Hidden meaning is not hidden.
I just read The Alchemist. Jeezum, what a yawn, I'm uncertain why it's so famous. It was stylistically beautiful for a while in a very very simple way (a 9 year old would do with it I'm sure) but about halfway through it just got annoying and repetitive; by the end I felt like I was reading a self-help book. Which seems to be what it is. It's nothing new and it's been done often and many times better-written. There's a story with a moral and there's a thinly-veiled self-help book, which it was. Blah. Coelho must have very good PR people.
Anyhow, before that, The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I may write about at greater length at a later date - but for now here's my brief post from the book club's thread for it.
I read The Hound of the Baskervilles. It was okay, and my first Conan Doyle book. I'm not sure I'd read anymore unless something came my way but if I had picked one it would have probably been this anyway. I agree about a couple of the things being easily guessed - [spoilers removed].
I disliked Holmes from the beginning, he just seemed arrogant and blah and Watson's far too good for him. But I think we were meant to? Are we? Does he come across as a throughly dislikeable character in all the other Holmes stories? He was clever and logical but Watson felt a lot more human - though maybe that's just 'cause we were reading from his point of view...despite the fact that all he seemed to give us were...facts. Perhaps it's just that the reader picks up on little things such as him pointing out the attractiveness of various women (makes him more likely to be bisexual
). Of course, if Conan Doyle based Watson on himself that would make sense... and it's interesting that the characters (at least Holmes and Watson) are quick to disparage the supernatural element of their case, considering that Conan Doyle was, from what I know of him, a firm believer in the supernatural (he did believe in fairies, he did, he did!)
Anyhow, before that, The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I may write about at greater length at a later date - but for now here's my brief post from the book club's thread for it.
I read The Hound of the Baskervilles. It was okay, and my first Conan Doyle book. I'm not sure I'd read anymore unless something came my way but if I had picked one it would have probably been this anyway. I agree about a couple of the things being easily guessed - [spoilers removed].
I disliked Holmes from the beginning, he just seemed arrogant and blah and Watson's far too good for him. But I think we were meant to? Are we? Does he come across as a throughly dislikeable character in all the other Holmes stories? He was clever and logical but Watson felt a lot more human - though maybe that's just 'cause we were reading from his point of view...despite the fact that all he seemed to give us were...facts. Perhaps it's just that the reader picks up on little things such as him pointing out the attractiveness of various women (makes him more likely to be bisexual
). Of course, if Conan Doyle based Watson on himself that would make sense... and it's interesting that the characters (at least Holmes and Watson) are quick to disparage the supernatural element of their case, considering that Conan Doyle was, from what I know of him, a firm believer in the supernatural (he did believe in fairies, he did, he did!)