Well, here are two interesting books I've read recently. First, I'll tell you that The Memory Keeper's Daughter by Kim Edwards was great. I thought it was inventive, well written and engaging. Even if some things were implausible, I liked this book a lot. Briefly, it is the story of a doctor who delivers his own set of twins, one of which is a Down's Syndrome baby. This book is all about making choices and telling lies, then living with bad choices and lies that are perpetuated with sad results. 5 stars.The second book, The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger was trippy. Even though the main character, Henry, is a librarian, the author was losing me when she had him shelving books. (We don't do that folks. Well, rarely, and not in the course of a typical day. Please, author, do your homework.) But when she characterizes him several times: "well, he looks like a librarian" or something to that effect, I mumbled hateful words under my breath. So, I ask, just what does a librarian look like? How long must we keep perpetuating silly stereotypes? In case you can't tell, I hate the simple mindedness of stereotyping anyone. I would have been bothered if it had been an accountant, doctor, used car salesperson, or lawyer. (Well, maybe not lawyers. gentle smile inserted here.) Also, I had a beef with the language. I got bothered by her cavalier use of crude anatomical descriptions. For an aspiring writer who I assume wants her work to be considered literature, not trash, this was a disconnect. The theme was, like I said, a bit trippy. I could deal with the concept of Henry's moving through time involuntarily. In fact, I think it was engaging and innovative. That plus the fact that the book had a good sense of place (Chicago) I finished it, though by the end I was wondering why. My low rating is because language has power; potty mouth language shows weakness. I don't give it much of a rating . 1 1/2 stars might even be too kind.
3 comments:
I have to disagree with you on The Time Traveller's Wife. I thought you were too subjective in your criticism of it- i thought it was a beautiful book that could bring someone to tears and then to hysterical laugher a few chapters later. It really was a truthful description of the extremes of the heart and i think that the author extended every possibility for someone to connect with it.
And for the anatomical references- they were a bit different, but i think it was a cool new way that disregarded the usual descriptive methods relating to sex and that should be appaluded.
Also the trashy lanugage- it's a reflection of reality.
5/5
I'm agreeing with the Anonymous comment. Don't be put off by what the blogger said here because this was the best book I ever read.
Nah, not the best book I ever read. I too thought it was trashy sometimes. I am a sucker for time travel and details and liked the devotion they had for each other. I never could see why it focused so heavily on paper art, by the way.
Post a Comment