Hmmm....I don't know how to make this anything but scathing. I don't know whether this book disgusts me, or inspires me, in that if this lady can sell a book surely I can too. Shouldn't this book really be called 6 character sketches? I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate well developed characters. I listened to Bird in the Tree by Elizabeth Gouge, and enjoyed it, and the plot was less than memorable, but the characters were engaging so I willingly went on and listened to the next two books in the series. However, at least those books had some plot. This book (if it can fairly be called that?) has absolutely, positively no plot. The plot of people discussing Austen's works, I suppose could work, however, less than a third of the book is even set in this setting so far. Most of it is flashbacks to pasts that explain the neurotic idiosyncracies of the present day character, all so obviously stereotypical that again, it just makes me think, dang....even I could write a book. (Maybe I too could capitalize on a famous author's name to sell my story. I'll write the follow up....The J. R. Tolkien Dungeons and Dragons club....that'd sell a million copies just for having Tolkien in the title right?) And as a reference point....I really wanted to like this book, to quell any worries ya'll had about my ability to enjoy a "girl" book. Believe it or not I can get through and find enjoyment in a "girl" book, as I've made it through at least one Meg Cabot book....but this is too much....anyway.....
Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, let me try to bring in some positives. First, I'm always wary of hating any story, book or otherwise, until the end ever since seeing Citizen Kane. That was by far the worst first 2 hours of a movie I have ever watched. I so wanted to just stop watching that tedious movie. However, the last 15 seconds completely changed my perception of that movie and has me acknowledging that it truly is one of the greatest movies ever. (And to think Emily didn't make it all the way through, and still has no idea what I'm talking about in this reference).
Second, despite the dullness of the plotline, I suppose the characters are still worth discussing. Mostly, being a guy, I'm interested in hearing the take of all you gals on how realistic these women seem to you? I'm not sure what to think of the leader of the group (sorry I always forget names and Emily is in the other room so I can't ask her right now). At least in her recounting of her past she seems almost too "okay" with the whole sexual assault thing. Being a guy though, I have no reference at all for this sort of thing. Whereas, I assume most women in some way or another (although obviously not all to that degree), at least have a concept of being trodden upon by men at some time or another. Not sure any of us can completely relate to the divorcee, but I have to say she seems the most realistic character in the book to me so far. As for the guy, who it will be my job to give insight on I suppose, the jury still is out. He's pretty quiet most of the time, with which I can relate (at least in a group of people I don't know well). Not really sure what his motives are in being there at this point. We shall see.....
Anyway, there's my ramblings on the first couple of chapters, and after getting through that, I am realizing that I need to wait until right before I post to read the next two chapters or I need to take notes as I go along, because I know I'm forgetting a million things I wanted to say. I look forward to hearing what the rest of you think and letting the discussions begin in the comments. Hopefully some fresh perspectives on the book will help me to find more enjoyment in the last 4 chapters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have read the book before, though it has been a while so I don't remember a lot of the details. I do agree that the blatant sexual encounters often left me quite uncomfortable because of their perverted nature, however the book and characters do develop and if I recall, the book does have a plot, though it may not be an archetypal one. As for capitalizing on Austen's name, perhaps she does to some degree, however I think she genuinely is trying to show certain traits of Austen's characters in a modern setting. She isn't rewriting the novels, just taking certain characteristics, personalities etc. that we find in some of the characters in Austen's books.
~~Emily~~
I must admit I do wonder if I'm missing something, since for the life of me the only Austen movie I can remember is Pride and Prejudice (oh and now Northanger Abbey, after watching this past weekend). If she is successfully portraying characters from those stories in a present day setting, perhaps I should give the author more credit, but not "knowing" the characters from Austen that these present day characters are supposed to be reflecting, it just isn't doing it for me....so far.
--Chris--
I have to agree with your points, Chris. Though I didn't find myself upset at them, I do wonder how this book develops as it has an unusual structure.
And the backgrounds are also interesting, but again sort of stereotypical in their extreme sexual encounters.
I have yet to see the connection between Austen's characters and Fowler's, but I am waiting.
Oh, and you posted a day before we were supposed to. *angry glare*
Who pays attention to silly time stamps anyway.... :-) Darn time zone difference. I was actually planning on Sarah being the one calling me out on being early, but you nailed me dead to rights. I wanted to be first and cheated to do so (plus I have a lot of work to get done today, and knew I would have a hard time waiting until lunch break to get my original post out there).
Just a thought, not sure what others think, but what do you think of us each writing our own post before we read and respond to others. The reason I suggest this, is that I don't want our whole discussion on the book to be tainted by how I began the discussion. It might lead to more avenues to explore if we have 5 different jumping off points, rather than everything being in response to whoever writes first. Just another thought to put out there.
I agree with Chris. I think we should each have to post our own thoughts before reading what the others have written, that way we aren't influenced by others. I know Eden and I are both easily influenced so this would be good for us.
~~Emily~~
Wow! I hadn't even checked because we aren't allowed to post yet, but there's been a bunch of discussion!
A couple of points. 1. I don't think we should be too stringent about each of us posting for each time. What if our areas of interest overlap? It makes more sense to have the same topic be in one place. 2. While I haven't done so yet, I've allowed for the possibility that I'll write a post early and then just not publish it until the appropriate time/section etc. Just a thought.
To respond to Chris's suggestions. As an Austen-phile, I love how offended the woman are by the "Austen" bashing of Grigg (? I gave my copy to Katie) when he suggests that this could be a modern day sitcom, but I too am almost bored with the lack of plot thus far (although I'm trying to figure out which girl Grigg'll get with, my money's on Jocelyn because I think Sylvia and Daniel are going to get back together, a la the Persuasion couple.)
While I do think that Jocelyn's sexual assault was not consensual, I admit that I kind of admire Fowler for not having her fall into the oppressed woman victim of everything male mindset, that that can make women uncomfortable. I think that that issue isn't yet resolved though, I mean surely it plays a factor in why she never married, right?
I agree that we shouldn't "require" everyone to write an original post each time. This isn't homework after all. I merely meant to suggest that if people came with original ideas, that it might be helpful for them to get that down in a post before reading and responding to others, so that we don't lose those original ideas. And I think I'm only about 4 hours early. Not sure how I wrote things, but I intended for discussions to get underway today, and only posted at 8:00 PM (EST) last night.
Great suggestion as far as writing the post early and then just waiting to publish until we are discussing various parts of the book. I'll probably do that next time so I don't forget everything right away.
Not sure that I think Austen could be a modern day sitcom, however, I do think that this book is exactly like a modern day sitcom, namely Seinfeld, just minus the humor.
Well, I'm kind of confused about where to post right now because I'm just now reading these remarks after having finished the first two chapters last night, so I feel a bit behind. However, Chris's post and the subsequent remarks have struck a cord in me, so I guess I'll add on my comments to the bunch.
I also agree that I haven't really connected with any of the characters so far, and have found it hard to care about what is happening. I agree with Eden that I like the unusual structure. I think that Fowler is trying to create a modern perspective of Austen, but so far I don't think she is succeeding. I feel like she is being too blatantly obvious about the characters and their feelings. Like, she comes out and states a lot of things going on whereas I think Austen is the master of understatement, she is able to imply a lot without coming right out and saying it. I think this is pretty obvious with the sexual themes going on, Austen didn't need to go into such detail. Then again, maybe that is the difference between Austen's era and our own, things are much more blatant in our time and much more sexualized.
I think it will hurt you a bit, Chris, that you aren't super familiar with Austen's works, but then this will give you a different perspective then the rest of us.
Post a Comment