books

[RosieH]

I never do trashy. It's not a wilful or pretentious thing, but I really hate badly written prose. I tried to read a bit of Dan Brown once, I did, I really did. I think I managed a sentence.

However, having developed a belated love for both Jackie Collins and Jilly Cooper (the women, not their books), I am about to embark on a voyage of their discovery. Any recommendations on where to start most welcome.

[mockney piers]

I've never really done [auto]biographies as such, though have read the odd yarn about people's extraordinary experiences.

I remember one by some chap who ended up in prison in Bolivia for coke smuggling which was a real page-turner as it was so entirely improbable.

Found it... Marching Powder

[RosieH]

I do enjoy a memoir - excited and about to embark on this

[DaveR]

I'll read pretty much anything, although I do avoid obviously chick-lit stuff and I once tried Martina Cole(?) and it was loathsome. I hated the classics at school but am now surprised to find that I read and re-read Dickens, Hardy, Brontes etc. on a pretty continuous basis, mixed up with other stuff. Wodehouse and Waugh = genius, and I like Greene but get my dose of Catholicism more often from David Lodge

I also like a bit of non-fiction - everybody should read this:

The Big Short

and this is fantastic (forget the film):

The Perfect Storm

[Moos]

Anyone want to have a stab at why Dickens is world-famous, and Trollope distinctly 2nd XI?

[david_carnell]

Joanna or Anthony?

[Moos]

Shush.

[DaveR]

Dickens is better

[Moos]

OK, thanks DaveR. Very laconic.

But seriously, Trollope (like Dickens) created novels with huge, community-wide scope and he wrote beautifully, but unlke Dickens he also created subtle, complicated, believable people to inhabit his plots. Not so much on the social issues of the day, I'll grant.

[DaveR]

On issues of the day "The Way We Live Now" is equal to anything Dickens wrote IMHO, but I agree that the Barchester stuff is more parochial. I'm afraid I'm genuinely having trouble getting beyond 'Dickens is better', because he just is. Better prose, funnier, and although many of the characters are one dimensional, they're pretty memorable.

[OliviaDee]

i knew the book thief was going to be bad when the fly cover fell over to reveal a picture of the writer looking smug and sanctimonious. right there i decided he had nothing to say i wanted to hear. why do writers/publishers think we need pictures? Bad bad idea... and i have been proved right - am stuck on p34 for about a week. what boring, twee, saccharin crap. it's about to join the life of pi as one of the few books i couldn't finish. and i'll give anything a go.

[Jah Lush]

Actually, I rather enjoyed The Book Thief.

[Guest]

Never understood the appeal of Dickens; Jane Austen so much more modern and memorable in terms of characterisation despite being half a century earlier or more, depending on which bit you're reading.

I'm with OliviaDee on The Book Thief etc. I did a massive clearout of books over a year ago and made three piles: keep, give away and read again before deciding. The remains of pile three (still sitting beside my bed) include Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Pinkerton's Sister and a number of Orange prizewinners - always a good indicator of a book whose appeal won't last.

The top 50 list is pretty open to argument. The main criteria for being on it seem to be being male, white, dead and ideally American. Can't believe Lolita is still on these kinds of lists - a story of horrendous child abuse told from the point of view of the paedophile. I find it sickening that men to continue to wank about it being literature. So there.

[Jah Lush]

Women read it too you know. Not just men.

[Guest]

Not without crying. It's vile.

By the way I put the word 'wnak' in full with letters in the right order in the final line but it looks like the system has changed it to symbols. Is that new?

[Jah Lush]

Nothing new. It deletes most swear words and turns them to cunts

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Have to disagree MsB. Just because Humbert is a monstrous character, doesn't mean the writing isn't rather fine.

If we cut out literature that offends our sensibilities, that would be about 70 per cent of great books/plays/poems gone.

[maxxi]

OliviaDee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i knew the book thief was going to be bad when the

> fly cover fell over to reveal a picture of the

> writer looking smug and sanctimonious. right there

> i decided he had nothing to say i wanted to hear.

> why do writers/publishers think we need pictures?

> Bad bad idea.. and i have been proved right - am

> stuck on p34 for about a week. what boring, twee,

> saccharin crap. it's about to join the life of pi

> as one of the few books i couldn't finish. and

> i'll give anything a go.

Hear, hear and a double hear, hear (that being a hear, hear, hear, hear) with regard to writers in newspapers.

I have more than once enjoyed a book without knowing shit about the author and then - on choosing another by same - been put off by the smug or carefully casual or irritatingly bohemian photo they insist upon (the 'look up' as though momentarily surprised by the camera makes a reader want to scream). The same goes for writers in newspapers - used to be only columnists like Sue Arnold but now they're all at it. Stop it! We don't give a toss what you look like.

[Otta]

Can't believe Lolita is still on these kinds of lists - a story of horrendous child abuse told from the point of view of the paedophile. I find it sickening that men to continue to @#$%& about it being literature. So there.

But surely you can't see the book as "pro" child abuse? You seem to be suggesting that a woman would read it, and cry, whilst a man would get off on it. Wrong on both counts.

Besides, every day, people read books in which people are murdered, kidnapped, raped, or whatever. Are they sick?