out the DVD at the weekend and enjoy it with a glass of wine or two. Actually, I might just make that a bottle.
So, who should read this book? Any woman that has ever made outrageous, unachievable New Year's resolutions about weight loss and healthy living, obsessed about the wrong man or been shown up in public by their mother. It's definitely re-readable if you have read it before, and if you've only seen the film, I think the book offers a few more subtleties that make it even more endearing. It won't take you long, and you'll probably feel better about yourself after you've read it!
Next book: Matilda, Roald Dahl
Monday, 2 January 2012
76: The Secret History, Donna Tartt
Date Finished: 02/01/2011
My Rating: 3.5/5
I always seem to find it easier to write about books that I disliked than those that I enjoyed. I wonder if this is to do with me bitching to everyone I meet about how hard a book that I don't like is, so I have time to formulate my thoughts somewhat before bringing fingers to keyboard. The Secret History is an odd mix for me though. Whilst I thought it was brilliantly written, very engaging and quite an easy read, I once again didn't really like any of the characters in it. Mind you, I'm not entirely convinced that the reader is expected to be sympathetic.
The first sentence of the Prologue lets the reader know what to expect in the book, and I don't mind reproducing it here as it shouldn't be considered a spoiler:
"The snow in the mountains was melting and Bunny had been dead for several weeks before we came to understand the gravity of our situation".
The reader immediately knows, therefore, what is to happen to one of the main characters. Despite this (or in fact because of this), the 'scene setting' part of the story seemed to me to take slightly too long. I didn't find it by any means boring, just frustrating. I wanted to find out the whys and hows and whatnot faster than I could read.
I thought the characters were intriguing. Delicately crafted into personalities that you do come across occasionally, the type of people who think they are above you in some way because of something they do or something they have. In real life it's often due to wealth, and I think for Henry and Francis in the book this rings true, but for all of the characters it is because they are in this 'elite' group, separated from the rest of the student body by their choice of major and by their professor who does seem to nurture this opinion.
I was a little disappointed with the ending, although I'm not sure how else it could have been.
So, who should read this book? This is a pretty universal read I should say, and I think most people would enjoy it. It's not a mystery book. You know who dies and who kills them right from the start. What it is is an excellent story.
Next book: Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding
My Rating: 3.5/5
I always seem to find it easier to write about books that I disliked than those that I enjoyed. I wonder if this is to do with me bitching to everyone I meet about how hard a book that I don't like is, so I have time to formulate my thoughts somewhat before bringing fingers to keyboard. The Secret History is an odd mix for me though. Whilst I thought it was brilliantly written, very engaging and quite an easy read, I once again didn't really like any of the characters in it. Mind you, I'm not entirely convinced that the reader is expected to be sympathetic.
The first sentence of the Prologue lets the reader know what to expect in the book, and I don't mind reproducing it here as it shouldn't be considered a spoiler:
"The snow in the mountains was melting and Bunny had been dead for several weeks before we came to understand the gravity of our situation".
The reader immediately knows, therefore, what is to happen to one of the main characters. Despite this (or in fact because of this), the 'scene setting' part of the story seemed to me to take slightly too long. I didn't find it by any means boring, just frustrating. I wanted to find out the whys and hows and whatnot faster than I could read.
I thought the characters were intriguing. Delicately crafted into personalities that you do come across occasionally, the type of people who think they are above you in some way because of something they do or something they have. In real life it's often due to wealth, and I think for Henry and Francis in the book this rings true, but for all of the characters it is because they are in this 'elite' group, separated from the rest of the student body by their choice of major and by their professor who does seem to nurture this opinion.
I was a little disappointed with the ending, although I'm not sure how else it could have been.
So, who should read this book? This is a pretty universal read I should say, and I think most people would enjoy it. It's not a mystery book. You know who dies and who kills them right from the start. What it is is an excellent story.
Next book: Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)