unlikely pilgrimage of Harold Fry

[oopsadaisyme]

I so loved this book - was such a surprise read as got given as a gift - has anyone else read??

[thriftychicken]

yes ive read it and really enjoyed it , also enjoyed perfect by the same author

[oopsadaisyme]

ooo, haven't read others by same author, just loved this one - 'Perfect'?

[scottishmummy]

Read it about year ago,great book,unfolding twist that pulls you in.

[oopsadaisyme]

scott brill read, totally different from what I would have bought, so well written, raving cos loved it!

Need a new one similar, can you recommend??

[scottishmummy]

Tractors in Ukraine is similar genre

[CoteDAzur]

I rolled my eyes throughout. Completely unbelievable, even silly. Cheap trick to keep the 'revelation' to the end by misleading the reader throughout, too.

Similarly superficial books that made me you might like:

The Island - Victoria Hislop
1000 Splendid Suns
Memory Keeper's Daughter

[scottishmummy]

I intensely disliked memory keeper and thousand suns,didn't finish them
But then i often cant fathom books others rave about,but hey ho
What i liked about Harold was the unfolding,its pace.it felt like hearing a secret

[CoteDAzur]

This might be a good time to repeat what I wrote on the "50 Book Challenge" thread last year about Harold Fry:

One of those books written for women. Faux-profound rubbish full of truisms and inane "insights" like "Sometimes, you have to start a journey at the beginning". I came close to losing my faith in womankind, seeing the silly nonsense hundreds of readers have highlighted on the Kindle. Why do women read stuff like this? I find it really puzzling.

It's not well-written (very far from it). The story isn't interesting (there isn't even much of a plot). There is very little character development. It is not realistic. So what exactly do women find in it?

Maybe some used to reading chick-lit like it because it gives them the feeling that they just read a real book. Like, with meaning and stuff. Men also read no-brainer books from authors like Lee Child but they don't pretend they are great books and give them awards. Why do women do this? I find it really depressing

Whatever this book was trying to do, The Alchemist did better. I was 17 when it came out, and even then thought it was superficial faux-intellectual rubbish.

[CoteDAzur]

To each their own, of course. Don't take it personally. I'm just saying why I personally didn't like it.

[scottishmummy]

Its always fascinating to hear what someone thinks of a book you've both read
And conversely,some popular authors or hits i just cant fathom.but plenty like
Scandicrime genre has never appealed to me,but others positively rave

[jamaisjedors]

Cote you are often spot-on and put into words what I feel about a book - thank you!

[CoteDAzur]

Thanks jamais

[LulaPalooza]

Or maybe, Cote, some people enjoy a bit of junk food for the mind? A bit of escapism? After a long day at work I quite enjoy something easy to read which means I don't have to think too much. I do enough thinking in the office.

What counts in your world as a "real book"?

"To each their own, of course. Don't take it personally. I'm just saying I personally didn't like it"

You could have said that without, like, denigrating the people who di enjoy the book and stuff. Like.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, I just found your post patronising and rather rude to the OP. Like. And I dislike literary snobbery.

[skinmysunshine]

I agree that the story wasn't realistic but that wasn't the point. It was escapist and an easy read which is sometimes exactly what I'm looking for.

[SirChenjin]

Loved it . It wasn't realistic, but who the hell cares.

As for the patronising post from Cote up there - 'women' read it because 'women' enjoy it. Save the faux "I'm so depressed by the wimminhood' for people who care. Or post the 'Cote Approved Book List' and we'll all do our very best to ignore it only read books that don't depress you.

[Roseformeplease]

Well, I enjoyed it, and the other one by the same author.

[jamaisjedors]

I read my fair share of chick-lit and easy literature, and yes, can "enjoy junk food for the mind".

But I don't claim it is anything more than that, which I think is the point Côte is trying to make.

(Côte I had a question for you about something else, will pm you).

[AngusAndElspethsThistleWhistle]

I read it and enjoyed it. I found it heartwarming and moving.

I don't particularly enjoy 'chick lit' and I don't enjoy being judged on which books I read.

Cote's post was a bit self-indulgent, I think.

[jamaisjedors]

(actually scrap that, no need).

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

When I read it,I mentioned to a friend that it was like a radio play. Then found out later that's exactly what it was originally. Explains its gentleness and not being realistic.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

My Dad read it and really enjoyed it. I wouldn't have said it was written for women at all

[CoteDAzur]

Lula - You haven't read the book, so you don't know what my comments were about. Are you picking a fight with me because you are just desperate for a fight?

"some people enjoy a bit of junk food for the mind?"

I know that, would you believe. And said so in the post you replied to. Men also read no-brainer books from authors like Lee Child but they don't pretend they are great books and give them awards. Why do women do this? I find it really depressing.

If you read my post properly, you would understand from the above that my problem with such "women's lit" light reads is that they are held up on pedestals and given awards, as if they are anything but beach reads. As if women don't or can't read better books, which we all know is not true.

"What counts in your world as a "real book"?... You could have said that without, like, denigrating the people who di enjoy the book and stuff. Like."

Again, if you read my post properly, you would see that "... real book. Like, with meaning and stuff" were words I would use but my guess at the thought processes of people giving such beach reads book awards. Hopefully, since you are such a smart person doing so much thinking at work

"Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, I just found your post patronising and rather rude to the OP."

I said nothing about the OP, but you are rude and patronising to me. That doesn't seem to bother you, at all.

The difference is, I was giving an opinion about a book (which I have actually read) and making general comments (not to OP in particular), whereas you are here for the sole reason of personally attacking me.

I shouldn't have explain this difference to a solicitor, so figure out on your own why you can't tell me what opinions to have and what to post, but I can say what I think about a book, its audience and awards. On a book thread. About a book I have actually read.

[CoteDAzur]

jamais - re "I read my fair share of chick-lit and easy literature, and yes, can "enjoy junk food for the mind". But I don't claim it is anything more than that, which I think is the point Côte is trying to make."

Exactly.

[SirChenjin]

Cote - by all means talk about your thoughts on the book, but please leave your thoughts on women who read this book and enjoyed it out of the equation.

[LJBanana]

I've read the book and I thought it was simple but effective.
I enjoyed it and cried and cried for the last few pages.
I did read it on holiday and it was easy to read and an escape, it was also a contrast to the other books that I had with me. I therefore enjoyed the pace and simplicity of the story.