50 Book Challenge 2016 Part Four

[southeastdweller]

Thread four of the 50 Book Challenge for this year.

The challenge is to read fifty books (or more!) in 2016, though reading fifty isn't mandatory. Any type of book can count, it's not too late to join, and please try to let us all know your thoughts on what you've read.

First thread of 2016 is here, second thread here and third thread here.

How're you getting on so far?

He's delusional, sure, but not a dimwit. I think his intelligence is why it's all so scary - he knows exactly what he's doing and is meticulous in the scene setting and staging of the whole 'affair' - and it's his depravity and delusions contrasted with his fierce intelligence that make him both so fascinating and so repulsive.

But honestly, Cote, if it's not working for you now there's really no point continuing. You will hate it and it will make you angry!

"Fierce intelligence", LOL Color me very unimpressed with his mental prowess so far but maybe he'll get a bit more intelligent later on (I'm at 25%)

If you like this sort of thing, I would really recommend And The Ass Saw The Angel. We can then talk about 'scary' and 'depravity' (if you still talk to me at that point) I read American Psycho in my teens (a very long time ago) but IIRC that psycho was considerably more intelligent than this one, too.

This one is poetic. That's it, imho.

Have read 'And the Ass'. It was okay - I prefer his songs though! :)

I still haven't read 'American Psycho' - it's on the shelf and dp and dd1 both rate it highly.

Oh I LOVE And The Ass Saw The Angel... was one of those books that I read and reread as a teenager.

It is Humbert's account - so then we are meant to attribute the poetry and "brilliant prose" to a dimwit?

And let's remember that Patrick Bateman's Mastermind specialist subject would be Whitney Houston, to keep things in perspective

Omg do not read American Psycho >shudder<

Horrific violence combined with lots of Ralph Lauren.

Though I may be misremembering, I abandoned it pretty quickly

hello all again, had lost you for a while!

I've completely lost my reading bug this last fortnight. I've abandoned one book after 100 pages, then just plodding through another that should be a "2 day read" but I'm not interested. I had a bad migraine over Easter that lasted nearly a week so wasn't reading, but still, this isn't like me! Anyone else had this happen? I don't think it's the book I've started, it does seem quite good, and I have several others on my Kindle I could start instead but no interest.

"we are meant to attribute the poetry and "brilliant prose" to a dimwit?"

Yes, the narrator sounds like a dim poet - someone not terribly intelligent, who has a way with words. There are such savants, you know, who have an artistic talent despite intellectual shortcomings in other areas

Yy dinosaursroar I get this every once in a while, I tried to beat it this last couple of weeks by re-reading some old favourites as I knew nothing would grab me. However, I don't fancy another Austen at the moment and struggling to settle to anything else. Reading a few pages of this and that.

Remus - Another novel we both like! This won't do

I didn't think American Psycho was the greatest book in the world, but that was an intelligent monster. Hannibal Lecter is also an intelligent (and interesting) monster. Humbert is a pathetic fool.

Meg - Thankfully I didn't know of And The Ass as a teenager. Who knows how it would have messed me up

Remus - I'm a big Nick Cave fan, too! I just realised that he has a biography coming up next year

Ah, so you think Humbert is a savant. The terms dimwit and dumbo didn't initially make that clear

I think that if that were the case he wouldn't be as aware and as capable of manipulating others as he seems to be, but of course he is the definition of the unreliable narrator. Personally though, I would say that his being of above average intelligence would be a fair assumption to make from his narrative, whatever his other faults, delusions, or incapacities may be.

"Savant" may have been too much of a compliment. I just meant that he has a poetic side but that is not the same thing as being intelligent. I guess it's possible that I haven't yet come to the parts where he starts manipulating. Thus far, all his manoeuvring have been in his head and don't seem to have had an effect on anyone else at all.

He didn't do a thing to make the mum fall in love with him so he could marry her and have easier access to Lolita, for example. She did that all by herself and practically propositioned the guy. All he did was accept. Master manipulator? Hardly.

"Savant" may have been too much of a compliment. I just meant that he has a poetic side but that is not the same thing as being intelligent. I guess it's possible that I haven't yet come to the parts where he starts manipulating. Thus far, all his manoeuvring have been in his head and don't seem to have had an effect on anyone else at all.

He didn't do a thing to make the mum fall in love with him so he could marry her and have easier access to Lolita, for example. She did that all by herself and practically propositioned the guy. All he did was accept. Master manipulator? Hardly.

Dinosaurs, I have just come out of a reading slump. It happens to me a lot. I think this one was caused by reading Jamaica Inn, which for some reason I rather disliked and it's taken me over two weeks to read. It was so disappointing and melodramatic. I have been reading this thread though and it's been keeping me busy. I am enjoying the Lolita discussion!
(Or alligator discussion, as my iPad wants to call it).

Yes, the woman practically forced him to marry her...but remember this is the same guy who said he was seduced by her daughter.

I found it intriguing because the questions it raises about character, motivation, and the reliability of the narrator. I'm also interested in the irony, the relentless word play, the beautiful and original use of language and the fact it is bursting with literary allusions and parodies.

If you don't like those things I can't help you

Ouch Satsuki, that's harsh I like literary stuff, too. But the story... It's so lacking so far (30%) that there's nothing there but "Ooh little girls. I desire them so. And they want me to do them, the little harlots."

Imagine if Silence Of The Lambs was just Hannibal Lecter droning on about "Ooh human flesh. I love its taste. And people want me to eat them." Yawntastic.

Literary tricks can only take you so far imho. I also need a bit of substance

"Alligator discussion"

32. The Girl in the Spider's Web by David Lagercrantz

As I said previously, I did have my doubts about someone else continuing with Lisbeth Salander, Mikael Blomkvist, Millennium, et al, but Lagercrantz has done a reasonable job. There's something about his portrayal of Salander that didn't seem quite right to me though, but I can't put my finger on why. It has all the compexity and conspiracy of Larsson, although I did think it was a bit obvious in places.

A brilliant computer scientist, Frans Balder, working on artificial intelligence has had some of his work stolen and when he contacts Mikael Blomkvist to tell his story he has been told by the Swedish security police that his life is in danger. Unfortunately Blomkvist arrives to the discovery that Balder has been murdered and the only witness is his young son, who has autism and cannot communicate. At around the same time, the NSA is going bananas after a superhacker made it into their own intranet and had a good nose round their secrets without being detected - until the hacker left a message on the computer of their head of digital security. Blomkvist and Salander have not been in touch for some time, so although he reaches out to her to help find out what's behind Balder's murder he isn't sure she will respond. However, Salander is already on the case - it ties into her own investigations into a secretive and murderous criminal network of brilliant hackers and industrial espionage.

I'm sorry cote I was only meaning jokey petulance, not to be harsh

I was just trying to get across that there is more in it to appreciate, if you're fed up with Humbert, and as it progresses you get more glimpses of the reality that he is trying to smooth over with his literary acrobatics. The first third is probably where the black romantic parody reaches its peak and the plot takes over more in the latter bits so you might prefer it. But as I said, I don't know how palatable I would find it all if I read it for the first time as a mother (rather than as a pretentious wannabe literature student )

40 Sorcerer to the Crown by Zen Cho
Fantasy novel (as might be expected from the title ) set in a Regency England where magic exists, sorcerers have familiars, and well bred women are expected to keep any magical talents well hidden.
This very evidently takes inspiration from Georgette Heyer's novels, and I thought the author did a pretty good job at writing Regency-romance-plus-magic. It's not perfect - the characters are good, and the plot well thought out, but somehow it didn't always carry me along quite as well as it might have done. I'd still recommend it though to anyone who likes this sort of thing. (It's her first novel, and I'd definitely read others she writes in the future.)

49. Stepsisters For Lorna, Elinor M Brent-Dyer. Lovely lovely nostalgic read - school story published in 1947. As a total Chalet School geek I adored slipping back into that EBD world of dysfunctional parents, kind aunts and spoilt girls Making Good.

I have recently finished a re-read of Lolita and it was a very interesting experince returning to it as a mother, I'm fairly sure it's the first time I have re-read it since having a child 7 years ago, although I've read it a few times in my life pre-child.
I agree that HH's intelligence makes him scary. like those awful dreams when you try and outwit someone but they are always cleverer and one step ahead. This creates a real atmosphere of menace, especially later in the book as he is required to be increasingly desperately crafty.

What I also enjoy (enjoy possibly not quite the right word, but you know what I mean) about his character is the fact that although he is clearly a brilliant man, he is wildly deluded about the extent of his actions on others, including Lolita. A deliciously unreliable narrarator, he is quite maddening in this way but this is part of what makes the book so compelling, because you are constantly trying to work out what he's really thinking and feeling underneath and if he feels remorse etc.
An amazing book that I was glad to return to but even gladder to finish. I listened to the unabidged audiobook narrated by Jeremy Irons, who is just magnificent. It made grim listening now that I have a child though, and I was surprised by how serious and sad I felt on finishing it compared to my younger, childless days.
Worth your time!