Fiction Literature Books

I'm usually concerned about purchasing items on line, especially books. I can honestly say that this experience was worth it. I would recommend this seller to anyone interested in purchasing good quality books at extremely reasonable prices.

Buy with confidence, I did!

Product is exactly as described, shipping just took a little longer than anticipated. Otherwise a wonderful buying experience!

Needed book for required reading for school. Really enjoyed the read. Would recommend for anyone.

/

"A Separate Peace" by John Knowles is a confusing book, which is why it is endorsed for popular consumption.

The reason is that when values are confused, people are far more readily manipulated; moreso, than if they were presented with a story whose propositions by way of story line were more explicit and unconfusing. The novel has nothing at all to do with PEACE, but a lot to do with ANGST, which the author offers as a desireable personality trait.

The first element in the story is its SELF-ABSORBED tone. The random presentation of events, and the fact that the actions of the characters are not founded upon human IDEATION, creates a perfect scenario for an elaborate HALF-TRUTH to be imposed upon the reader. The characters wander through a labyrinth of activities which are meaningless, purposeless, and thoughtless. It's a social engineer's paradise.

In this labyrinth of literary devices Knowle's presents a camouflaged ideation, which is incomplete of course, because the author is offering characters that are conveniently unhinged from reality.

This disconnection permits the dialogue to float adrift on a sea of uncertainty. Unfortunately, the uncertainty is presented as an invariable, and certitude simply isn't there.

What remains is a nihilistic proposition in which people navigate a foggy landscape, with no place to go, and nothing particular to do but wallow around in a teleological No Man's land.

The novel has appeal to people who endorse such propositions, finding fuzzy meanings and messages in the vaccuous verbiage; but that is precisely the author's intention.

There is virtually no value in reading such literature, unless one is merely curious about how nihilistic messages are implanted in the collective psyche, and how human Egotism and self-centeredness become a general proposal as a basis upon which to found a life.

In all, it is literary nonsense, whose potential damage to the human psyche is evident to anyone with an ability to sort through the author's manipulations of logic in storyline and dialogue. It's rather like a "code" in scripted form, with no benefit, unless the reader views as a benefit, fictionalized melodrama and fictionalized crises.

As the proverbialism goes, John Knowles doesn't have anything I want.

--Bruce R. Bain

/

You can see this title on the required summer reading tables in bookstores, and I guess schools have been assigning it for almost fifty years. It is easy to see why. Its characters are all adolescents, engaged in the usual struggle for self-definition, subject to sudden mood-swings between intense affection and crippling self-doubt. And being set in 1942-43, the years following America's entry into the War, it offers a new and valuable perspective on this important period in the nation's history. It is, in short, a teachable text.

But it is a text that requires teaching. For one thing, I am not sure how easily most young people can relate to the hermetic world of a single-sex boarding school, let alone an elite New England prep school (the Dover School of the book is surely modeled after Philips Exeter, which the author attended). Although there is no hint of the homoerotic attractions that were a significant issue at the similar English school I attended a decade later, the book demands some understanding of the emotional impact of a closed world, where one's friends are everything, and every feeling is intensified. The central character, Gene Forrester, though physically no slouch, is primarily a scholar; he is drawn into the magnetic ambience of his roommate Phineas (Finny), a natural athlete for whom no feat is impossible and no scheme too audacious. The plot turns on Gene's inability to discern his own motives, or even to work out whether Finny is his best friend or most jealous rival. A moment of ambiguity early in the novel triggers an event which, though apparently soon laid to rest, will resonate throughout the book, leading to much more serious consequences. A good teacher might profitably discuss questions of truth and perception, motive and blame, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, but Knowles is a subtle and balanced writer who avoids primary colors. The lone reader who does not stop to question the text might well be left with the impression that this is merely an elegant memoir in which little of consequence happens.

The title phrase occurs about two-thirds of the way through the book during an unofficial Winter Carnival that Finny has organized in the snowy fields: "It wasn't the cider that made me surpass myself, it was this liberation we had torn from the gray encroachments of 1943, the escape we had concocted, this afternoon of momentary, illusory, special and separate peace." The peace really is momentary; the very next paragraph introduces the first Devon casualty of the war, not fatal but nearly as devastating. Indeed, the war has been almost imperceptibly in the background for some time, but it now moves to the foreground, as the members of the graduating class move to enlist in one of the services. In the epilogue, Knowles has Gene take the war as a metaphor for the psychological battles fought at school over the past year. I am not certain that this works. But the brief moment when the two worlds, school and war, are temporarily balanced against one another is very poignant indeed.

i was one of the few among my peers who had never read one of the Maus books. When i finally got around to it, i was blown away by its excellence. This is a masterpiece (and i do not use the term lightly). Do yourself a favor and don't miss it.

I must say that I find this work hard to properly describe in terms of how I feel about it. I think that it was a fascinating look at one man's experience in the Holocaust, but an equally important aspect is Art's interaction with his father during their conversations. This seems like an honest portrayal, especially since Art isn't afraid to include things that may make him look bad (he isn't always the most sympathetic son). I think connecting the story of what happened then, and how it's effects are apparent for the rest of a person's life (although different people reacted in different ways) is interesting. The way this is written is especially effective, because it truly feels like Vladek is telling you his story first hand.
As for the artwork, although it isn't my favorite style, it seems to fit for this story. The simple, unpolished look is compatible with this story which is honest and raw. Finally, I would like to add that the second installment of this comic is darker, and more depressing and sad at times, but once you read Maus I, you must (and will want to) read Maus II in order to feel any closure with the story.

As a Jew Living in Israel, holocaust related books are important to read, but it's hard to do it actually. I can remember several holocaust-era semi-biographic novels which are great but those are the exceptions. Most of the books are a bit bothersome though true.
Maus just captured me.I consider it one of the best books I've ever read in my life. It was just breath-taking, adding to that the fact that this was my first graphic novel ever, not to say first comic ever.
I gave it to my wife, her parents, brother and so on. The book came back to me after 6 month. all worn out.
The book touched me in the deepest levels, and was able to do what many other holocaust books tried to do and failed. Take you inside one of the the darkest eras of human kind. You NEED to read to. You have to read it.

Maus, A Survivor's Tale is a son's pictorial version of his father's story of survival during WWII.

Both haunting and mesmerizing, sometimes funny and touching, this is a story of perseverance and about what the Jews had to suffer through at the hands of the Nazis in WWII Poland. Spiegleman never sugar-coats what his father had to endure in order to keep he and his wife alive. A true work of art.

Horribly distorts the true suffering of WWII victims. The Poles who are portrayed as pigs and the Jews who are portrayed as RATS is not a good beginning. The Poles and the Jews suffered the most. The Polish Catholics lost 3 million, in what has become known as the Forgotten Holocaust. The Poles lost another 2 Million to Stalins barbaric Gulags. When the Nazis were defeated, the Soviet Communists took over and were more barbaric to the Poles than the Nazis, although both brutally oppressive and cruel to the Polish nation. Maus/Rat, whatever you call it, uses a horrible and untrue depiction of the Poles. The Poles were the first to go to Auschwitz and die. Polish teachers, school children (giggling and playing having no idea what horror awaited them, my God), professors, nuns, priests were the first victims of Auschwits, for the wars first 2 years. Jews were not taken to auschwitz until May of 1942! The Germans had already slaughtered 1 Million Polish Catholics before the Jewish campaign even started! The Poles still defide Hitler saving more Jews than any other country. What makes this more incredible is that, Only in Poland were entire Polish-Catholic families, towns and villages executed for, as little as, handing a Jew an apple. in Denmark, Sweden, Hollannd, Norway, a slap on the hand was given - that's it! These countries, also had some of the most brutal Nazi organizations,.i.e., they collaborated eith the Nazis, as Poland DID NOT! For a true and purely objective learning, and not one man's version, bias or hate towards the tortured Poles, and other nations, read a short but to the point book with tons of info, perfect for Jr, High, High School and Adults: Andrew Hempels" Poland in WORLD WAR II; also Richard lukas' The FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUST;Poles Under Nazi Occupation (talks about everyone's suffering); finally, and a great litttle book on Auschwitz with big returns is AUSCHWITZ by Sybille Steinbacher. Steinbacher's book is easy to read and very clear; gets to the point and very objective. These books are so centered and incredibly objective,i.e., no embellishments, just truth and fact. The Rat book is a despicable generalization and distortion of truth. Scholars and Educators: Please, be sensitive and 'Take the bull by the horns.' Enjoy the summer - you.ve earned it.

The Fight Club book version in my Opinion is much better then the Movie. The Characters are both explained more and there actions detailed to a greater degree. The situations that in the film made me laugh in the book because of the better explanations made me laugh harder and longer. If you have never seen the movie definitely read the book first you won't be disappointed.

A lot of the book is almost word for word like the movie, but the book expands on things that the movie didn't. There are some differences in the book. It's also pretty easy to read, I'm a very slow reader and I flew through this in about two days.

Outstanding book!

Power animals, split personality disorders, soap, fighting, mayhem, support groups, tainted food, castration, the book has a little bit of everything.........

I unfortunately saw the movie, at least 5 times before getting around to reading this book. If you haven't seen the movie yet, STOP, read the book first!

I've read two other books by Chuck Palahniuk, this one is the best so far!

"Fight Club" is excellent, the characters, the dialogue. It's all amazing!

There are so many good lines in this book, its hard to describe, but here are my favorites-

"If your a male, and you're Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And sometimes you find your father in your career."

"Tyler Durden the great, who was perfect for one moment, and who said that a moment is the most you could ever expect from perfection."

"How everything you ever love will reject you or die. Everything you ever create will be thrown away. Everything you're proud of will end up as trash. I am Ozymandias, king of kings."

There are 8 simple rules for "Fight Club"=

1.You don't talk about fight club.
2.You don't talk about fight club.
3.When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over.
4.Only two guys to a fight.
5.One fight at a time.
6.They fight without shirts or shoes.
7.The fights go on as long as they have to.
8.If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.

The movie adaption of this book, follows the novel pretty close! Ed Norton and Brad Pitt could'nt have done a better job!

Highly recommended to everyone and especially Palahniuk fans that may never have read (Chuck's 1st book)!

The book arrived in perfect condition from Amazon. The movie was better!
:)

Any Chuck Palahniuk fan should own this book, a fun read. Even fans of the movie should own this book. Hell, everyone in the world should own this book. Amazon makes it so easy to do this.

'Netherland' is a powerfully written novel that's deservedly being called the latest Great American Novel. The book's an introspective, slow-paced and mournful story of New York City that has the audacity to evoke both 9/11 and F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby.'

The novel concerns Dutch-born financial analyst Hans van den Broek, an affluent denizen of New York's Chelsea Hotel who loses the joy and purpose in his life when his wife Rachel flees both the city and their marriage after the trauma of 9/11, taking their infant son with her. Hans tells his own story, but devotes considerable energy to being the captivated narrator of another man's story -- a fast-talking and grandiose Trinidadian immigrant named Chuck Ramkissoon, a friend whose larger-than-life plan for achieving success and respectability in America is as doomed as that of Jay Gatsby.

This is not a spoiler. Readers learn early on that Ramkissoon has been found tied up and murdered in the Gowanus Canal.

The novel spends a great deal of time on cricket, the only spark in Hans' dark existence after his wife leaves. Although I know nothing of the sport that I didn't pick up from this book, it doesn't detract from the impact of O'Neill's long and lyrical passages about the role of the game in Hans' life, its role in the lives of first-generation American immigrants like Ramkissoon, and the invisibility of the game to most citizens of the United States, where cricket serves as a stand-in for other exotic foreign subjects we might want to know better after 9/11 shrank the planet. I was amused by the notion, held deeply by the cricket players in the book, that the U.S. will not become truly civilized until it embraces cricket. "There's a limit to what Americans understand," one of Ramkissoon's potential investors tells Hans. "That limit is cricket." Ramkissoon's big dream is to build a cricket pitch on an abandoned airfield in Brooklyn, believing it will attract the world's best teams, worldwide TV audiences and the long-withheld affection of Americans.

O'Neill packs the novel's 256 pages with observations about New Yorkers that are worth repeating. Two of my favorites occur in rapid succession when the heartsick and unsociable Hans finally lures a woman home, providing a welcome respite from his morose internal dialogue:

"... while I changed, Danielle wandered around my apartment, as was her privilege: people in New York are authorized by convention to snoop around and mentally measure and pass comment on any real estate they're invited to step into. ...

"Like an old door, every man past a certain age comes with historical warps and creaks of one kind or another, and a woman who wishes to put him to serious further use must expect to do a certain amount of sanding and planing."

In one conversation Ramkissoon uses a bit of Trinidadian slang that I really like. He derides one of his more obnoxious business associates as a pawmewan, a poor-me complainer who is always feeling sorry for himself. Hans is a huge pawmewan whose personal suffering occupies a majority of the book, but O'Neill describes the grieving and loss associated with failed marriage and parenthood with great skill.

I read that blogger Janice Harayda believes that Hans is an unreliable narrator, a prospect that adds considerable intrigue to Ramkissoon's murder. I don't know if I buy that, because O'Neill doggedly refuses to make Hans' life dramatic, devoting several pages at one point to an intolerably long day he wastes at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Although 'Netherland' is by no stretch a thriller, O'Neill manages in Chuck Ramkissoon to create an unforgettable American character -- like Jay Gatsby another dreamer dead in the water.

This is a well written and knowing book. Its sad but has true wit as well.

Netherland was truly one of the finest books I've read this year. O'Neill's writing is incredible, offering the reader a look at how one man tries to find his way and carve out a new life for himself after he is basically left alone in exile in New York City just after the events of 9/11. Without going into plot details (others have done it so well in many places), the book is simply beautiful. It's sad but at the same time funny, depicting at times what a nightmare it must be to be an immigrant (the scenes at the DMV had me laughing out loud) in this country, and the disconnection people often endure until they can find their own place or discover how to find meaning or recreate themselves by whatever means possible.

I would highly recommend this book; it's definitely something you won't forget after you've read it. I read this about a week ago and still find myself thinking about it off and on. I don't think you need to live in New York City to appreciate it, either -- we're all kind of adrift in some aspect.

This book seemed to get great reviews from other people in the literary world as a profession, but as just a person who enjoys reading novels this book was not interesting. Yes, the author can use a lot of big words and flowery language, but that does not make the story good. I was extremely bored throughout this book, but forced myself to finish it (though it took a long time because I could not engage with the story), since I thought I must be missing something with all the hype. Now I don't think I am missing something, but that the book was. The long descriptions about cricket throughout the book also caused some serious skimming instead of real reading. I did not feel any strong connection with the characters, except maybe twice during some analyzing of the failing marital relationship. It is difficult to even describe this book, as the timeline jumped all over the place and the story had many strange characters and storylines. Not worth the money or time.

"The Adversity of Hans van den Broek, as such a tale might be called, amounts to not very much." Thus the narrator of this unusually acute and well-written novel describes his own misery during a two-year stay in NYC. The misery was triggered indirectly by 9/11 and directly by the departure of van den Broek's acerbic wife and little son Jake. The marriage at the heart of this tale is hardly charged with warmth. In fact, both Hans and Rachel, his wife, are cool customers, fancying themselves as intellectuals and superior beings. Hans, however, is brought down to earth in a hurry, and winds up in residence at the Chelsea Hotel, under whose roof a collection of eccentrics resides that provide him with odd yet comforting company. These characters are well described and are fascinating.

The true heart of this work, however, beats in Chuck Ramkissoon, the Trinidadian cricket maven, raconteur, shady character, womanizer, gangster, and roving genius with whom Hans takes up during his forced hiatus. Chuck's dream is to bring cricket center stage in America and to bankroll a major stadium for the sport at Floyd Bennet Field in Brooklyn. At the very outset of this novel, we know that Chuck's body has been found in the Gowanus Canal, hands cuffed behind his back. Yet this information does not detract one bit from the tale, and in fact, brings out Chuck's life even more.

The narrative is hypnotic in parts because of Chuck's long and fascinating rants, and the book is hard to put down. I was repulsed at times, however, by Hans's sometimes blatant narcissism and self-absorption. In fact, van den Broek's personal melodrama "amounts to not very much," but it's couched within a fresh eye's view of my city, New York, and all its familiar places, including the outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island.

I recommend this work, but O'Neill puts his vocabulary on display a number of times, which might send you off to the dictionary if you are a conscientious reader. One might say this is a bit of overwriting, but this is a minor quibble with a very good piece of work.

"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" is the story of a day in the life of a prisoner in a gulag complete with the monotany, the harsh weather, and the tragedy of a country. The protagonist seems to be based at least somewhat on the experiences of Solzhenitsyn himself and the other characters represent a variety of those who have found themselves in this loathsome place somewhere within Stalin's vast empire. The setting is in the early 1950s as the Korean War is being waged and Stalin hasn't yet died. Overall, Solzhenitsyn delivered a harsh though still toned down tale of man's inhumanity towards his fellow man and the will to survive one day at a time. There is some harsh language so I wouldn't recommend it to very young readers but I do recommend it to those interested in Communistic totalitarism, this particular period in history, or just interested in the rather unusual nature of the plot. In truth, while this work is good, it pales in comparison to Solzhenitsyn's later "The Gulag Archipaelago" of which a very good recent abridged version is available on Amazon. Further reading on totalitarian labor camps of either the Nazi or Communist variety can be found in Corrie Ten Boom's book "The Hiding Place" and Sabina Wurmbrand's "The Pastor's Wife" respectively amongst other books. Overall though, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" is a generally fast read and is worth the read. I recommend it.

At the height of his power in the 1930's and 1940's, Joseph Stalin sent millions of the citizens of the Soviet Union into forced labor camps. All it took was a chance word heard by the wrong person and you were sent to a camp. It is not an exaggeration to say that at the time, the entire economy was based on slave labor. This book is about Shukhov, one of the inmates in a camp located in the frozen north. The day described here is a typical day, as he and his fellow prisoners all engage in the daily struggle to survive.
Simple things such as managing your food allotment, keeping your clothes and footwear intact and just keeping warm are the primary focus of his life. Yet, there is still humanity in him, his pride in doing a good job, having friends and his thoughts for the future. Much of Shukhov's life can be summed up by his trip to the infirmary. After speaking to an attendant there and being judged fit for work, Shukhov thinks to himself, "How can a man that's warm understand a man that is cold."
This book was a major part of the effort by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's program of de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union. It was a sensation in the Soviet Union and also made the reputation of Solzhenitsyn in the west. A basic novel of survival, it also contains a much more powerful message, that of a state policy of economic success through slave labor. The Soviet Union under Stalin was a brutal regime and some of that is captured in this novel.

Since I had never read anything by Solzhenitsyn, I ordered this book when he died. It is so bleak and hopeless that I could not read it straight through - I could only take it in small doses. I am absolutely stunned that Breshnev allowed it to be published. I have learned more than I ever thought possible about the USSR, that time in history, evil, and courage.

_One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich_, first published in the Soviet journal _Novy Mir_ in 1962, by the Nobel Prize winning Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a horrifying account of the life of a Russian prisoner in a Soviet labor-camp as he struggled to maintain his dignity despite facing degrading conditions. Solzhenitsyn (1918 - 2008) was a dissident Russian novelist whose works revealed the horrors of the Soviet gulag and who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970. This novel focuses on the life of a single individual Ivan Denisovich Shukhov and his daily struggles amidst grinding cruelty and barbaric conditions in a Soviet labor-camp. Solzhenitsyn himself had first hand experience with the labor camps having been imprisoned himself at one time for his dissident writings. This novel is important not only because it reveals the bleak and harsh existence of the Russian zek (convict) often sentenced to labor on spurious grounds by the Soviet state but also because it demonstrates the unfairness of the Soviet system. Solzhenitsyn was an important figure, a dissident intellectual, who spoke out against such oppression while living in the Soviet regime. The life of the Russian zek, often condemned for an arbitrarily long period of time to work in unbearable conditions and in freezing cold while being provided with only a minimal diet, was a stark and harsh existence. Many could not survive such conditions and those who could had to manage to find meaning in an otherwise cruel reality. This novel shows that existence and reveals the bitterness and stark horror of the Soviet state in the process.

The novel focuses on one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, serving a 3,653 day sentence in a labor camp after being accused of being a German spy having been captured by the Germans during the war as a prisoner of war. In a cruel irony of fate, Ivan Denisovich was no spy but merely caught by the Germans and thus is serving a sentence for a "crime" he did not commit. Other individuals at the camp are serving similar sentences for similar charges and with few exceptions none of them were actually spies. Thus, we see the cruelty and unfairness of the system. The day begins with Ivan Denisovich trying to obtain a dispensation from his work duties for being sick; however, since others have already been exempted for being sick he is forced to work regardless of his sickness. As Solzhenitsyn ironically notes, "Can a man who's warm understand one who's freezing?" Ivan Denisovich then begins his day of work spent at a construction site under the harshest of conditions. Food rations at the camp are very scant and much of the story is devoted to describing the manner in which the zeks attempt to make the best out of their minimal rations and attempt to steal or hide away tiny morsels to maintain their strength. The prisoners also are desperate for cigarettes and will frequently take the butts of cigarettes when they can from their harsh masters. A central character in the novel is that of Alyosha who is a Baptist and believes that being in prison is a good thing allowing him to reflect on spiritual matters, a view which Ivan Denisovich does not share. Alyosha has managed to smuggle in a Bible among his things and has hidden it. Ivan Denisovich discusses spiritual matters with him and the nature of God. In another scene it is noted that prisoners are allowed to pick up parcels from their families. In a particularly bitter scene, Solzhenitsyn notes that Ivan Denisovich no longer receives parcels because he has told his wife to not rob the kids seeing as how his parcels go to waste. However, poor Ivan cannot help hoping everyday that one day he might receive something. Another fear among men in the camp is being "put in the hole" and confined to solitary confinement. Many do not survive this treatment and it continually lurks at the back of their minds should they not behave themselves. The prisoners together frequently discuss their sentences and while some maintain that they are nearing the end of their sentences the time does not seem to pass for Ivan Denisovich. Frequently when those who have neared the end of their sentences are simply told that they are to receive a further sentence and thus there is little to hope for in this respect. The book ends by concluding that Ivan Denisovich has had a good day. He has survived another day, he has managed to obtain some extra food and has managed to get some cigarettes, he has not been thrown into the hole and his work gang has done good, he had managed to hide a blade from the guards and not gotten caught, and he has managed to get over being sick. Thus, one of the 3,653 days of Ivan Denisovich's sentence concludes.

This novel is a classic of Russian literature and highly important for what it reveals about the harshness and cruelty of the Soviet state. The late Solzhenitsyn was one of the most important figures in Twentieth century literature and one of the most important Russian authors. This novel really remains one of the most important of Solzhenitsyn and helped elevate him to international recognition for pointing out the cruelties of the Soviet labor-camp. It speaks to the cruelty of man to man and the totalitarian nature of Soviet communism.

I find it interesting to sometimes ponder, just how extreme can humanity go? What conditions can we put ourselves in and through and still come out on the other side? Solzhenitsyn takes this question and puts it into literary form, if only for the period of one day. Thankfully, unlike the author, many of us will never have to endure something brutal as the Siberian gulag.
The book follows the psychological perspective of Ivan Denisovich, who is a "zek"(prisoner) who has been condemned to a 10 year stretch for merely having the misfortune of becoming a POW. You get to imagine the siberian cold(they are allowed to not work if it hits -40, which even when it does they just lie and force them to work anyway). You see the internal politics which are part of the means of survival, and just what a piece of hard bread and a bowl of cold, wet oats can mean to a man that is already in hell. It's also fascinating to see how he can still has pride and dignity in his work while trying to make sure each brick is set properly while under the intensity of forced labor. Make no mistake about it, this is a book with strong masculine tones, that i'm suprised doesn't enjoy more popularity under such a banner. The book itself is only around 130 pages or so, and can be read quickly by the determined reader, who would be cheating themselves not to read it.

Very complex and thought provoking, quite powerful and poignant. Excellent uses of symbols and motifs. I appreciate the value and importance of this book (probably 4 stars for this) and I definitely think everybody shoud read it , but I can't say I enjoyed reading it.

That is what Rossini reputedly said about the music of Richard Wagner, and a similar sentiment might be applicable to this novella. Wait--I take it back--not "awful"...but certainly...ponderous. Prolix. Demanding and uncompromising--in a way which is not really warranted, not perhaps necessary, but the author's prerogative nonetheless.

If you throw it away after a couple pages, I understand. However, unlike Henry James's The Turn of the Screw--which is gussied-up, ain't-I-a-weighty-writer? crap--Heart of Darkness is a true masterwork, and if you GET THROUGH IT, you'll come across some excellent stuff.

And at only seventy-two pages, you should manage.

Conrad, despite his unconcern for his readers' patience, DOES know how to create a classic character. Kurtz is such a one...and the suspense that builds over the course of the narrative makes the reader anticipate greatly his introduction. You're also left wanting more (and, when it's all over, feeling a bit short-changed), an attribute shared by other all-time classic figures such as Sherlock Holmes, Jeeves the butler, and Hannibal Lecter (before Thomas Harris sold him down the river).

The MLA claims that Heart of Darkness is the sixty-seventh best novel(la) of the 20th century (despite its complete and total 19th century tone, style, and atmosphere), and I'll go along with that. It's a much more significant contribution to literature than an impostor-work such as On the Road (ranked #55), but it may, however, suffer in the rankings due to its brevity.

My advice: drink some Mountain Dew, hunker down for a couple hours, and get this book under the belt.

An excellent work on the role of the imperial European forces in the shaping of the political and economic spheres in Asia and Africa around the turning of the previous century. Since these forces have been instrumental in the determination of the present day attitudes toward western powers, they must be studied carefully help in overcoming the negative aspects of what has resulted.

I picked up Heart of Darkness because I thought Apocalypse Now (not the Redux, which sucks) was a really good movie. As it turns out, there's little in common between the two.

The story concerns Marlow, an Englishman, who takes a job ferrying ivory down a river in Africa. He becomes interested in Kurtz, another trader who has set himself up as a god over the tribes in this area.

Heart of Darkness, again, has been elevated to that divine status of "English literature." The same people who have promoted it thus have also attempted to explain away the novel's flagrant racism, although I don't know how that would be possible. How many English professors would be up a creek (you know which creek) if everybody suddenly figured out that authors like Conrad are overrated?

Like The Secret Sharer, Heart of Darkness is boring and difficult to read. Conrad is one of those who liked sentences the size of paragraphs and paragraphs that went on for a page or more. Often, given his penchant for changing topics mid-paragraph, I did not see why he used half the paragraph breaks he did. The boringness of the novel is compounded by the Marlow's rambling narrative. Certainly, this helps define the personality of the character, but it certainly doesn't help the book's readability.

Conrad presents the whole story as told as narrative by the main character after everything has taken place. Here, glaringly, Conrad's style doesn't work. "The moon had spread over everything a thin layer of silver - over the rank grass, over the mud, upon the wall of matted vegetation standing higher than the wall of a temple, over the great river I could see through a somber gap glittering, glittering, as it flowed broadly by without a murmur." Obviously, people write like this, but nobody ever talked like this. You tell a story to an audience like this and every last one of them will be asleep.

Conrad's work is highly symbolic. Far be it from me to say he was not a talented writer. But I think he, as well as those who cling to his coattails, have missed this: you can go to far with symbolism, and most any other literary device, and absolutely kill the story. While Conrad was busy creating vividly-descriptive sentences and cathedrals of paragraphs, the story fell by the wayside, and nobody went back for it.

This is my problem. I don't want to see word pictures of nothing, no matter how lovely those pictures might be. Just tell me a story. If you can do both at once, so much the better. But if you're only going to have one, this is the wrong one to have.

NOT RECOMMENDED

I was motivated to re-visit Conrad's early masterpiece by Sebald's Walk in Suffolk, which contains a bio chapter on Conrad with emphasis on his Congo experience, which was a traumatic one. Conrad had taken up the job of a skipper of a river steamboat, but he quit after a short time, in disgust with the colonial practices of the Belgians and their crude exploitation methods.
Marlow is Conrad's alter ego here, a captain who tells his story to some other guests at a dinner party. The party takes place on a ship in the Thames estuary around the turn of the 19th century. An initial narrator gives us the frame of the five men coming together for a chat and a drink and dinner. Marlow then takes over and tells us 'one of his inconsequential stories', as the introducer expects with some sarcasm: how he got the Congo job and went there with curiosity. He is appalled from the start by the crude colonialist violence that he observes on the African West Coast and then in the Congo territory itself, and by the raw greed of the colonialists. Kurtz of course, the main protagonist of Marlow's tale, who has not much of a 'life' role to play in the story, stands for the fallen white man, the one whose character cracked and who gave in to temptations and demons, his personal ones and from the world around him. He had the reputation of being a superior specimen, a man with morality and efficiency. The 'heart of darkness' is an ambiguous place and title. It can mean the center of the unknown inner Africa, but it also means the soul of the fallen man.(Kurtz is best known with the face of Marlon Brando and the whispered words: the horror! the horror! But Apocalypse Now transformed the story from Congo colonialism into Indochina war cruelty.)
Marlow's attitude is ambiguous, he thinks like a benevolent white man with an essentially racist attitude himself, but with a more 'humane' approach. He is realistic about imperialism: the conquest of the earth means mostly the taking it away from those who have a different complexion and flatter noses. He even takes history with a broader sweep: looking over the Thames at sunset towards the 'monster' city he is reminded of the times when this was a dark place for the invading Roman army.
The book is written in a remarkably opaque language. One struggles with every single sentence just to follow the story line. This is unfortunate, I am sure a more straightforward narrative technique would have opened a broader audience for the subject.
Conrad was a man who produced stunning visual effects of the mind with his inventions, but he was not a chief engineer of narrative simplicity. If one is looking for a good straightforward narrative, this is not it. If one is willing to take up the struggle, one is rewarded though. One has to wrestle meaning out of his writing, it is not a walk in the park. The style is highly contextual, every sentence implies worlds and assumes you know which ones. At the same time, he is also able to come up with pretty gems of sentences like when Marlow describes his steamboat: she rang under my feet like an empty biscuit tin, but she was nothing so solid in make, and rather less pretty in shape.
In line with the frame narrator's low expectations for Marlow's story, half of the audience is asleep by half way. I was not.

This is an old classic. The re-read was worth it. I noted interesting parallels with the author's (Hemingway's) real life. The descriptions of the fishing expedition in the Pyrenees was particularly good. It's still a worthwhile read, but that is the definition of a classic.

It's difficult to review a writer like Hemingway. So often imitated, so often parodied, he practically reads like a parody of himself. One must constantly keep in mind that this guy was the original, that his distinctive style and unmoored narrative were something unique back in the day.

To talk around things too big to say--that's another Hemingway hallmark, and in *The Sun Also Rises* the thing too big to say is World War I and the devastating effect it had on its survivors, in this instance, the characters in this novel. The war is alluded to so obliquely that its importance in fully understanding this book may elude altogether those unfamiliar with the psychic cataclysm it caused in society after 1918. At the time, Hemingway didn't need to talk about the war directly; his readers would have recognized its presence in the shell-shocked attitude of his characters immediately. Hemingway's people advance through a series of alcohol-fueled encounters with each other, speaking elliptically, insulting, apologizing, coming to blows even--it's all one unending bender punctuated by fishing and bull-fights.

Jake, wounded in the war, has been rendered impotent--a kind of walking joke and metaphor that's none too funny. Brett is an alcoholic nymphomaniac who may ((or may not)) be driven to self-destructive excess by the inability to consummate her love for Jake. In effect, Jake is the wise, passive, philosophical eunuch at the center of this expatriate circle of friends. He is the mediating buffer between Brett's lovers, keeping the party going, as it were, defusing the potentially explosive passions around him when they don't simply fizzle out from sheer exhaustion.

By the end of the novel, carried along by the precision of Hemingway's prose, caught up in the ennui-inducing cadences you tend to forget the imitations and parodies that have all but rendered his style a hardboiled cliché. Perhaps it'll take a long while still before Hemingway can be "rediscovered" and fully appreciated again for the master that he is. But even now the boredom, futility, and impotent despair that weighs so heavily upon the characters of *The Sun Also Rises* can be felt today; indeed it's still an enormous part of our psychic landscape nearly a hundred years later.

If its not there already, this is a book to put on your short-list of must-read 20th century literary novels.

It's not a bad book. It is a tale of the "lost generation," the bitter, aimless men who saw the world end in WWI, but survived it. Having seen the end as young men, they seemed to live the remainder of their lives mourning the lost adrenaline rush, and seeking a way to find it again, such as bullfighting, or at least witnessing bullfighting, and glorifying the life "lived all the way up."

But Hemingway's vaunted writing style is almost ridiculous in its "manly" terseness, eschewing most adjectives and adverbs, and reading as if he had a court reporter in his head, transcribing whatever his eyes took in: "We passed through a town and stopped in front of the posada, and the driver took on several packages. Then we started on again, and outside the town the road commenced to mount. We were going through farming country with rocky hills that sloped down into the fields. The grain-fields went up the hillsides. Now as we went higher there was a wind blowing the grain." (That's in Chapter 11. It goes on, but there is no real purpose to it, so I will spare you.)

Then there's my favorite passage, from Chapter 12: "The girl came in with the coffee and buttered toast. Or, rather, it was bread toasted and buttered." Yeah, Ernie, I wasn't feeling quite comfortable with that damned adjective either. "What does he mean by 'buttered toast?'" I asked myself. But then you told me, in your simple declarative style, just exactly what "buttered toast" meant. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll give him a break, because it is a hell of a novel for a 26-year-old to write, but I wish he had gotten over the machismo thing in his writing before he died. Since he didn't, I'll still take Steinbeck as my favorite American author.

By the way, if the characters in this book truly drank as much as Hemingway said they did, fictional livers must be made of sterner stuff than real ones.

My main beef with this book was that no one was likable AT ALL. They were all a bunch of morally-bankrupt, selfish and snobby rich Americans who trot all over Europe satisfying their whims and drinking themselves into oblivion, all while imposing their disgusting lives on other people.(Autobiographical?) If you took out every reference to how drunk these people got, this would be a 50-page novella. You might say, "That's what Hemingway was trying to portray". OK, in that sense this was a powerful book because the characters' pathetic lives were so vividly impressed upon my mind. Perhaps. However, I could never recommend this novel for the very subject matter and tone of the novel. Hemingway's writing is, simply put, bizarre. He translates Spanish syntax anad phrasing into English, which results in awkward-sounding phrases and his descriptive abilities are marginal. I would pass on this one.

THE SUN ALSO RISES becomes airborne only after Hemingway establishes two characters. These are: Romero, the matador, who brings both excellence and integrity to his work; and Robert Cohn, a romantic who is in love with the alcoholic Lady Brett. When the powerful aspirations of these characters emerge in TSAR, the shallowness, emptiness, and cruelty of other characters--Jake Barnes, Bill Gorton, and Mike Campbell--finally comes into focus. Thereafter, TSAR is fabulous.

But before these values are established, Hemingway seems only to be telling a story about the superficial sociability of thirty-somethings in the 1920's. These characters drink too much and are incapable of love, sometimes due to their wounding experiences in World War I. Their lives are mostly alcoholic busyness and Hemingway captures their tedious gaiety to perfection. But without the foils of excellence and idealism, these characters and their behavior seem merely dull, boyish, and humorless. Further, they are relentlessly anti-Semitic, which this reader experienced as a brainless reaction to the unrewarding and trivial content of their days and nights. (If something is wrong, blame Robert Cohn.)

Stylistically, TSAR is uneven. Frequently, Hemingway uses a technique of following observations in strict temporal sequence. This works wonderfully when, say, Jake is praying in church and his mind moves, without much control, from one subject to the next. But this technique works less well when Hemingway describes the countryside, which is often. His style is: I saw this. Then I saw that. Next came this. The effect is that the writing doesn't attain focus. Here's one of many examples, this one from Chapter 10:

"We came down out of the mountains and through an oak forest, and there were white cattle grazing in the forest. Down below there were grassy plains and clear streams, and then we crossed a stream and went through a gloomy village, and started to climb again. We climbed up and up and crossed another high Col and turned along it, and the road ran down to the right, and we saw a whole new range of mountains...."

See what I mean? This is just a list, with Hemingway not bothering to pull what Jake sees into a single memorable and evolving image. I know: The professors say this is deliberate, with the imaginative reader knowing how this terse prose fits together visually. But aren't skilled authors supposed to do this work for their readers?

I have recommended this book to everyone around me. Though the story was only so-so, the beauty of how it was written made this a must-read.

What are you waiting for? Read it!!!

If you are looking for a fascinating plot, The Handmaid's Tale might not be for you. In re-creating her dystopic, monotonous world, the typical event structure of novels is sacrificed. The setting and characters, however, are incredibly well-thought-out and detailed. From clothing to titles to shopping methods to coming-of-age ceremonies, Atwood has left nothing out. There is no real beginning, and no real ending either--just a slow march of pages (indeed, there are at least three chapters entitled "Night") that still keep you enraptured and horrified.

While a fascinating book, The Handmaid's Tale is an exercise in imagination and thus might not be for everyone. However, if you have an interest in women's issues, this book is almost required reading.

I enjoyed this book. It could be deeply thought provoking or just a great story. I simply liked the "what could happen if..." prospective.

"Offred" tells the tale of many characters and how they find their way. It shows everyone has their unhappiness is life, but there are slices of happiness too.

Set in current times it has the feel of history....and maybe that's what swept me in.

I'm fascinated by the reviews that indicate this book is now assigned in English Lit classes. That alone is testament for reading this book. I read it for the first time nearly twenty years ago. As an avid reader, and a re-reader - it stills stands out for it's unique concept and characters - regardless of your political beliefs (and given when it was written - I'd encourage even younger readers to be a bit less skeptical about it's political agenda).Well-executed "what if" concepts with characters you care about can be hard to come by.

This is a book that intrigued me from beginning to end--- twice. Having seen the movie (a huge dissappointment - that reflects 1/1000th of the book) and read other Atwood books (thinking - way back when - that I'd discovered a great new writer) I unequivocably recommend this book - and urge you to avoid the movie and not have such great expectations for her other works.

If you find you like delving into a unique, character driven "what if" scenario (though these will probably not get recommended for English Lit class) ---- I also recommend Through Violet Eyes, The Time Traveler's Wife] and [[ASIN:0316068047 The Host: A Novel.

An interesting read from Margaret Atwood.

This is definitely a story noire, set in the not too distant future in a dictatorial, 'Orwellian' society . Life is a struggle and one does whatever one has to do, just to get by. And whatever one has to do just to get by, is usually controlled by the state.

I like Margaret Atwood's style of story telling; she takes a decidedly different plot and surrounds it with interesting characters and circumstances. As with most of her books, there are a few twists and turns along the way to keep you on your toes.

Conclusion:
Not a particularly happy story, but intriguing enough to keep the pages turning, IF, you don't mind a somewhat Draconian tale right out of "1984". If you can deal with the subject matter at hand and if you like Atwood's style, you'll enjoy (or at least appreciate) 'The Handmaid's Tale'.

Ray Nicholson

I bought this for my son for a school reading assignment. He did not like the book at all. Me, on the other hand, I liked it. I read it years & years ago but I enjoyed it the 2nd time around.

Frankenstein is the story of Victor Frankenstein, a scientist in pursuit of greatness. His goal is to create a human out of sewn together parts of corpses. When the creature comes to life Victor instantly regrets his progress. His creation is a hideous monster that Frankenstein fears. The remainder of the book documents Victor's exploits in trying to capture the monster and conquer his fear and depression. Throughout the book the reader gets to hear the story from several different perspectives: a captain of a ship on a voyage to the North Pole who runs across Victor on the ice, Victor himself, and even the monster's side of the story. The end of the book is quite bleak and very depressing, but the idea discussed is one to think about: When does science go beyond morals and ethics into cruel punishment?
There was everything I love to be in a book in this book: mystery, a little bit of romance, and a great adventure. I love the way Mary Shelley keeps her audience reading by not revealing anything until the right time. The reader begins to question what is about to happen in the story and reviews all the possible outcomes of the situation.
The only drawback with this book is that the vocabulary of the characters is very sophisticated. The book is beautifully written, but some parts are difficult to understand because of the language used.
This book is a great piece of literature with action, adventure and suspense. I recommend this book to anyone who loves a good adventure.
Elizabeth Edmondson
Landrum High School
Landrum, SC

What can I say about Mary Shelly's story of Frankenstein? How about BORING! I mean sure the concept of the book is cool but only two out of so may parts were the only interesting part. Wait, I take that back, three. The part in the letter where Walden first saw the monster, the part when Frankenstein was making the monster, and the part when the monster was killing people. The rest was just unwanted details. That book literally put me to sleep and it's about a monster! Frankenstein's suppose to be an exciting Halloween story gives little kids nightmares! Instead it's a bed time story for a caffeine addict.

I thought it would be cool to finally know how the monster really came to life, but I didn't even get that much out of the book. It doesn't say how it was created, or even what happened to him after he left.

If you've ever read the book you know that long 50 page story of when the monster was stocking those people in the cottage. Instead of that how about this. After scaring a man out of his home, the monster finds a hole in the wall, looks through it and sees people. He watches them 24 7 while he learns more words, gets more food, and evidently, learns how to read. After so long he decides to meet and actually talk to them, but does it the wrong way so they beat him up and throw him out. Then he runs away ashamed of himself. Wow, that was so hard.

The book would be great with a little work. Okay, lots of work. But, you can't save them all.

One word. "Endeavor"

This word was used ATLEAST 4 times a page on every page of the book when Victor is talking.

By the last half of the book, I was so fed up with her lack of vocabulary that I just could not stand to read it anymore.

Horribly written. Decent plot, though. I will give her that.

3 Words best describe this book: wordy, contrived, and melodramatic. I LOVE reading classics, but this one consistently disappoints. A lot of classics are wordy, and a lot of Gothic tales are contrived and melodramatic, but at least the pay-off is worth the effort. Sadly, I cannot say the same for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Hollywood does a better job with the story than the original author.

the book looked almost new without any bends or creases like it was described. thank you again, and would like to do business again in the future.

It's been a long time since I got hooked on a series of books BUT these did it. I just got Eclispe and almost done... ready to start Breaking Dawn by tomorrow. What will I do until the next one is out??? I only hope Bella and Edward live forever...............

I bought this book for my 12 year old granddaughter. She is reading the series and sent me an e-mail asking for it because it was the one she didn't have. She loves it! "Granny, you have to read these books, they are awesome!" What more can I say, she said it all.

once again that effortless flow from one volume to another without loosing your interest. great read

Stephenie Meyers twilight series is an automatic addiction, prepare to be living and breathing edward and bella!