I also believe that readers with an ongoing menu of both fiction and non fiction books may have a different outlook. I choose fiction with care and easily drop it if it does not appeal. I am quickly turned off by linear plots and hokey characters. And it seems as if my bookstore is being overrun with the whole genre of Chicklit. Aargh
'So many books'... etc. is my mantra. ;-)

An aside for FriedaG, I was nodding in agreement at your comments on the Ishiguro thread.
"I've reached a stage where I prefer my thoughts to be provoked by a little more optimism, rather than the usual pessimism of dystopian novels. Besides, I can get the gloom-and-doom stuff readily enough from nonfiction."

Since coming to RP I have read more novels than I probably did in the previous 20 years and am beginning to realise why I prefer non-fiction.
I almost never enjoy the Booker type books and have just made myself read Cloud Atlas which I think is up for discussion here sometime soon. It has been voted the best UK book of 2004 in some other competition which I find embarrassing for a country that produced Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Scott and hundreds of other great/good writers and poets.
Russ I remember someone lent me a copy of Portnoy's Complaint saying it was the 'best' book of 1969. After reading it I expressed amazement at this commendation and the friend replied that he had meant it had been the 'best seller' not the 'best book' . . .shades of the ***** DA Vinci Code :-"

Frieda I am unfamiliar with the books you gave as eg's and presume you are not including the run-of-the-mill detective stories or the light 'holiday' reads that many people here enjoy. I would be interested to know if anyone here has enjoyed as much as I have the short stories by Alice Munro or a beautifully written book by Rose Tremain Music and Silence? Yet when I suggested AM to a friend she dismissed her out of hand "She is SO Canadian"

Vee, I would suspect that your friend's disdain for Alice Munro is based on her nationality rather than her writing style. The breezy dismissal is too bad, as Munro is without question one of the supreme 20th century artists in the art of the short story.

I really feel that the divergence of opinion on literature is very complex. Our responses to a writer's work stem from a complicated web of our own tastes, experiences, belief systems, as well as timing.

I feel that timing is an overlooked concept in whether you enjoy something or not. A strange example: a former co-worker turned down an invitation to dine at a restaurant, famous for its excellent cuisine. Her reason? She had just returned from vacation, and simply could not face another restaurant meal, excellent or otherwise. All she wanted to do was cook a simple meal for herself and savour it in front of the tv in her pyjamas!

I really believe that a great work of literature will be wasted on someone who is not ready to receive it. I think this idea explains why so many school children would rather ingest cyanide than read poetry. There is something truly wonderful and indefinable when the right book comes along at the right time. You seem to connect with exactly what the author is saying.

To pick up on something darthjenn wrote, I myself worry that as I get older and more further removed from my university days, I seem to have to work harder to read great literature. I reluctantly had to put my copy of the histories of Herodotus back on the shelf because I just couldn't "get" what he was on about.

I am not sure what my reading preferences really say about me, other than I no longer have the patience to have my time wasted on most 20th century writing, which I find to be too self-consciously clever and thinly post-modern. I want characters, setting, plots, themes, images, etc. Furthermore, I almost never touch best-sellers because their status is completely determined by marketing and advertising, rather than by the genuine response of readers. For example, I know someone who frequently buys the best-selling books of authors she dislikes. When asked why she wastes her money in this way, she states that she "feels she has to read them". Why?

I would suspect that many people peruse the best-sellers for the same reasons that they watch Survivor (or any other reality show) -- everyone else is and it helps them to feel tuned in to popular "culture." What else will you talk about at the coffee maker?

Indeed, so many books, too little time. A friend asked if I'd finished a book recently purchased on an outing with her, and was shocked when I said I'd donated to the library after a chapter. "But it was hardcover!" she exclaimed. Why finish a bad book, bad meal, bad movie? -- you still won't get your money's worth.

I like the recommendation to let books season until the hype is over -- blurbs and TV appearances are helpful only to the bottom line, not the written ones.

I hated THE CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES. I probably didn't even finish it.

I haven't read most of the other books being discussed in this thread. I avoid bestsellers routinely. If a book is on the bestseller list, the chances are that I won't like it.

That is very snobbish, I know, and I apologize, but that's the way it has often worked out.

Another thing, I find I often like the first book I read by an author better than subsequent ones. Too high expectations, I suppose, and the inevitable let down.

I loved Confederacy of Dunces when I was about 20, but now that I'm almost 40, it doesn't appeal to me anymore, with the self-indulgent, selfish, self-obsessed Ignatius. I can see what appealed to me back then, as I was all of those things, I suppose. Folly of youth and all that.

I admit that I have that snob thing going as well, as if I'm thinking, "If it's popular it must be bad." I've been proven wrong countless times with books, films, music, and many other things, but I still fall into that trap sometimes. True, many popular things are crap, but not ALL of them.

Having said that, there's so much "old stuff" that I want to read that I've been ignoring contemporary authors almost completely. Not that I want to, but there's only so much time, I guess. Perhaps it's just a phase. And I have to admit that I am fairly wary of first-time authors, particularly the younger ones, the newly minted MFA types, which is another type of snobbery, too. I do this same thing with films. I am really protective of my "fun" time, and I don't want to waste it.

Still, when I am not enjoying a book, I don't stick with it. Too many books, too little time!

Sorry to go OT, but I am so happy that I found you guys. I have been inspired to join a local reading group! So. . . thanks.

Not only does mood affect our opinions, but also, I believe, the weather. During the winter, I read the latest Jimmy Buffet novel. Pure escapism. Not fine literature, but just what I needed whilst the snowflakes blustered. Would it keep my interest in July, I honestly don't think so. Likewise, I just finished The Autobiography of Santa Claus by Jeff Guinn. It was fun and not-quite-but-pretty-close-to brain candy. Guinn took a familiar tale and gave it more substance. But, to get back to the point of weather, I would probably not have enjoyed this book had it been just after Christmas or toward the end of winter with nary a daffodil in sight. I needed distance between the weather of the North Pole and the weather on the other side of my window. I needed to be able to mind travel.

And, so to, does knowledge come into play. Upon first discovering "Victorian" literature, I found it to be tough slogging. I was unfamiliar with the vernacular, the customs, or even the manners. But as my curiosity excited me to learn more, my enjoyment of these period pieces has grown exponentially - to the point where modern books SET in the Victorian Era often bore me or only highlight the author's lack of research in regard to certain points. Or the "modern" sentence structure just doesn't fit with the storyline.

I am in Frieda's corner with The Secret Life of Bees... it has got to be one of the worst books ever written. I was the sole hold-out in my book club which made for interesting discussion so at least the time spent reading those never-ending syrupy pages was not wholly wasted.

PAM

IMO, it's strange that what is disturbing to one person is not to another. For example, I loved both "Kite Runner" and "Angela's Ashes", but found, oddly, "Time Traveler's Wife" extremely depressing and upsetting. SPOILER: when the protagonist lost both his feet to frostbite and then, the way in which he was shot, having been mistaken for a deer. The novel has stayed with me in a most unpleasant manner and I'm almost sorry I read it.

In defense of "Secret Life of Bees," I could get into it, perhaps because I grew up in the deep South of the Civil Rights Era.

Mary, you're so right that it's strange! My sister-in-law hates Bees because she grew up in the deep South of the Civil Rights Era. :-)

Even my own opinion diverges - I enjoyed Time Traveller's Wife when I was reading it, but as time passed, it has become like an unpleasant taste left in my mouth, and I wish I had never read it. The relationship between the two main characters seems more dysfunctional and even disgusting the more I think about it. And most people find it to be a beautiful love story! How can I feel so differently?

I have stayed away from Bees.

I tried to read "The Secret Life of Bees" on the recommendation of two women who told me it was the most wonderful book they had ever read. It soon became obvious to me that they hadn't read many books. It was one of my throw-aways.

Siobhan, you have material for a whole other thread there - Books You Changed Your Mind About. I can't think of any instances off the top of my head where I enjoyed a book while reading it but went off it later, although I do remember a book I hated while reading, and loved after talking it through at school. 'Homo Faber' by Max Frisch, and a truly inspiring teacher.

I loved The Secret Life of Bees but would hardly consider it in the same class as To Kill a Mockingbird.

The Lovely Bones, The Da Vinci Code, The Shadow of the Wind, The Bridges of Madison County, Angela's Ashes are all on my disliked/hated list. Sometimes I feel like I'm from a different planet than other readers I know. I love this site and its divergence of opinions - makes me feel I'm not alone.

The reader whose tastes most closely resemble mine is my 18 year old daughter and even we occasionally differ. I loved Life of Pi and she hated it.

There are books I love even while recognizing that they are not particularly good books, but something about them touches me, perhaps a character, a setting, or a situation. Other times I will acknowledge that a book is well written, perhaps even a great book, but that I simply did not like it. And of course, timing is so important - some books appeal more to youth, others require a certain life experience to be appreciated. I think the mood I'm in at the time can also make a significant difference in my appreciation of a book.

Frieda, you mentioned on another thread you have been reading books about Latin America, etc. Would you want to share some of the titles and authors with the rest of us? (As you know, I enjoy non-fiction, as well as fiction.) Thanks.

Mary, I read Guevara's Motorcycle Diaries last year and that lead me to Granado's complementary Traveling with Che Guevara: The Making of a Revolutionary, his perspective of the same trip. I think Diaries is the better written of the two -- it was surprisingly amusing in parts, for one thing -- but Granado's more sober reflections are equally enlightening. I highly recommend both, particularly read as a pair.

Vee, in the travel and folklore thread, recommended At the Tomb of the Inflatable Pig: Travels Through Paraguay by Jim Gimlette, so I read and enjoyed that one very much. I'm afraid that I am so ignorant of that country that I've never read another book about it, but I found Gimlette's descriptions and history so interesting that I want to learn more about Paraguay.

Also last year I read Peter Robb's A Death in Brazil: A Book of Omissions. Here's what I said about it in my BiblioPhil review:
My Review 4 Stars 10/2/2004
Robb begins his travelogue/memoir/political history with his own attempted murder during the early 1980s in Rio de Janeiro. But the murder referred to in the title is that of President Fernando Collor's right-hand man. All the political stuff is interesting, but it's the wonderfully descriptive history of a huge and incredibly complex country that fascinated me more -- and the place descriptions make me want to see Brazil in a non-touristy way, which I probably never will. Excellent writing sometimes fades to perplexing vagueness, but overall I enjoyed Robb's style very much.

Mary, here's one I think you would really like: Magical Sites: Women Travelers in 19th Century Latin America - Marjorie Agosin & Julie Levinson (Editors).

Some of my favorite Latin American-themed books:
The Diary of Helena Morley - translated from the Portuguese by American poet Elizabeth Bishop and what an outstanding job she did! I love this book so much that I hope by mentioning it often enough that someone will get curious and read it!!:-)
The Fruit Palace by Charles Nicholl -- my favorite book by one of my all-time favorite nonfiction writers (some of his other books are The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe and The Creature in the Map: A Journey to El Dorado that has quite a bit about 16th/17th-Century Venezuela in it). A young journalist at the time, Nicholl was pursuing the "great cocaine story" in early-1970s Colombia. Foolish? Absolutely! but the tale is irresistible. And Nicholl knew a certain unforgettable Scotsman in Bogota...
In Patagonia by the inimitable Bruce Chatwin
The Lost City of the Incas by Hiram Bingham, the Hawaii-born American "discoverer" of Machu Picchu and other Incan sites -- Actually I can't say I finished this book because I was reading my copy when I got to the photos in the mid-section and the page right after the photos was a repeat of the first chapter, so I got the first half of the book twice! I will get another copy because it's a fascinating account.
The...

Frieda, wow, I'm impressed. Thanks. I have read the Evita and the Theroux, and have long wanted to find "The Mapmaker's Wife." Alas, I tried awfully hard to read the original "Motorcycle Diaries" recently, but just could not get into it. It took the film to arouse my deep interest. I have some Peruvian friends who have made me aware of the Quecha peoples and their language, which I find fascinating.

Actually I don't see anyone whose taste in books exactly matches mine. Rouan and I sometimes like the same books, but sometimes not; I have a higher tolerance for unhappy endings in my fiction than she does. Janalyn and I often like the same books; again, not always. (BTW where is she? I haven't seen her post lately.) Pat and I have tastes that overlap, Siobhan and SheriZ6, too, but again, sometimes I'll like a book that does not appeal to them, and sometimes they'll recommend something that does not move me at all. I could repeat this with half a dozem more RP regulars at least.

The truth is we are all idiosynchratic. That does not lessen the value of the suggestions we get from our fellow RP members. As with others, I have had my reading horizons broadened by following up leads I get here, books I would neer have picked up on my own.

Paula

Paula, I find the idiosyncracies fascinating. My mother and I share so much in reading taste, but there's one place we have never seen eye to eye: sci-fi/fantasy. Mother has always loved it and she certainly exposed my brothers and me to it. But while my oldest brother took to it, my other brother and I never did with any depth. Mama with some amusement (and bemusement) used to say, "How could I have raised such a child [to not like sci-fi]?!" -- talking about me specifically because brother#2 turned out to not like reading much at all.

Mama and brother#1 have wonderful confabs about their beloved sci-fi (less about fantasy, I think), and now my older son and a couple of my brothers' children also join in. It's fun to listen to them, and I'm delighted when I can actually contribute, such as after I read "Those Who Walked Away from Omelas," which, btw, I think you, Paula, instigated. I hated that story the first time I read it, but I couldn't get it out of my mind and I've since reread it three or four times, and now I have a favorite sci-fi story myself! Oh, and I do like a couple of great sci-fi books: Alas, Babylon and The Doomsday Book.

Perhaps ironically, some of my favorite posters here at RP to read are the sci-fi lovers although I have less interaction with them conversationally (I think of RP as conversation) than I do with the nonfiction and historical fiction/mystery/classics readers. The RP readers whose tastes are most similar to my own are probably Mary (woodnymph), VeeR, Carolyn, and KateFW, but they can tell you that we also disagree -- sometimes quite diametrically.

I hope Janalyn shows back up soon. The last we heard from her she was in Australia on holiday, I think. We miss you, Janalyn, if you're lurking.

This thread has really made me think! I have always looked for recommendations from certain people here, i.e. so-and-so likes it/dislikes it, so I probably will too - but for some reason it never occurred to me that others look at my posts the same way. Isn't that strange? I guess it was too mind-boggling to think that someone might actually pick up a book because I liked it, or perhaps pass one by because I didn't care for it. Maybe that is because in my own family, we have a tremendous divergence of opinions even though we are all avid readers; in fact I would say reading is a major part of all of my immediate family's lives. However, I don't think we have ever agreed on a book!

Has anyone had the experience of loving a book the first time around, but not connecting with it on the second reading? This happened to me with Possession by A.s. Byatt. First time I was entranced, and worked through every word of the poetry. When I picked it up again a couple of years later I couldn't connect at all. It was really a disappointment. Don't understand it at all!

Wow, this is such an interesting thread! Only after graduating from college (just a couple of years ago) have I really become an avid reader-- before it was too much work to read anything that wasn't required. I really find timing to be important to me, along with my experiences. I read a great variety of books, from nonfiction to the classics to modern bestsellers, and I love them all (almost). But I mix them up. I get bored reading too many similar books at once, so I pick something that resonates with my mood at the time. For example, now that we're getting ready to move I've put down Annie Dillard until I can take the time to enjoy her again. And as for the modern bestsellers, I usually watch to see which ones stick around for awhile, and that method usually works for me.

I loved Secret Life of Bees and Da Vinci Code, but was expecting entertainment rather than great works of literature. I appreciated the religous aspects of both books since I studied Religion in school. I really hated I am Charlotte Simmons. It's the only book I can think of that I really disliked, even though, as I just mentioned, I can certainly identify with college life. What bothered me the most was that I felt it was poorly written, along with the extreme exaggerations in attempt to make it "cool" according to the present day.

My biggest conflict of opinions stemmed from Life of Pi, which is one of my favorite books. I majored in Religion and Biology, so that book appealed to my interests. My mom, who isn't really interested in either of those themes, loved it too. My dad and aunt barely got started before giving up, and my mom and I are both baffled.

This is such an interesting thing to think about. Darthjenn, I bet those classes were fascinating!

Siobhan, I read your comments above and realised I feel the same as you do. I often take recommendations from particular people, but never thought of others thinking 'if Kath liked that, I probably will too'!

It's been a long time since I checked in on this thread. A lot of interesting input!

LovesLife, you took the words right out of my mouth -"expecting entertainment rather than great works of literature." I just came across a quote attributed to Graham Greene. He divided books into 2 categories: "novels and entertainment." That says a lot, I think.

Just bumping back up because I thought this was an interesting thread. I tend to believe most differences in opinion on a book are due to personal tastes, whether a book resonates with one's personal experiences, and timing. There are books I've read at the wrong time in my life, and I often think if I were to go back to them again, I might think much differently about them (good or bad). One author I hear praised alot is Jodi Picoult. The one book I read by her nearly sent me screaming from the room and I won't try another. I don't mind books that speak to social issues, but overdramatized, contemporary social fiction is not my cup of tea, and she seems to specialize in that and I find her plots highly contrived and manipulative.

This is an interesting thread. And that people have such different opinions can be frustrating too, such as when you really NEED a recommendation! :)

I think the first book I loved in high school was A Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston, when I read an excerpt from it in high school -- it seemed like an oasis in a sea of classics, LOL. (I never did make it through Moby Dick). Ironically it was the scene where the author's at home as an adult visiting with her mother, the most peaceful and serene of the book, but I didn't love any of the rest of the book any less. I loved all of it, it's in my mind a very original and poetic work.

I can't stand prose that's too fancy and convoluted, which is why I have such a hard time with the 19th century classics. I won't even read Thomas Wolfe for that reason, because his prose is so complicated. I am so relieved to hear other people say they hate Faulkner. I have read that he had great range as an author, but after reading Light in August and one of his short stories (which was just like Light in August), I hate him so much I won't read anything else by him. Southern Gothic morbid -- I get so sick of it. I don't care for Hemingway either -- granted, I only read The Sun Also Rises, which was like watching As the World Turns, but on the other hand he's too minimalist and wooden. Although he will use the word "lovely". The thing that bothers me about classics is that they're so set in cement -- it seems no one ever discusses their weaknesses, or offers alternatives, although there are plenty of other books written at that time that are just as good but somehow overlooked.

I haven't read any of the books above except We Were the Mulvaneys, and I didn't like it either. Like most of her books, it reads as though it was written in a great rush. However, one of her books is one of my all-time favorites: You Must Remember This. She must have taken time over that one. At first I resisted the raw energy that's in that book (and starts from the very beginning), but it's one of the book's great strengths.

Fascinating discussion! I've been in another forum for 5 years and have been amazed by how different people view the same books. And it can't be helped - we bring so much of ourselves to books that of course our views will be individual and sometimes totally opposite others. And its that difference that makes discussing the books so interesting - many times I see things from others that I wouldn't have noticed before.

And like Sibohan, I have found my own reading buddies, folks whose recommendations I usually follow. And I've also been surprised that people see me in that role! What an honor, but what a responsibility! I always hope that they'll enjoy the read coz I'd feel horrible if they didn't! (well, a little)

And I agree with Georgia - there are books I tried in HS and then read with relish as an adult. Time, age, mood, stress of daily life all adds to what we bring to a book, and if those don't mesh with the story, its jut not time for it. What I love is discovering how much I love a book that I tossed aside before - Possession is one such. Like discovering a hidden treasure.

As for the above books, I liked some, didn't others and abhored some as well. I try not to let hype bother me, so I think I was able to read Bee Season and Kite Runner without a problem (but I still think they didn't live up to there hype). I love sci fi/fantasy so Time Travelers Wife was right up my alley, and the confusion of time was fun for me. But I know others cannot take those kind of stories. Then there is Davinci Code - a page turner certainly, and filled with places and info that I have found elsewhere. But it was poorly written, plus too many people read it as non-fiction...

The books I avoid are dysfunctional families (Down On Your Knees I read for a book group and hated every second of it), child abuse (YaYa Sisterhood or whatever it was called appalled me because it was so well liked), or 'women's books' like Red Tent. I'd add chick lit to this list but honestly there are times I have enjoyed it. Depends on the writer and the story, like everything else.

Finally - I need a story, a plot. I know such an idea is quaint in this day of Post Modernism (and I have never been able to find a good definition but writers such as Pynchon and Wallace are examples), but I need a good story and a good storyteller. If the writer wants to add magic realism or some other interesting writer trick of the trade thats fine - as long as the story remains intact, and the telling of the story doesn't get lost in the writing.

Well, right in line with the theme of tending to like the same books as certain other people, Frieda's mention of The Doomsday Book caught my eye. The trouble is, when I went looking for it, I found two books by that name, one by Gordon Taylor and one by Connie Willis. Can you tell us who the author is, Frieda? Pretty please? (I hope it is the latter, as the local library has it, but if not, I'll have to put it on my PaperBackSwap Wish List.)

Hi, biwako. The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis is the one I read. It's a perennial favorite of several RPers, but I've lost track of which one it was who actually first recommended it to me. I'm just so tickled that I read and liked a sci-fi book. I hope you enjoy it, too.

Thanks a lot, Freida. I have liked a number of SciFi books--A Song for Leibowitz comes to mind, for instance, and I liked Alas Babylon, too, but I dislike anything in which the characters possess psychic powers. I'm glad I'll be able to borrow the book you mentioned.

Canticle for Leibowitz is one of my favorite books, sci fi or no. I read it again recently after many years, and it still holds up as one of the best. Just stay away from the sequel written 25 years later.

I'm glad this thread was revived. I've found no one at RP, after years here, who exactly shares my taste in reading. I seem to be the only person who really luxuriates in the work of Tracey Chevalier. I'm now re-reading "The Virgin Blue" and enjoyed all else I've read by her, even "Lady and the Unicorn." I take pleasure in her evocation of mediaeval life as well as the detailed description of clothes, folk ways, houses, landscapes, etc. I think she has done her historical research thoroughly. I've not yet read "Falling Angels" but will look for it next.

Someone above mentioned disliking "Fall on Your Knees." I could not agree more. No matter how well written, I did not wish to read about that sordid dysfunctional family situation and was revulsed.

Mary, I think you might find Fallen Angels less rewarding than Chevalier's other books. In it she is dealing with life in Edwardian London and I feel she is taking far too 'modern' a slant. The protagonists are out of 'character' with the times. It may be because she is American and doesn't 'get' the nuances of English life. I suppose the same could be said about her books set in Medieval Flanders(?) or during the religious persecutions in Eastern France . . .except it was so long ago only scholars can apprecialte the finer details of life in those times!
Having said all that I think she has some interestingly different stories to tell.

Even before Chevalier's Girl with a Pearl Earring reached supersaturation level, I was wondering why this particular book caught the attention of so many readers. Book group recommendations seem to have propelled most of the popularity. Two other things also helped: it's short and it's simple; readers who didn't have the time to become engaged with longer, more complex stories could knock this one out in a few hours.

I don't think it's an awful book -- well, not godawful anyway, as The Da Vinci Code is -- but like so many popular books, it's success ultimately made it trite, in my opinion. What Chevalier probably meant to be elegant understatement in GWAPE became stolid and self-consciously "artistic," but I don't know if her writing is like that in her other books. I tried reading The Virgin Blue, but I found it too painful to finish -- I don't recall now exactly why, but I think it was the structural awkwardness. The Lady and the Unicorn...hmm, that one impressed me so greatly that I can't remember a blooming thing except it's a fictional story, a la GWAPE, about the famous tapestries. I haven't tried Falling Angels and it's not even on my TBR list.

One particular gripe I have about Girl with a Pearl Earring is how the story co-opted what few facts are actually known about Vermeer. Sure, there's poetic license but that's not what bothers me. What irks me is how many readers have taken Chevalier's tale as biography/history. Some even refer to Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring" by Chevalier's character's name: Griet. Of course, that's not Chevalier's fault. I don't like to think of readers, in general, as idiots and fools, but unfortunately readers are no more immune to general stupidity than any other group. :-(

The film adaptation I liked better than the book -- painting, after all, is for seeing. Unfortunately, though, the film seems to have drifted into that region of "little and forgotten" (c/r the thread at Circle Theater forum).

>I seem to be the only person who really luxuriates in the work of Tracey Chevalier. I'm now re-reading "The Virgin Blue" and enjoyed all else I've read by her, even "Lady and the Unicorn."

Oh, woodnymph I love her work. I agree that Fallen Angels is way too modern, really out of sync with the time period. But Lady and the Unicorn came out right after our trip to Paris, when I got to see the tapestries. It was wonderful to read that book, esp how they were made.

As far as why Pearl Earring became so big - not sure, but I do remember there were several books about art at the same time: Girl in Hycinth Blue, The Music Lesson - and they all had to do with Vermeer. And I am thinking that was the year that the art world was celebrating the anniversary of his birth, and there were many major exhibits of his work. So that would have made folks sit up and take notice.

>>except it was so long ago only scholars can apprecialte the finer details of life in those times!

Hee, it wasn't that long ago - 500 years? We know a great deal about that time period and you don't have to be a scholar to find out. As a reader I can usually feel the sense of the time, and know that something feels out of wack. Either the characters are too modern, or makes a choice that wouldn't be theirs to make at that time and place. So - there really isn't an excuse for an author not to at least get the sense of the time and place and make choices accordingly. There is certainly enough information out there.

>What irks me is how many readers have taken Chevalier's tale as biography/history

Thats the problem with all historical fiction. Biography should be true to basic facts - tho one of the reasons I don't read much of it is because those facts are often embellished when the data is ambiguous (and one of the reasons James Frey is in so much hot water right now) But historical fiction is different. There is an assumption that there are some truths, but also some poetic license. So a good reader should know the difference between a bio and HF. A really good reader does some searching to see what in the book is really true and digs for more history (a really good writer includes author notes that delinates quite clearly what was true, and where she took poetic license)

This of course leads to the question - what is Historical Fiction? Whats funny is that until you said that, I'd never would have pegged GWPE as Historical Fiction. Not that you are wrong, there are as many definitions as there are readers. But it just jarred my thinking a bit (and my thinking needs to be jarred :)

>unfortunately readers are no more immune to general stupidity than any other group

Hee, really. But I wonder - this book, Da Vinci Code, and others of their ilk are chosen by book groups to read. I wonder if that moves them up in importance, giving them an appearance of being 'true'?

I do often question why a book becomes a 'book club' choice. Certain books have...

Funny, but I was less interested in Vermeer in TGWTPE than I was in the quotidian aspects of life Chevalier depicted. I loved finding out that she got the laundry water from the canal. While that may not have been true, it reminded me what a chore doing laundry once was. I liked the mixing of paint. I liked the shopping for a good piece of meat. I liked the view of a life so very different from the one I lead. And it certainly made me send up a little prayer of thanksgiving every time I used my washing machine and dishwasher for the next month or so.

While I recognize the many shortcomings of The Da Vinci Code I certainly did enjoy reading it. Why is it, I wonder, that I found it an exciting read while more worthy books are such a burden? Truly, once one gets away from the non-traditional ideas about Christ, there isn't much to discuss about the book. For me I love anything that ties in with Da Vinci, I love conspiracy theories (without believing in them,) I love secret societies. It was right up my alley.

Cindy, I'm totally with you on dysfunctional families in modern novels. But how can that be when Antigone is one of my favorite pieces of literature - and she came from the classic dysfunctional family.

Chris, GWAPE was interesting to me for the same reasons you liked it, and I didn't particularly enjoy the story line. I wouldn't read it again. Haven't read the Da Vinci Code and probably won't, though I confess to having enjoyed things like Von Danniken's Chariots of the Gods, which probably conforms to reality no more than DVC. I had to force myself to get through The Time Traveler's Wife, and I know I will never open it again, either. It was so much work trying to figure out the time line, and I finally decided I had better things to do, so I just read it straight.

>But how can that be when Antigone is one of my favorite pieces of literature - and she came from the classic dysfunctional family.

Its a classic, so of course it has to be good! :) Thats a good question. I remember seeing my sister as Antigone when she was in HS (I was 10) and I was absolutely mesmorized. I think it is my favorite of any Greek classic. Perhaps because the questions the play asks rise above the dysfunction - How do you separate and rank loyalty to the family, to one's self, to the state? Such questions aren't anywhere in Fall On Your Knees.

>I confess to having enjoyed things like Von Danniken's Chariots of the Gods, which probably conforms to reality no more than DVC

Probably even less. At least DVC took some ideas from other works of non fiction and religion and incorporated them in his book. Von Danniken was nothing but a fraud (Not sure how old all of you are, but I well remember in the 70s, Carl Sagan taking that book to task piece by piece. The guys reputation quickly fell in the mire). Interesting ideas tho, as long as you know its fiction :)

I don't feel the need to finish books I don't like (unless I have an obligation, like a book group or class). I usually know within 50 pages if its gonna be a keeper. Sometimes I know in the first paragraph - but those I often hang on to for later in case the reason was timing. But as soon as I realize there is no redeeming quality to a book, its back to the library, or back to the used store where it no doubt came from.

Cindy, I read the Vermeer-inspired books you mentioned that came out concurrently with Chevalier's. As I recall The Music Lesson was the most plot driven of the three and The Girl in Hyacinth Blue had the intriguing device of telling a painting's story backwards through several of its owners. At the time, because I read them all within a fairly short period, I remember thinking that I liked Vreeland's book best and Weber's book was the most exciting. Chevalier's book I thought was a pleasant-enough read, but I was neither thrilled nor especially impressed. I liked the historical details best, just as you and Chris did. Okay, at that point, I would've accepted that GWAPE was a nice little book and I probably would've remarked favorably about it, if asked to do so. I have to admit that the other two novels have pretty much faded for me, and I probably wouldn't think about them at all if they weren't intrinsically tied to GWAPE in my mind. And that's the rub!

I never would've predicted GWAPE's landslide of popularity. But as I listened and read more and more ballyhoo in one book-type place after another, I thought I had better reread to see if I had overlooked a diamond. Apparently I hadn't, though, at least in my opinion -- it's still pleasant and slight. I'm still mystified about all the gushing, bookwise; yet the film, which I think is beautifully done, barely made a ripple -- usually it's the other way around, in my experience (ten people who have seen a film to one person who has read the book it's adapted from). And, I guess, that is the epitome of the mysterious divergence of opinion.

The Da Vinci Code, too, I probably could've read and been satisfied with -- for what it is, an entertainment. But noooo! It was hyped to the rafters and beaucoup jillion of copies sold as if it was better than Gone with the Wind.....Pffffft!!

Really, I have just about given up on any book that gets mainstream approval nowadays, because it is a sure sign of mediocrity. (Why don't I realize and believe that mainstream means mediocre? -- Wishful thinking.) It doesn't seem to have been that way, though, at one time -- books became popular because they were good, not because they were overhyped. No, I take that back -- I just remember the dreck of the 1920s that is still being blown all out of proportion. Sigh I also remember when I was thrilled -- yes, I mean dizzy with excitement -- when the library got the newest Mary Stewart book in. Gosh, why was I never disappointed with those?

I dearly loved Mary Stewart. And I almost didn't read her because she was a favorite of my Mom's. (You know how that goes.)

I think both GWAPE and The DaVinci Code were incredibly popular because we could read them easily and feel cultured. Museum stuff without having to actually having to visit one. Only slightly different from all the people who bought Hawking's A Brief History of Time but never read beyond the first page. And you know, I have to applaud any book that tells us about any of our cultural forefathers. Even if it gets facts wrong, someone is going to further explore Vermeer, someone is going to learn more about DaVinci and the early Church. The next generation's experts may be sparked by these books. The undiscerning, on the other hand, we will always have with us. Do they matter in the long run?

Just noticed my mistake, Cindy: It was Canticle, not Song! Thanks.

biwako, no problem! I make so many mistakes that I usually am glad someone corrects me. Hopefully it was ok to do that with you!

frieda, we are of like minds - I thought Weber's book the better of the three, more interesting. Girl in Hycinth Blue was wonderful in my opinion, the way she uses time and characters to tell the story, going backwards. And while I liked GWPE, I thought her later tapestry book was much better.

I often wonder why certain books get hyped. The enormous popularity of Da Vinci is really odd - I mean, they even have workshops in this stuff! But I think you might be right - gives them a chance to 'know' without knowing.

I don't have trouble reading hyped books - but I usually need to hear the hype in sources I can trust: usually its NY Mag for me, or my reading buddies. If they say its as good as the hype, I usually know I've got a winner.

BTW, where do you get book titles from? I get many from another reading forum, and think I'll get more here. But I remember depending on more actual reviews - finding them falling short, and then depending on people I knew.

Cindy, I get titles from all over. From my mother, my sister-in-law, a couple of aunts, a brother, friends, colleagues, etc. I've belonged to book groups in three states and, as an expat, in three other countries and I keep up with all of them to varying degrees.

I read the rag reviews for years until I found the Internet where, for a while, I read the online extensions of the venerables until I decided they were mostly hooey and not so venerable. I read Amazon reviews, mostly with the salt cellar handy, and take their customized recommendations occasionally. I adore book catalogues, too.

I've wandered in and out of about a dozen online book forums, including Table Talk -- did you used to post there, circa 1998-2000? When TT went "pay to post," I moved on to Karen T's site -- I think you were there also, right? I still visit there occasionally, but only to read. I've been here at RP for over five years now. In spite of periodic convulsions, I've found this group the most convivial. Lots of diversity among the readers here, but RP is still small enough to interact with most all of the posters and not as prone to cliques. Some other sites, I've found, have developed into mutual admiration societies, which I don't trust to give uninflated reviews and recommendations. I bet you know what I'm talking about. :-)

> I read Amazon reviews, mostly with the salt cellar handy

Boy aint that the truth. I usually will read the Pub Weekly review there, just to get a bit of the synopsis (but I stop as soon as they appear to be handing out spoilers, which they are apt to do). I don't read the reader reviews until after I read the book. Then I can see how others reacted and whether or not they matched my own, or noticed something I didn't catch. Some are good - like they actually read the book. Others - oh my. Yep, hand me that salt.

>Some other sites, I've found, have developed into mutual admiration societies, which I don't trust to give uninflated reviews and recommendations

Hee, yes I do know what you are talking about :) I didn't discover TT until 2000, but had a fun run with them for a year. Then I also moved to Readerville with Karen. It started out great and I loved not only the book talk, but the sense of community that developed. Then it just got too big and cumbersome and some people just couldn't leave things alone. I've gotten tired of the mean spirited and snarky posts by some, so I mostly lurk anymore - mainly to get those book recs! But I agree with you, this place is a breath of fresh air. Its small enough to be comfortable, and I've really enjoyed talking with folks here - much more convival. Whats funny is that on other forums people say that if you are too nice and civil, you can't have serious conversations. That just boggles my mind - you folk seem to do just fine here.

>book catalogues

Oh yes - I forgot about them! Been using them again lately, esp Common Reader and Blas Bleu. And I quiver when I get Daedulus coz I just know I am going to be spending money on books I didn't know existed....

I don't mind the correction at all, Cindy, but this mistake brings to mind a horrifying experience in my first year of college when I wrote (in a final exam) about "Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, instead of its "decline and fall." That did not impress the professor! lol

This is really an interesting thread. I don't even know why I like some of the books I do although I can usually give a reason for the ones I don't like. I'm sure it has to do with our own personal views and the moods we are in when we read them.
I did like Angela's Ashes and The Lovely Bones and even The DaVinci Code even though it was obviously not great literature. Sometimes I just want something I can read without thinking too hard. The Life of Pi disappointed me as did The Secret Life of Bees althought I didn't think they was terrible. And I really thought The Kite Runner was good.
I recently set myself the task of reading the books on Time Magazine's 100 best list that I had not already read. I've found some I thought were wonderful (American Pastoral by Philip Roth), some that were so-so(The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood but that led me to read her The Robber Bride which I loved) and some that I just didn't get (Appointment in Samara by John O'Hara, At Swim-Two-Birds by Flann O'Brien). Obviously somebody thought these were great books. I guess I'm content to be in the minority on some of them.
I also bought, last year, The Complete Works of Jane Austen. I know there are lots of her fans here and I felt that maybe it was time I discovered her. I started with Pride and Prejudice; I know I'd read it in high school but that was MANY years ago. I did find a lot more humor in it this time. I then read Sense and Sensibility. It just seemed like the same story with different people. I quit after that as I just was not enjoying her at all. I recently got the book out and tried again. This time I read Mansfield Park which was just more of the same and Emma. I don't think I've ever read a book whose main character I disliked more than Emma. I know that a lot of Austen's writing is poking fun at some of the silliness of her era but wouldn't one have been enough? I haven't decided if I'm going to try to slog through Northanger Abbey and Persuasion just to say I read them or if I'll just give the book away and say good riddance to bad rubbish.

>I recently set myself the task of reading the books on Time Magazine's 100 best list that I had not already read.

I wish I had that much ambition! :) Good for you. Just be aware (and you probably are) that all of those best of lists are in the eye of the beholder. Usually there is some sort of committee that determines these - and I wonder if some have read a book published in the last 30 years. So I am a bit leary of them. They are good as a guide tho, and can indeed lead you to some real gems. But I get concerned with the books they leaves off . And then I question ranking. How do they decide those rankings? Is there a good reason, or do they just draw names out of a hat?

>The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood but that led me to read her The Robber Bride which I love

Hee, I loved both! She has a new one coming out, btw. And I am not a fan of Roth, but I have heard others exclaiming over that book. Have you read his new one yet?

As for Jane Austen - sometimes it helps to know a bit about the era (history, daily life, social mores) to get books like hers. I think Pride and Prejudice is universal, and is never dated. Other of her books are really of her time. Emma and Mansfield Park I liked - I didn't find them similar, but they didn't have the spark that P&P has. Id certainly never call them rubbish, but your mileage may vary (I obviously happen to like her writing. But I have said things about Melville and James and Roth incidently, which have bristled the hairs of many of their fans. So it goes :)

cindy

I started to read Evanovich Stephanie Plum series to read something different from what I was originally reading. I laughed outloud and read several of her books. They got so repetitive and annoying I decided I had had enough. I think a good book is one you remember and get something out of.Some are better than others. I love that special book that you just can't put down. I haven't read one of those in awhile but I keep looking.... I'm going to try the Kiterunner and a few others mentioned here. I always enjoy reading others viewpoints on books- it gives me a starting point.

We Were the Mulvaneys is not fresh in my mind but I thought it was one of her best books. A bad thing did destroy the family, but how the protagonist dealt with that is the educational part. What would David Copperfield be without some adversity and mean people to deal with? I don't get the aversion to family dysfunction. I can feel a common dislike of the sordid and cruel but if you are given a complicated character you can sympathize with, you are carried beyond all that.
But some books are just too morbid for me, like The Lovely Bones. Them by Oates was hard to take.

Back to We Were the Mulvaneys.. I think it's interesting how each person in that family dealt with the rape in a different way. The brothers were deeply affected by it..one risked his life to get revenge on the rapist. In the end, the family came back together greatly changed, but with something surviving. It died and was reborn. The Dad just failed utterly. Each character was interesting to me. I thought it was masterful.

I was very disappointed by Fall on My Knees also. Some other books I wasn't crazy about:

Life of Pi- it somehow seemed lacking plot a little. I don't know, maybe I'm too dense to get the underlying flow of philosophy through the book- it reminded me too much of Old Man & the Sea.

Ladder of Years, by Anne Tyler

And although I wasn't a tremendous fan of the DaVinci Code, I have to be the first to mark the mass market and trade paperback release (I work at a bookstore- so it was a huge deal) today!