It could make a funny movie! It just fails as a book, especially if you like the original.
I'm kind of afraid to read the sequels, because in those essays I linked they say the sequels talk about Ender's legacy and some really sketchy moral implications. I liked EG well enough, but I don't want to destroy my opinion of it with bad sequels. Or did you think they were okay? I didn't agree with a lot of what those essays said, so maybe I would like the books better than I think.
I found that the sequels had very little to do with the original. While the lead character is still Ender, I didn't really see any connection between the adult and the child he'd been and the settings were completely different so i tended not to view them as sequels at all. The "original" sequels are interesting, if dark, and probably worth reading.
There is a more recent series going back to the time of the original books but that has the problems you identified in spades- suddenly we have even more prenaturally wise six year olds analysing their social structures... They really weren't readable.
OSC has written some great stuff- if you get to read Wyrms, that's a stunning fantasy- but it's terribly hit and miss. Believable characters really aren't his forte- sometimes the plots don't need them, sometimes they do.
Inkheart: You know I sort of loved the worshiping of the books' physical form because I sometimes forget that I don't like all books and that people write books for all sorts of reasons. Like you know how the Beast shows his library to Belle in the movie and there are so many books and it's like heaven on earth! But really, reading all those books would be somewhat boring compared to just uuuh looking at them (sacrilege!:P). Apart from that, I thought I loved Inkheart, but I haven't read the sequels yet even if I own them. So maybe that's saying something.
P&P&Zombies: Well shucks. Maybe zombies only work onscreen? Or the writer has chosen the wrong copyright-less book.
I do think P&P&Z could be hilarious on screen. I also think another book might work better--the characters in Sense and Sensibility seem like they could be really interesting in such a format.
I don't know why Inkheart didn't resonate with me--I totally expected it to. Maybe it was just all the craziness from the wedding, that my mind was on other things : /
I think the thing that bothers me about the physicality of books is that when you get, say, a house full of books that covers every available surface, then they're just things. It's too many to appreciate individually--much like how I feel now when I go into big chain bookstores. They're just a commodity, no longer gateways into new little worlds.
Point. In fact, you reminded of those decorations that look like old-looking book spines on the outside but in reality are ashtrays or pencil cases etc.
Also, the amusing thing about big chain bookstores is that rarely will you find something worth your while.
I love what you said about Catherine and Meg, I think you're quite right!
Interesting what you said about P&P&Z...I think I'll still read it when I get the chance, but it's a pity that it didn't work as well as it could have, since the concept does have potential.
The meta-ness of Atonement is nifty. The writing style is very dense though, I found?
I agree. I was on planes and tired and stressed when I was reading it so I remember having to read some bits several times to get them, but I will forgive a lot if a writer can put pretty pictures in my mind : )
(and I would recommend trying out PPZ; I read it for a book club and a lot of the other people enjoyed it)
Comments 10
I will steer clear of the zombies! Fond as I am of P&P it doesn't sound as if it would improve the experience.
Reply
I'm kind of afraid to read the sequels, because in those essays I linked they say the sequels talk about Ender's legacy and some really sketchy moral implications. I liked EG well enough, but I don't want to destroy my opinion of it with bad sequels. Or did you think they were okay? I didn't agree with a lot of what those essays said, so maybe I would like the books better than I think.
Reply
There is a more recent series going back to the time of the original books but that has the problems you identified in spades- suddenly we have even more prenaturally wise six year olds analysing their social structures... They really weren't readable.
OSC has written some great stuff- if you get to read Wyrms, that's a stunning fantasy- but it's terribly hit and miss. Believable characters really aren't his forte- sometimes the plots don't need them, sometimes they do.
Reply
You know I sort of loved the worshiping of the books' physical form because I sometimes forget that I don't like all books and that people write books for all sorts of reasons. Like you know how the Beast shows his library to Belle in the movie and there are so many books and it's like heaven on earth! But really, reading all those books would be somewhat boring compared to just uuuh looking at them (sacrilege!:P). Apart from that, I thought I loved Inkheart, but I haven't read the sequels yet even if I own them. So maybe that's saying something.
P&P&Zombies:
Well shucks. Maybe zombies only work onscreen? Or the writer has chosen the wrong copyright-less book.
Reply
I don't know why Inkheart didn't resonate with me--I totally expected it to. Maybe it was just all the craziness from the wedding, that my mind was on other things : /
Reply
Reply
Also, the amusing thing about big chain bookstores is that rarely will you find something worth your while.
Reply
Interesting what you said about P&P&Z...I think I'll still read it when I get the chance, but it's a pity that it didn't work as well as it could have, since the concept does have potential.
The meta-ness of Atonement is nifty. The writing style is very dense though, I found?
Reply
(and I would recommend trying out PPZ; I read it for a book club and a lot of the other people enjoyed it)
Reply
Leave a comment