• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

What book is everyone reading at the moment? Part 2.

Oh no! I haven't read it but I have it on my list mostly because someone told me the ending was beautiful and made him cry :D
Just because Amy Strange says the ending is bad, that doesn't mean you'll find it bad. In fact, it can even help you make informed choices about good stuff to read.

Now that I know Amy disliked the endings of The Stand and The Dark Tower, and she also dislikes the ending of 11/22/63, I'm thinking I might actually enjoy it. On the other hand, his opinion of Under the Dome tells me that I probably won't like it. Not that I think he's stupid and wrong; we just have a clear difference in taste. I've found many an enjoyable movie, by paying attention to movie reviewers who hate the kinds of movies I like. Their negative review is just as informative to me as a positive review from a critic who shares my taste.
 
Oh no! I haven't read it but I have it on my list mostly because someone told me the ending was beautiful and made him cry :D

Hey, believe what you want. It's still a great read, and when you do read it (unless you're just saying that to make fun of me), I'd like for you to come back and tell me the ending was beautiful. BTW, it's a time travel story that has someone go back to try and save JFK from being shot.



When the main character ends up saving JFK and then comes back to the present time to find out that the USA has turned into a ghostly wasteland because of what he did... Yeah, that's a beautiful ending... bwahahahaha.



ETA: You should still read 11/22/63 anyway, because as usual, SK writes great characters, and the plot line itself is interesting, unless you just want to ignore this part too like theprestige did. Personally, I don't care, it's your loss and not mine.

Maybe instead of stupid, I should've used the word lazy. SK is a great writer, but some of his endings are lazy and unimaginative, like he didn't want to take the time to think up a good one and just took the easy route instead.


-
 
Last edited:
Just because Amy Strange says the ending is bad, that doesn't mean you'll find it bad. In fact, it can even help you make informed choices about good stuff to read.

Now that I know Amy disliked the endings of The Stand and The Dark Tower, and she also dislikes the ending of 11/22/63, I'm thinking I might actually enjoy it. On the other hand, his opinion of Under the Dome tells me that I probably won't like it. Not that I think he's stupid and wrong; we just have a clear difference in taste. I've found many an enjoyable movie, by paying attention to movie reviewers who hate the kinds of movies I like. Their negative review is just as informative to me as a positive review from a critic who shares my taste.


You're right, but just because you think they were good endings, doesn't mean that they really are either.

Anyway, regardless of the endings, they're still worth reading (you obviously ignored this part for some reason) if only because SK does write great characters, and the plot lines are usually pretty good, except for the endings, but that's just my opinion and not a fact, any more than yours are real facts too.


ETA: Read Under the Dome because as usual SK (like I just wrote) writes great characters and plot lines, especially if you like...



...playing video games.


Maybe instead of stupid, I should've used the word lazy. SK is a great writer, but some of his endings are lazy and unimaginative, like he didn't want to take the time to think up a good one and just took the easy route instead.


-
 
Last edited:
You're right, but just because you think they were good endings, doesn't mean that they really are either.

Anyway, regardless of the endings, they're still worth reading (you obviously ignored this part for some reason) if only because SK does write great characters, and the plot lines are usually pretty good, except for the endings, but that's just my opinion and not a fact, any more than yours are real facts too.


ETA: Read Under the Dome because as usual SK (like I just wrote) writes great characters and plot lines, especially if you like...



...playing video games.


Maybe instead of stupid, I should've used the word lazy. SK is a great writer, but some of his endings are lazy and unimaginative, like he didn't want to take the time to think up a good one and just took the easy route instead.


-
Sometimes he's just taking the correct route. 11/22/63, for example, has the correct ending.
 
Sometimes he's just taking the correct route. 11/22/63, for example, has the correct ending.


Personally, I think it's a good read. The characters and plotline are awesome, but that doesn't mean I have to like the ending. I think it's just too negative, but then again, SK is a master of horror, and that ending fits his persona.

All of SK's books (at least the approximately 30+ that I've read) are good reads because his characters and plotlines are all awesome, and just because I think some of the endings suck doesn't mean I'm right, and you're wrong.

It also doesn't mean you're right, and I'm wrong either.


ETA: Maybe (like I posted earlier) instead of stupid, I should've used the word lazy. SK is a great writer, but some of his endings are lazy and unimaginative, like he didn't want to take the time to think up a good one and just took the easy route instead.


-
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think it's a good read. The characters and plotline are awesome, but that doesn't mean I have to like the ending. I think it's just too negative, but then again, SK is a master of horror, and that ending fits his persona.

All of SK's books (at least the approximately 30+ that I've read) are good reads because his characters and plotlines are all awesome, and just because I think some of the endings suck doesn't mean I'm right, and you're wrong.

It also doesn't mean you're right, and I'm wrong either.


-
Jesus Christ. I'm no fan of rom-coms, but I at least understand they have a certain structure, that I can appreciate and respect.

A horror writer writes a story with a gut-punch ending and you complain it's stupid. Let me guess: You think the ending of "I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream" is lazy and stupid. Without having actually read it.

For a self professed storyteller, you seem to have a weak grasp of how stories work.
 
Personally, I think it's a good read. The characters and plotline are awesome, but that doesn't mean I have to like the ending. I think it's just too negative, but then again, SK is a master of horror, and that ending fits his persona.

All of SK's books (at least the approximately 30+ that I've read) are good reads because his characters and plotlines are all awesome, and just because I think some of the endings suck doesn't mean I'm right, and you're wrong.

It also doesn't mean you're right, and I'm wrong either.


ETA: Maybe (like I posted earlier) instead of stupid, I should've used the word lazy. SK is a great writer, but some of his endings are lazy and unimaginative, like he didn't want to take the time to think up a good one and just took the easy route instead.


-
I'm often reminded of the ending of The Long Walk. (as Richard Bachman) A longer short story about a contest where the participants have to walk dozens of miles maintaining above a certain pace, or be shot. The last remaining one wins. Quite interesting all the way through, but I had to reread the last page a couple times to figure out what finally happened. I'm not sure I ever did.
 
Jesus Christ. I'm no fan of rom-coms, but I at least understand they have a certain structure, that I can appreciate and respect.

A horror writer writes a story with a gut-punch ending and you complain it's stupid. Let me guess: You think the ending of "I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream" is lazy and stupid. Without having actually read it.

For a self professed storyteller, you seem to have a weak grasp of how stories work.


Whatever, dude. You seem to think because I don't like something, I'm a bad writer. Not every writer likes every book written, and to say that would be stupid and ignorant.

Again (because you seem to be ignoring this part), I love SK's writing. His characters and plotlines are awesome, and just because I don't like his endings is just my personal opinion and doesn't mean the rest of his book is crap. Jeez, where do you get these ideas from anyway?


-
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the one where the main character...





Another stupid ending was 11/22/63.


-
That's the one. And it was not just bad, it was BAD. The Dark Tower was pretty variable overall, with some of the books (or portions of books) being quite good and some just stinking so bad they could have been skipped altogether.

Needful Things was pretty good, 11/22/63 wasn't my favorite, but as I recall (it's been a while) but I quite liked the way it started. I liked The Stand, ending included.

All of SK's books (at least the approximately 30+ that I've read) are good reads because his characters and plotlines are all awesome, and just because I think some of the endings suck doesn't mean I'm right, and you're wrong.

Agreed. I've been reading King since Carrie was serialized in Penthouse (I think it was Penthouse) and have enjoyed most of them.

But it seems like in the last decade or two he's gotten so big no editor will actually edit him and we wind up with a potentially great story like The Dark Tower where he just rambles on and on. I think that series could have been much better at about 30% less length.
 
Jesus Christ. I'm no fan of rom-coms, but I at least understand they have a certain structure, that I can appreciate and respect.

A horror writer writes a story with a gut-punch ending and you complain it's stupid. Let me guess: You think the ending of "I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream" is lazy and stupid. Without having actually read it.

For a self professed storyteller, you seem to have a weak grasp of how stories work.

You do know that SK rewrote The Stand, right? He added a bunch of pages and switched some chapters around with another ending added on after the original one. Maybe, he didn't like the way it originally ended either. I'll have to get that in order to see how he ends it this time.

Sounds like fun actually.


-
 
Last edited:
That's the one. And it was not just bad, it was BAD. The Dark Tower was pretty variable overall, with some of the books (or portions of books) being quite good and some just stinking so bad they could have been skipped altogether.

Needful Things was pretty good, 11/22/63 wasn't my favorite, but as I recall (it's been a while) but I quite liked the way it started. I liked The Stand, ending included.


Agreed. I've been reading King since Carrie was serialized in Penthouse (I think it was Penthouse) and have enjoyed most of them.

But it seems like in the last decade or two he's gotten so big no editor will actually edit him and we wind up with a potentially great story like The Dark Tower where he just rambles on and on. I think that series could have been much better at about 30% less length.


Exactly and thank you.

Did you read the original version or the rewrote one? The rewrote one seems to continue on after the original ending, and sounds like this one might be better, but that's just my opinion and NOT a fact.


-
 
Did you read the original version or the rewrote one? The rewrote one seems to continue on after the original ending, and sounds like this one might be better, but that's just my opinion and NOT a fact.
It was the extended edition, which has an epilog, and I liked it. But it would have been a good ending even without it, I think.

And crap, now I think it was Firestarter that I read as serial, not Carrie.
 
It was the extended edition, which has an epilog, and I liked it. But it would have been a good ending even without it, I think.

And crap, now I think it was Firestarter that I read as serial, not Carrie.


I liked both Carrie and Firestarter.

I can't remember the ending of the latter, but the former was ok, I think, although IIRC, the ending in the movie was different than the book.

Amazon and Mike Flanagan are working on a Carrie TV series, and I'm pretty psyched about that.

Thank you, theprestige, for bringing up SK. I'm going to put some of his books on my list to read again, except Salem's Lot. I still don't like that he killed off one of my favorite characters just because Bram Stoker did it, but that's just my opinion and not a fact.


Well, he didn't really kill her off. He just turned her into an evil vampire, but it's just so odd the way he wrote it, because just before that scene, the character (who's tied up) goes through a detailed Houdini explanation about how he was able to get himself loose, but then, he leaves his friend behind to her fate and runs away like a coward. That made it even worse, in my opinion and also not a fact.


I guess (in my old age) I just like happy endings. The endings in my six books are all happy, but some of the things that happened inside each one aren't exactly happy.


-
 
Last edited:
I read that for the first time a year or two ago. Pretty much liked it and thought it belonged in my library so I bought not one, but two copies. One is annotated and the other is illustrated and has a nicer cover.
I was sometimes amused at the formatting. I even considered making a joke version with "Just the punctuation". There are a couple sequences in there with such long run-on sentences it's ridiculous.

Currently on Island of the Blue Dolphins. I'm sure I would have really liked it in middle school and it is still a good read. I know there was a movie made but I have no idea if it did it justice. I'm surprised it hasn't had a big budget remake as far as I know.
 
I was sometimes amused at the formatting. I even considered making a joke version with "Just the punctuation". There are a couple sequences in there with such long run-on sentences it's ridiculous.


Yeah, some of them went on for so long, I lost track of what was being said, and had to read them twice, but did you end up rooting for the whale in the end like I did?

And talking about long run on sentences, have you ever read War and Peace?


-
 
Not reading, because I don't read anymore, I just listen but, Empires of the Steppes.

Remarkable how folks had such a huge impact on the world with basically two technologies. Horses and Bows, well and just being bad asses that terrified everyone else.
 
I just finished reading Fahrenheit 451, and now I'm onto The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Fahrenheit 451 is more of a short story than a full-sized novel like Moby Dick.

At first, it was kind of boring, except for the main character, Montag, saving his wife from an overdose to his meeting with Clarisse (who I thought was the most interesting character in the whole novel), but right around the middle of all that boring, things go to hell and that turns it into an exciting, page turner.

The reason I found Clarisse interesting was because of her sometimes off the wall comments that threw me at first but also gave the novel a kind of modern look to it, especially when she tells Montag, "I'm seventeen, and I'm crazy." I had to stop reading for a minute and actually think about that, because I've said the same thing to other people, "I'm an old man, and I'm crazy." I like folks who can make fun of themselves, otherwise they're just stuffed shirts, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, despite the different spellings (of the same name), the other reason I liked her was because I could see her as being a kind of seventeen-year-old version of Clarice M. Starling, the character Jodie Foster played in Silence of the Lambs, but once again, that's just my opinion.

The version I got from the library was the 60th Anniversary edition, and it has around 70 extra pages about how Ray Bradbury planned, discussed the different parts of the book, and his inspirations for many of his final decisions, including illustrations, photos, and photostatic copies of some of the pages (with editing marks and changes) from the original manuscript. It was all very interesting, especially if you're a big fan of his.


-
 
Last edited:
I just finished reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and now I'm moving on to The Swiss family Robinson.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is another short story (69 pages), but it's also another book that has had many movies attributed to it, and there is one peculiar thing about the character (Edward Hyde) that has never really ever been conveyed correctly in any of the films (that I know of), except for one (see below).

Most films have gone out of their way to show Mr. Hyde as an ugly deformed human, but that's not how the book describes him:


"He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point. He's an extraordinary looking man, and yet I really can name nothing out of the way."


Here's a quote from The 10 Most Unique Portrayals of Jekyll and Hyde in Movies and TV with the one description of the one movie (that I know of) that actually conveys the above description correctly:


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) is a remake of the 1931 film of the same name. Like its predecessor, it was a critical and commercial success and earned three Academy Award nominations. Thanks to Spencer Tracy's sinister Hyde, this adaptation is regarded as one of the best horror movies of the 1940s.
Most adaptations of Stevenson's novella depict Hyde as a monster with hideous physical traits. But the 1886 story never actually describes the character as being physically grotesque; it's his sinister and odious aura that makes him so despicable.
1940's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde captures this idea well. The physical differences between the two characters are more subtle in this film. You can barely notice a difference the first time Jekyll transforms into Hyde and glimpses his reflection in the mirror.


Before I finish, let me leave you with one scene from the book that is one of the most horrifying descriptions of a murder that I've ever read:


The old gentleman took a step back, with the air of one very much surprised and a trifle hurt; and at that Mr. Hyde broke out of all bounds and clubbed him to the earth. And next moment, with ape-like fury, he was trampling his victim under foot and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered and the body jumped upon the roadway. At the horror of these sights and sounds, the maid fainted.



I'm sure some folks can give me other examples, but this one really got me years ago when I first read it in high school.


-
 
I think my favorite is probably the BBC miniseries from the 2000s, Michael Nesbitt plays both as far as I know with no FX other than his acting.
 
I think my favorite is probably the BBC miniseries from the 2000s, Michael Nesbitt plays both as far as I know with no FX other than his acting.


Yup, you're right, that one, Jekyll (2007), was mentioned in the article also, and it didn't have any FX either. I guess I missed it, but if I ever get the chance, I'm going to watch that one too.

Thank you.


-
 
Last edited:
Just found out there's a novel that's a "retelling" of George Orwell's 1984 called Julia by Sandra Newman. Sounds good, and I've put it on my list of books to read:

London, chief city of Airstrip One, the third most populous province of Oceana. It's 1984 and Julia Worthing works as a mechanic fixing the novel-writing machines in the Fiction Department at the Ministry of Truth. Under the ideology of IngSoc and the rule of the Party and its leader Big Brother, Julia is a model citizen—cheerfully cynical, believing in nothing and caring not at all about politics. She routinely breaks the rules but also collaborates with the regime whenever necessary. Everyone likes Julia. A diligent member of the Junior Anti-Sex League (though she is secretly promiscuous) she knows how to survive in a world of constant surveillance, Thought Police, Newspeak, Doublethink, child spies and the black markets of the prole neighbourhoods. She's very good at staying alive.


ETA: For those who don't know, Julia is one of the secondary, main characters in George Orwell's 1984, and a secret lover of Winston Smith, the main character.


-
 
Last edited:
I'm currently reading a book about how you can become a millionaire by duct taping a banana to a wall (y)
 
Currently on Island of the Blue Dolphins. I'm sure I would have really liked it in middle school and it is still a good read. I know there was a movie made but I have no idea if it did it justice. I'm surprised it hasn't had a big budget remake as far as I know.

Finished. A lovely little story. Reading the Author's note at the end I was quite surprised to find that
it is based in fact. The island really exists and is off the coast of California, and the basic incident actually took place.
 
Continuing with Pratchett. Now reading Thud!, in which the Ankh-Morpork trolls and dwarfs are threatening civil war, a vampire and a filing clerk are the newest Watch recruits. and Vimes is caught in the middle.
 
Don't read the next Discworld Watch book: " Snuff".
Not funny at all, no really interesting story. Like "Raising Steam", sadly, they were written at a time when Prachett was already in noticable mental decline.
 
Currently reading... well struggling through to the end for completist purposes only, The Iron Maiden by Piers Anthony, volume 6 of the Bio of a Space Tyrant series and written some time after volume 5 actually ended the series. Not so much a novel as a very high level rehash of the first 5 volumes but from the point of view of the 'Tyrant's' sister - just dips in and out outlining some key events rather than getting into a full flow with big jumps in timeline etc. Truly awful both in terms of the quality of the writing and the rather disturbing sexual scenes (incest and under-age etc). There were increasing elements of this in Anthony's writing as his career progressed but much of it passed me by when reading his earlier books as a teen but coming back to it now / picking up some later volumes (this, some of the later Xanth ones etc) it's really noticeable and...icky.
 
Currently reading... well struggling through to the end for completist purposes only, The Iron Maiden by Piers Anthony, volume 6 of the Bio of a Space Tyrant series and written some time after volume 5 actually ended the series. Not so much a novel as a very high level rehash of the first 5 volumes but from the point of view of the 'Tyrant's' sister - just dips in and out outlining some key events rather than getting into a full flow with big jumps in timeline etc. Truly awful both in terms of the quality of the writing and the rather disturbing sexual scenes (incest and under-age etc). There were increasing elements of this in Anthony's writing as his career progressed but much of it passed me by when reading his earlier books as a teen but coming back to it now / picking up some later volumes (this, some of the later Xanth ones etc) it's really noticeable and...icky.
I had read the pentalogy once way back when and recall the same. Lots of rape in the first book and it's the first time I'd been exposed to that in sci-fi. I only kept going because it was one of my first long series and I was curious where it would go. I had mostly enjoyed the Blue Adept series but never reread this one. I also read most of the Xanth series but got tired after book 50 or so. (exaggerating)
Adding a book to a completed series, told from another perspective, was also done by Orson Scott Card with his Ender books. Those offshoots were damned awful.
 
City in Ruins, by Don Winslow.

Conclusion of a trilogy about an East Coast Irish mobster, who breaks with the mob and heads west trying to escape his past. Winslow has kinda been phoning it in, after knocking it out of the park with his Border Saga. Still, it's not outright schlock, and it's nice to get closure on the Danny Ryan story.

My biggest complaint is that I keep getting this trilogy confused with another recent trilogy about an East Coast Irish mobster, who breaks with the mob and heads west trying to escape his past. At least this one doesn't involve an endless cycle of facial destruction and reconstruction, and The World's Most Benevolent Fake Rabbi.
 
I also read most of the Xanth series but got tired after book 50 or so. (exaggerating)
I thought the first two were really good, but the next couple I tried were IMO far inferior and lost interest. Does it pick back up later?
 
Maybe I should revisit then. I just seem to recall it didn't have the character development/etc the first two had...mostly just silly puns/plays on words.
 
Maybe I should revisit then. I just seem to recall it didn't have the character development/etc the first two had...mostly just silly puns/plays on words.
That got far worse later on. I remember at one point the characters encountering a messaging screen in a cave and it was called "Con Puter" or some such. Yeah, I just imagined PA sitting there at his desk casting around for something to write about and saying "What the hell."
 

Back
Top Bottom