What Are You Reading

Flaubert, Madame Bovary

sample: gradually her ideas took definite shape, and, sitting on the grass that she dug up with little prods of her sunshade, Emma repeated to herself, “Good heavens! Why did I marry?”

She asked herself if by some other chance combination it would have not been possible to meet another man; and she tried to imagine what would have been these unrealised events, this different life, this unknown husband. All, surely, could not be like this one. He might have been handsome, witty, distinguished, attractive ... But she—her life was cold as a garret whose dormer window looks on the north, and ennui, the silent spider, was weaving its web in the darkness in every corner of her heart.

[the spider bit I thought was good especially]

Quote: Gandler

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/7672

Congo by Michael Crichton.

I know that it does not have great reviews, but I enjoyed it. It is a great adventure book, and being published in 1980, and being technology focused, it is interesting seeing the contrast. Scratches some of the same itches as The Lost World (Conan Doyle, not Crichton, never actually read the Cricton one.)

I read it
I liked it
I loved everything from Crichton

Quote: terapined

I read it
I liked it
I loved everything from Crichton

I still want to read Jurassic Park, this (Congo) is the only book that I have read by him. And, I loved it.

Currently reading The Demon of Unrest by Eric Larson

Larson is a great writer and I can recommend the books I've read by him, The Devil in the White City, Thunderstruck, Dead Wake, and The Splendid and the Vile.

'Demon' I haven't finished, but it is very good. One thing I notice about it is there is zero attempt at the neutrality that you usually get with books about the Civil War ... I guess that's OK but I am a little surprised at it. He can't find anything to like about the Secessionists at all. I was struck by how far he goes: the Union characters are even better looking!

Beauregard is deemed to be quite ugly, for example, while Major Anderson is described as a real hunk. I've never run into those descriptions before

the most copied image of B.,

Here is Anderson .

I am so impressed with my local library in Louisiana.
1st off I have library in Florida where I vote
I got a free library card and was allowed to borrow ebooks and audio books via the Libby app.
My card expired
I called up to renew
They changed the rules
Library card no longer free because I don't pay property taxes or rent
They said to renew would cost me 60 a year
I said fine , I'll pay
They said it had to be done in person
WTF
So I went to my local library here in Louisiana
I did not have high hopes because I don't have Louisiana ID
I explained I was wintering in local RV park
They said no problem and issued a free library card

Currently reading Racing the Light by Robert Crais

I joined a local men's book discussion group. I thought the fact that it was 'no girls allowed' was quite quaint and that alone sold me

Currently we are set to discuss James, a novel by Percival Everett. It's Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, but the slave Jim's version. All the rage in certain quarters. I can't make the next meeting so will talk about it here.

I have no problem with the fact that all the white people besides Huck in the book are rotten to the core, beyond redemption, according to Jim/James. I see no reason why a slave of the time should feel differently. He brings out very well the basic hopelessness of which the lives of these slaves consisted, often portraying it as sheer terror ... not incorrectly, I think. His emphasis is the constant need to play the unoffensive servant and the need to emphasize and reinforce such at all times. Using the language of ignorance, the typical slave way of speaking, he shows, is essential to this. The book is generally very imaginative and engaging, describing the harrowing adventures and multiple escapes in a way that keeps you reading.

The book is flawed, though, by reinventing Twain's story.

Now Jim is a light skinned Black who has taught himself to read by stealing looks when he can at various books in his owner's library. Learning to read this way, of course, can simply not be done. I kept waiting for the explanation that someone along the way had taught him to read, but that was a wait in vain. We are told he learned to do this without ever having written a word, not having paper and pencil. But not only has Jim been able to become literate, he has read so much that he has picked up the vocabulary of someone that today we would assume went on to graduate from college.

Not only Jim but the entire slave population speaks pretty normal English. They only use the ignorant-sounding slave talk when around white people. Now we know it was essential to be "putting on Ol' Massah", that is surely a fact, and nothing new. However, in this version it isn't just piling it on excessively, but is portrayed as totally not the way the slaves talked at all. On this I think Mr. Everett is the one who is putting somebody on ........... us.

Or, you tell me where he is getting this from.

The author never explains why they don't cross the river into Illinois, just says Jim mistrusts the people there in Land of Lincoln. Ok, maybe Twain doesn't either, I don't know, but Everett skips over why the slaves knew that was not an option.

Furthermore, the following is just something I don't like: changing Twain's story.



PS, in a review I saw that the reviewer praising the book also liked that it was "funny". There are droll moments, droll characters, but not to the level of Twain, and in 'James' basically 'funny' is not found. This is another instance where I suspect a reviewer simply hasn't read the book.

I'm reading James Michener's first book Tales of the South Pacific written in 1947. This is his first book and supposedly his best. I've read a couple other books of his but not in 30 years. He's known for his meticulous historical correctness in all the books that he writes. His publisher even fact checked for him everything in his manuscripts before they published them. He would actually go and live for months in the areas that he wrote about and get to know the culture. Who the hell does that anymore.

Quote: odiousgambit

I joined a local men's book discussion group. I thought the fact that it was 'no girls allowed' was quite quaint and that alone sold me

Currently we are set to discuss James, a novel by Percival Everett. It's Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, but the slave Jim's version. All the rage in certain quarters. I can't make the next meeting so will talk about it here.

I have no problem with the fact that all the white people besides Huck in the book are rotten to the core, beyond redemption, according to Jim/James. I see no reason why a slave of the time should feel differently. He brings out very well the basic hopelessness of which the lives of these slaves consisted, often portraying it as sheer terror ... not incorrectly, I think. His emphasis is the constant need to play the unoffensive servant and the need to emphasize and reinforce such at all times. Using the language of ignorance, the typical slave way of speaking, he shows, is essential to this. The book is generally very imaginative and engaging, describing the harrowing adventures and multiple escapes in a way that keeps you reading.

The book is flawed, though, by reinventing Twain's story.

Now Jim is a light skinned Black who has taught himself to read by stealing looks when he can at various books in his owner's library. Learning to read this way, of course, can simply not be done. I kept waiting for the explanation that someone along the way had taught him to read, but that was a wait in vain. We are told he learned to do this without ever having written a word, not having paper and pencil. But not only has Jim been able to become literate, he has read so much that he has picked up the vocabulary of someone that today we would assume went on to graduate from college.

Not only Jim but the entire slave population speaks pretty normal English. They only use the ignorant-sounding slave talk when around white people. Now we know it was essential to be "putting on Ol' Massah", that is surely a fact, and nothing new. However, in this version it isn't just piling it on excessively, but is portrayed as totally not the way the slaves talked at all. On this I think Mr. Everett is the one who is putting somebody on ........... us.

Or, you tell me where he is getting this from.

The author never explains why they don't cross the river into Illinois, just says Jim mistrusts the people there in Land of Lincoln. Ok, maybe Twain doesn't either, I don't know, but Everett skips over why the slaves knew that was not an option.

Furthermore, the following is just something I don't like: changing Twain's story.

Don't click here if you plan to read the book

In the Twain book Tom Sawyer, Huck and Jim finally reunite and Jim finds he is a free man. This is ditched in 'James', instead Jim leads the slaves in a revolt while the war is still going on, and the book ends.

Changing Judge Thatcher into a reprehensible beater and rapist of slaves is really sad. If you don't like Thatcher, truly you can't imagine liking any white people and shows, I think, that the author really hated every aspect of Twain's book as written.

And, finally, we find out why Jim is light-skinned in 'James': he is the actual father of Huck in this version. So I guess Everett is a fan of Star Wars and couldn't resist.

PS, in a review I saw that the reviewer praising the book also liked that it was "funny". There are droll moments, droll characters, but not to the level of Twain, and in 'James' basically 'funny' is not found. This is another instance where I suspect a reviewer simply hasn't read the book.

I never get why people misunderstand Huckleberry Finn. It was written during a time that we cannot possibly understand in this era yet they keep trying to fit it into this era somehow. Stupidity beyond belief.