[wheettebott]

I have heard good things about Sarah Waters, which is probably the reason why I picked her most recent novel, The Little Stranger, as my my next stop on my attempted odyssey through the Booker shortlist, although my reading speed is so dismal that between finishing this one and the last, the shortlist has been announced and I might just pick book number three 3 off of that one. As I?d hoped, Ed O?Loughlin?s awful novel has not been shortlisted, but Sarah Waters? Gothic novel, deservedly, has. The Little Stranger is a very well written and well constructed book, marvelous, really. It?s not without its flaws but its strengths clearly overshadow its weaknesses; I found it a satisfying read, both on an emotional as well as on a cerebral level. the rest is here: Queer: Sarah Waters’ “The Little Stranger” shigekuni.

[bypeTeenehalT]

Mirabell, I thought the idea of a Gothic novel written by Sarah Waters was interesting. As far as I know, Shigekuni and Mirabell are the same person, whether male or female is not relevant.

But while the Mirabell-Self is succinct to the point of being curt, and throwing out hopefully hurtful one-line put-downs, the Shigekuni-Self goes to the other extreme: soft, feathery verbiage.

As with what Nnyhav writes, I cannot always grasp what the book reviewed is about. Shigekuni's problem is not, as with Nnyhav, that he wraps everything up in vine leaves of enigma. Shigekuni uses too many words to say simple things. The story of "The Little Stranger", even allowing for the presence or absence of spoilers, was not "quickly told", as stated. The reader, i.e. me, got lost in the thickets of words, so that I couldn't really get a clear and concise picture of the book, except that it's about Gothic carryings-on in a mansion.

Shigekuni makes pertinent points, but by the time you've waded through yet another paragraph, you've forgotten those small concise observations which, if strung together more tightly, would give us more immediate information.

Maybe Shigekuni could learn concision from Mirabell, whilst the latter could learn a warmth of human feeling, friendly engagement with peers, and openness from Shigekuni.

[Gaxiciverfere]

whilst the latter could learn a warmth of human feeling, friendly engagement with peers, and openness...

Eric, darling, I doubt there is ANYONE at this particular forum more possessed of the aforementioned virtues of "human feeling" as well as "friendly engagement with peers" than you are. What can I say, that's what we love you for, ain't it?


[...um, try to remember the number of times you've given me the silence treatment...]


XoXoXo,
Liam

[wheettebott]

by the time you've waded through yet another paragraph,

yeah that's just how my brain sometimes works. one of the hazards of putting up these first draft reviews hehe having had an early drink saturday morning led me to be wordy and indirect I guess

sorry.

[Xxedxevh]

Oh please, not another thread made up mostly of personal arguments.

Mirabell, Eric brings up an interesting point - your reviews are quite lengthy (fine by me) but your posts here are mostly one liners. When we wanted to start a book group, you pushed for a book you wanted to read, we all agreed, you posted a reading schedule, we all agreed and tried to follow it. You didn't join in even once. I guess I don't get that, and I don't get why, when you can obviously write well, you only post one liners here.

Eric obviously gets your back up, so I thought I would ask as I think he has a valid point. I am not looking to make an enemy out of you. There's too much bickering on this site to the point that I rarely read it anymore. It's not fair to Stewart who has put a lot of time and effort into making this a good place to be.

As for The Little Stranger, I liked the last third of it. I thought the first two thirds was a slog, so it doesn't gain a very high rating in my book. I would not like to see it win the Booker - there are three above it on the shortlist by quite a lot in my estimation.

[wheettebott]

Uh, sorry?

Although my reviews are all first draft and I write them in one sitting, I DO need to sit down and concentrate a lot. As to the Mann, the discussion took place in a realm that I did not want to participate in, methodologically, since Syb used the biography as a central source and it was a weirdly biased bio, too, and since I finished my M.A. at the time I did not have the energy to take part in what could have turned out to be a tedious methodological discussion with Syb so I kinda tuned it out. Sorry. But you folks got along very well, no?

In General, when I write more, it#s when I write these kinds of rants. The Fictional Woods -> Harold Bloom

I'm sure there are quite a few around this board, as well.



As to the book, I really really enjoyed it every bit of the way. The first two thirds I was enticed by the hints as to things like repressed sexualities etc, with every other line of dialogue charged with innuendos and stuff, so that really drew me in.

[grinaJanoDant]

Collette, could you elaborate on why the first two thirds were a slog for you. I am interested because I am thinking about reading this book. I have Mirabell's take but would certainly be interested in your own if you can elucidate.

[Xxedxevh]

It was too straight of a telling with very little ambiguity. Once I got to the end, I realized there must have been ambiguity throughout and it would take a second reading to notice it. I rarely re-read books I enjoy, let alone those that I found a bit boring. However, the Booker judges must read the longlist books twice, so I suspect it improves on second reading, and clues are more apparent. I'm just not that kind of reader (I know that if I were a student of literature I should re-read, but I'm not a student of literature - it has to get me the first time).

[grinaJanoDant]

Thank you, Collette.

[bypeTeenehalT]

Mirabell #4: you have to always bear in mind your potential readers when writing a review. If you're writing about a novel, anyone flicking through a review website would like to learn more about that novel, and whether it's worth buying or borrowing.

No one really cares who the reviewer is, or how their brain works, as long as they do their job well. As I've suggested, if you try to turn a humble review into a multi-allusive work of art nobody may have the patience to read it. Do you get a lot of feedback on the Shigekuni website? If you're writing things that interest other people, you will get replies, feedback.

I want to read reviews about Sarah Waters, and specifically about "The Little Stranger", so that I know whether to buy or borrow it or not. As simple as that. The most comprehensible and sincere thing you've said, Mirabell, on this thread is that you liked the book. If you build up a reputation as a reliable critic, then you will help your readers and yourself.

Colette also says simple things, such as that you had to read two-thirds of the book before you "got into" it. This does mean that a reader needs stamina and devotion to get to the good bit. I too am no student of literature, so that I'm strongly tempted to dump a book if it doesn't grab me after a few dozen pages.

[Xxedxevh]

Colette also says simple things, such as that you had to read two-thirds of the book before you "got into" it. This does mean that a reader needs stamina and devotion to get to the good bit. I too am no student of literature, so that I'm strongly tempted to dump a book if it doesn't grab me after a few dozen pages.

I would never say that my experience would or should match anyone else's though. I think it is a matter of personal taste. Certainly some people like this book a lot and possibly throughout. I do like to see in a review whether reviewer likes the book or not - some do not say.

Incidentally, I gave up on this book after 50 pages the first time I tried it. Then it made the Booker longlist so I decided to try again and did get through it. It's a pretty quick read despite its length.

[wheettebott]

Mirabell #4: you have to always bear in mind your potential readers when writing a review. If you're writing about a novel, anyone flicking through a review website would like to learn more about that novel, and whether it's worth buying or borrowing.

No one really cares who the reviewer is, or how their brain works, as long as they do their job well. As I've suggested, if you try to turn a humble review into a multi-allusive work of art nobody may have the patience to read it. Do you get a lot of feedback on the Shigekuni website? If you're writing things that interest other people, you will get replies, feedback.

I want to read reviews about Sarah Waters, and specifically about "The Little Stranger", so that I know whether to buy or borrow it or not. As simple as that. The most comprehensible and sincere thing you've said, Mirabell, on this thread is that you liked the book. If you build up a reputation as a reliable critic, then you will help your readers and yourself.

Colette also says simple things, such as that you had to read two-thirds of the book before you "got into" it. This does mean that a reader needs stamina and devotion to get to the good bit. I too am no student of literature, so that I'm strongly tempted to dump a book if it doesn't grab me after a few dozen pages.

ok. let's do this quickly.

1. I don't aim for popularity, I aim for doing something worth MY while. see, I want to write a review I'm happy with. I do have a brainy proofreader on hand when I'm nort sure whether I make sense, but generally I start to write and stop when I'm satisfied with the results. That is what's important to me. I have no wish to change my reviews in order to appeal to you and yours. Enough people have told me they enjoy what I do in order for me to feel not quite as much of a solipsist as I probably am.

2. See, the problem with "simple" statements like Colette's as a backbone to a review is that I, for one, completely and utterly disagree. I was grabbed from the first page and loved every bit of it. I generally first state my opinion in a simple way and spend the rest of the review explaining the 'why'. ANd I explain it to myself as well, in a way.

3. This I wrote in the FIRST paragraph: "The Little Stranger is a very well written and well constructed book, marvelous, really. It’s not without its flaws but its strengths clearly overshadow its weaknesses; I found it a satisfying read, both on an emotional as well as on a cerebral level." Is this too complicated for you?

4. I get enough feedback on my page and via email, pms and facebook to feel it's worth pursuing the blog as I currently do. Make no mistake, I am very happy when people like what I do and when they tell me so and when authors contact me etc. But it would be worthless if I didn't do it the way I think it should be made. If I'm wrong, I'm always open to corrections and suggestions, but the style, contorted and confused though it may be, is mine. Incidentally, it would be worse in German. I'm much worse in German.


I have explained all of this twice before on this very forum, but I don't mind explaining it a third time. Just try to listen, why don't you.

[Xxedxevh]

My comments about books should not be confused with reviews - I have never sat down and written a review. It takes skill and patience and I appreciate the different take that people have on a book and the different styles of their reviews. Certainly my dislike for the first two thirds of this book should not carry more weight than Mirabell's well thought out discussion points.

When I said Eric had a point, I didn't mean with Mirabell's review style or length; I meant with the one-liners on WLF. I hope that's clear.

[bypeTeenehalT]

eh oneliners on the wlf dont know what yr talkin about huh shigekuni wrote a much more comprehensible review recently on that website about christa wolf and i liked that review uh but now ive got to go i will see if waters is in the library the book i mean not the woman lol so bye bye this is a multiliner on my screen at least huh the romans didnt use punctuation either so i thought id abandon it too wow what a difference it makes yeah youre right hello