It's so simple and slow and yet it feels very profound. I find it eerie how the book can feel almost boring and casual yet the narrator is discussing such dark topics like emotional/physical abuse and then of course, what happened with Adrian. My one complaint is that the book is so simple that I didn't really connect with Adrian and thus, when we find out what happens to him, it is almost anti-climatic. This does contribute to the book's melancholy feel, though.
I'm glad the book is so short because I think it allows it to be stronger. If the writing was the way it was, but the book was longer, I think it be hard to get through, no?
One little thing: there is a lot of talk of memory and how it affects history as we know it. I'm wondering if this theme will affect later events in the book.
Totally agree with you, Jhani. I don't care about Adrian! I never connected with him and the sudden attraction to him by the other boys didn't make sense to me. He didn't seem all that interested in them and sounded like kind of an ass.
It doesn't feel dark to me, just sort of lonely. Tony seems like a content guy, but he is stagnant and nonplussed about his life.
From the description of the book, I didn't expect such a slow read and while I'm curious to see what happens next, I'm definitely not on the edge of my seat!
I don't know much about this writer, but I feel like the book is a little too philosophical for it's own good right from the start. Like, I can't get a sense for the storyline or the characters enough to care about the existential musings. Like who are these people and what is the point of the story so far?! Also, I cant tell if based on the location and time period these boys would actually speak this way or if the author is giving a little more intellectual credit than is possible. I think the theme of memory and history is interesting, because I very much believe in the construction of stories based on individuals chosen recollection.
I doggy-eared this quote: "That's one of the central problems of history, isn't it, sir? The question of subjective versus objective interpretation, the fact that we need to know the history of the historian in order to understand the version that is being out in front of us."
I like books that make me think, and some of the writing is making me do so, however I just wish it was backed with more character development.
Also, I'm not sure I buy 100% that Adrian killed himself for a purely philosophical reason. I wonder if someone with such a brilliant mind wouldn't be a little more narcissistic and self important to believe he must live longer in order to continue to develop theories and contribute to the world. I feel like there must have been some kind of sadness that we didn't know about.
So I breezed through part one. I really love the writing style, its smart and complex but not too pretentious, if that makes sense. I feel like Tony is very endearing and I can't help but like him, so I find myself very put off by Veronica. I find her manipulative and actually creepy. I feel like Adrian is very beige...but I can't tell if that is because Tony (our narrator) is choosing to remember him as a mysterious and sort of one dimensional character. It seems like Tony has Adrian on a pedestal and, because of that, he sees him as someone far superior---as opposed to being able to connect to his own (I'm speaking about Tony)issues of inadequacy or insecurity. The book builds slow and It is vague in ways that I am not loving...but I think it's function is to truly place the reader in that interesting space between Tony's objective & subjective memory... as well as his recall of things as fact, imagined, a melting of sort, etc.
4 comments:
This book feels so dark, doesn't it?
It's so simple and slow and yet it feels very profound. I find it eerie how the book can feel almost boring and casual yet the narrator is discussing such dark topics like emotional/physical abuse and then of course, what happened with Adrian. My one complaint is that the book is so simple that I didn't really connect with Adrian and thus, when we find out what happens to him, it is almost anti-climatic. This does contribute to the book's melancholy feel, though.
I'm glad the book is so short because I think it allows it to be stronger. If the writing was the way it was, but the book was longer, I think it be hard to get through, no?
One little thing: there is a lot of talk of memory and how it affects history as we know it. I'm wondering if this theme will affect later events in the book.
Totally agree with you, Jhani. I don't care about Adrian! I never connected with him and the sudden attraction to him by the other boys didn't make sense to me. He didn't seem all that interested in them and sounded like kind of an ass.
It doesn't feel dark to me, just sort of lonely. Tony seems like a content guy, but he is stagnant and nonplussed about his life.
From the description of the book, I didn't expect such a slow read and while I'm curious to see what happens next, I'm definitely not on the edge of my seat!
I don't know much about this writer, but I feel like the book is a little too philosophical for it's own good right from the start. Like, I can't get a sense for the storyline or the characters enough to care about the existential musings. Like who are these people and what is the point of the story so far?! Also, I cant tell if based on the location and time period these boys would actually speak this way or if the author is giving a little more intellectual credit than is possible. I think the theme of memory and history is interesting, because I very much believe in the construction of stories based on individuals chosen recollection.
I doggy-eared this quote: "That's one of the central problems of history, isn't it, sir? The question of subjective versus objective interpretation, the fact that we need to know the history of the historian in order to understand the version that is being out in front of us."
I like books that make me think, and some of the writing is making me do so, however I just wish it was backed with more character development.
Also, I'm not sure I buy 100% that Adrian killed himself for a purely philosophical reason. I wonder if someone with such a brilliant mind wouldn't be a little more narcissistic and self important to believe he must live longer in order to continue to develop theories and contribute to the world. I feel like there must have been some kind of sadness that we didn't know about.
So I breezed through part one. I really love the writing style, its smart and complex but not too pretentious, if that makes sense. I feel like Tony is very endearing and I can't help but like him, so I find myself very put off by Veronica. I find her manipulative and actually creepy. I feel like Adrian is very beige...but I can't tell if that is because Tony (our narrator) is choosing to remember him as a mysterious and sort of one dimensional character. It seems like Tony has Adrian on a pedestal and, because of that, he sees him as someone far superior---as opposed to being able to connect to his own (I'm speaking about Tony)issues of inadequacy or insecurity. The book builds slow and It is vague in ways that I am not loving...but I think it's function is to truly place the reader in that interesting space between Tony's objective & subjective memory... as well as his recall of things as fact, imagined, a melting of sort, etc.
Post a Comment