thanks for the heads up, but after my experience with "Son of the Circus" I wasn't likely to be tempted. Your link here doesn't work (the one on the dreamwidth version does)
And thanks for yours!ed_rexMay 11 2011, 20:44:32 UTC
I don't know how that happened; as you can see, this was ported over from Dreamwidth, and that usually works flawlessly (the target="_blank" tag was missing, too).
As for Irving, I wouldn't have been, but a couple of people (including *kaff* someone on my LJ flist) were pretty adamant it was a return to form. But yeah, I think I'm really done now.
Maybe it's a fault of mine - that I just read what's written on the page and leave it at that - but I really enjoy John Irving, Twisted River included. *shrug* It wasn't my favourite of his, but I didn't think it was that bad.
Have you read others?ed_rexMay 19 2011, 16:41:22 UTC
I rather suspect you have, but I ask because I suspect I would have liked Twisted River better (if maybe not a lot better) if it had been my first Irving rather than my 7th or 8th or whatever. Some of the tricks and tics and mannerisms that bothered me because of their familiarity would probably have seemed fresher to me.
I'm disappointed you didn't like it. It wasn't his best work, but I didn't think it was nearly as bad as you felt. I thought Ketchum was a fantastic character.
I somewhat see your point about him using his characters as mouthpieces. It is one of his flaws. But every writer does this to an extent, it's just a question of style.
I don't have time to read your whole review atm, but I will when I get home from work tonight.
Obviously, I was disappointed to; our opinions mesh pretty close more often than not so I opened it feeling pretty hopeful. But them's the breaks.
But every writer does this to an extent, it's just a question of style.
Well ... not quite. And I don't think Irving used to do it, at least not so blatantly. Okay, Garp ... Hmm, the Ellen James Society wasn't exactly subtle satire, was it?
Maybe I like it less now, because he's so specific? Or even, because I feel like he's pandering to my own beliefs?
Or maybe it's because I feel like the same guy has been doing the ranting through the last few books of his, rather than different characters randing as characters, about things specific to that book's particular plot.
Comments 8
Reply
As for Irving, I wouldn't have been, but a couple of people (including *kaff* someone on my LJ flist) were pretty adamant it was a return to form. But yeah, I think I'm really done now.
I might do a re-read of Garp, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't know, I actually enjoy the way he uses some of the same things throughout his books.
Reply
Well, you're in good company. A lot of people (even some right here!) think I'm out to lunch on this book!
Reply
I somewhat see your point about him using his characters as mouthpieces. It is one of his flaws. But every writer does this to an extent, it's just a question of style.
I don't have time to read your whole review atm, but I will when I get home from work tonight.
Reply
But every writer does this to an extent, it's just a question of style.
Well ... not quite. And I don't think Irving used to do it, at least not so blatantly. Okay, Garp ... Hmm, the Ellen James Society wasn't exactly subtle satire, was it?
Maybe I like it less now, because he's so specific? Or even, because I feel like he's pandering to my own beliefs?
Or maybe it's because I feel like the same guy has been doing the ranting through the last few books of his, rather than different characters randing as characters, about things specific to that book's particular plot.
Yes, I think that last is what bothers me most.
Reply
Leave a comment