Is there anyone else on here who didn't love The Book Thief?

"I read the book years ago and can barely remember it"

And that would be why you said it must have gone over our heads, along with "you either get it or you don't. ". Because you don't even remember it.

Maybe read it again and then we can have a conversation about it and see what has gone over whose head.

LRD, seems pretty spot on to me. If it was so turgid you gave up, there is an opinion in itself.

When I was reading the slush piles at various places I knew within a couple of pages whether it was worth reading further.

cote, Really I do think BOF was teasing.

Oh, yes, she's quite correct.

I was talking about why I was put off.

It is certainly true that, if I were a student, I'd conscientiously force myself to read every word, instead of sitting in Waterstones' cafe reading through. But I started reading and this is why I gave up. I thought that was a fair response to the OP.

Did I misunderstand?

You see SM's post is interesting, because she has forsaken her customary three line style and gone for a two line "gavel'-like brevity.

The story tried to shoe horn too many events from WW2 into it, as if there was a tick list of incidents that had to be mentioned: no analysis, no real background, then rush on to the next thing.

Also Death was such a mystical, child like character, that I dreaded having to read those overly simplistic, yet florid segments.

I've read a lot of fiction over the years and there didn't seem to be anything fresh in there; also I read Austerlitz by W G Sebald around the same time and was blown away by that.

I have an English Literature degree, but that doesn't make me snobby about books! I've read tons of Mills and Boon, Jilly Cooper, M C Beaton, thrillers etc.

Madame - BOF has actually read it. She says if we didn't like it, it must have gone over our heads. I would just like to hear what it is that we have missed, but she does not want to tell us.

LRD, on the other hand, has not read it. That quote was from LRD's post.

don't you think my intellectual credentials are pretty, though, BOF?

I meant the "cleverness" of the author, rather than the book. sorry to be unclear about that..which of course was not clever because it showed.

I am, in so far as I am not actually a professor of anything, but was sending up the pomposity of the intellectual credential-flashing going on.

You are right though that I cba. It's bloody hot, and I read the book years ago and can barely remember it. I must dig it out though- it was a signed first edition that I got when I worked in a bookshop, so it might be worth a few bob now. That is if mumsnetters don't succeed in making it a byword for drivel .

If I don't get a book or dislike it,I don't persist
Life too short to read a book you dislike

I agree with you, Madame, although have to say that I didn't see that much cleverness in it.

Hully's assessment is pretty spot on, too.

cote, if you want to engage with someone who has read it, there are plenty of us here. Why bother having a tiff with BOF?

ha!

The thing is, artistic intent, is by its nature, a narcisissitic enterprise. The good writer can allow a book to grow from this er, pile of shite, and create a work which is independent of the author's desire. it can stand alone.

Of course there are also works of fiction which play very cleverly with the notion of author and intent. Perec, for instance, was fascinating because he wanted to banish the authorial voice.

"the author was enjoying himself too much. It was too lush and sensory, and I found that odd with the subject matter"

I'm just amazed that you can say so much about a book that you have not read.

You need to change your name to ColludingWithNarcissism.

BOF - Not really, you are not. But you can't be bothered to engage in a talk about the book and I can't be bothered to read your friend's verbose blog post, so that's that, I guess.

All those years of reading slush piles and writing reports and book reviews has paid off finally!!!

That's brilliant, MadameDefarge, that's what I thought too. I think.

I also like HullyGully's succinct summing-up.

The author was showing off and it showed, basically. Hence the feeling of disgust. I felt I was colluding with narcissism.

I think (and I did only flip through it despite wanting to get into it as a result of this thread) that the author was enjoying himself too much. It was too lush and sensory, and I found that odd with the subject matter. I don't know if that's similar to what you're saying about the whole book, madame, but when you say it, it definitely strikes a chord.

It's odd because I've read books about horrible events that were very sensory and stylistically fancy, but didn't make me feel a bit disgusted.

when I first started reading it,I thought it was an interesting way of writing but I soon got annoyed with both the style and the content.

Oh no I liked it but can't remember much about it. But then I only went up to English A level. I also didn't sleep for nearly 2 years and think it caused irreversible damage. I can barely follow a mumsnet thread let alone critique a book.

yup.

yeah

shite, see?