Bookgroup
-
mccutcheon
- New York Scribbler
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Bookgroup
Mavs been using my computer again and not signing himself out. bad mav!!! Bad Mav. I'm caslling the cops. Those last two posts to Brett and Tommy were from me. McCutcheon the one and only. Most people say "Thank God there is only won of him, couldn't handle more than that."
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
Bookgroup
I was just wondering if..
A) Anybody read this book?
B) Anybody want to share some insights?
I have lots of questions but don't want to bore you all if you are not interested.
A) Anybody read this book?
B) Anybody want to share some insights?
I have lots of questions but don't want to bore you all if you are not interested.
Bookgroup
OK, I was going to write this anyway, even if Tommy hadn't already tried to get this tread back on topic...
I have to admit that I wasn't intrigued by the review on the cover that called Embers "Sparse and Beautiful." I interpreted that as "thin and boring", but was pleasantly surprised by the first half of the book.
I enjoyed the slow, precise descriptions and could envision the castle, the coutryside, and the characters. I was intrigued by the mysterious event that took place on the hunt so many years ago. I read on, getting more and more anxious to find out what happenned that could have changed things between these people so irrevocably. The mroe I read, the more I came to hope that it would not be something relatively routine like infidelity. As the signs pointed more and more to that fact, as the love triangle was revealed, I lost interest. I'm not sure what i wanted to happen, but whatever it was, it never did.
I liked the imagery of the hunt, and the "almost" murder, but felt like once he didn't pull the trigger, there was no more real drama for the rest of the book.
I'll admit, maybe I'm a product of my generation who needs twists and turns and trickery, but storywise, not enough happened to keep the level of interest that I had at the beginning, and although the writing was very precise, it didn't seem enough to offset my opinion of the story's shortcomings.
Overall I enjoyed reading it, but just wished it hadn't all boiled down to a betrayed husband. Sorry if I give anything away to those who haven't finished it.
I have to admit that I wasn't intrigued by the review on the cover that called Embers "Sparse and Beautiful." I interpreted that as "thin and boring", but was pleasantly surprised by the first half of the book.
I enjoyed the slow, precise descriptions and could envision the castle, the coutryside, and the characters. I was intrigued by the mysterious event that took place on the hunt so many years ago. I read on, getting more and more anxious to find out what happenned that could have changed things between these people so irrevocably. The mroe I read, the more I came to hope that it would not be something relatively routine like infidelity. As the signs pointed more and more to that fact, as the love triangle was revealed, I lost interest. I'm not sure what i wanted to happen, but whatever it was, it never did.
I liked the imagery of the hunt, and the "almost" murder, but felt like once he didn't pull the trigger, there was no more real drama for the rest of the book.
I'll admit, maybe I'm a product of my generation who needs twists and turns and trickery, but storywise, not enough happened to keep the level of interest that I had at the beginning, and although the writing was very precise, it didn't seem enough to offset my opinion of the story's shortcomings.
Overall I enjoyed reading it, but just wished it hadn't all boiled down to a betrayed husband. Sorry if I give anything away to those who haven't finished it.
-
mccutcheon
- New York Scribbler
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Bookgroup
Yes, but how do you feel?
Bookgroup
Ha ha, McC. Nice one. 
Well, I must say I envy Mav's ability to speak of the book in such detail. Having finished it about 2 weeks ago, it's hard for me to go into all the specifics unless others refresh my memory, but I will try. I have to say overall, I enjoyed it. Maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10. The first 30 pages were exasperating as I said, although I do believe some of that can be attributed to perhaps bad translation. Here's a particularly bad passage:
" 'I want to be a poet," the boy said once, glancing up obliquely.
He stared at the sea, his blond curls stirring in the warm wind and his eyes, half-closed, interrogating the horizon. The nurse put her arms around him and squeezed his head against her breast. 'No, you're going to be a soldier.'
'Like Father?" The child shook his head. 'Father is a poet too, didn't you know? He's always thinking about something else.'
'That's true,' said the nurse with a sigh. 'Don't go into the sun, my angel, it'll give you a headache.' "
LOL!! What?!?!?!
In other places, I think the characters are just painted as too perfect to seem believable, and the book occaisionally lapses into being too drunk on its own glory (I used the word pretentious already in another thread, so I won't bother with it here) to produce anything of substance.
There were also times, even as it was more interesting later on, when I felt myself say "okay okay jeeeez, get to the point already will you?!"
But again overall, I think it was enjoyable. I liked the way it kindof seemed to stretch time out...like what it must feel at that age to be looking back at a whole lifetime's worth of memories...I had a moment at work during the time I had been reading it when I was standing in front of one of the people I am paid to be a caregiver for and who is one of my favorite clients and it suddenly struck me that every single moment we experience has something really really precious in it, something we can only enjoy in the now and won't be there later. And even though we always feel the grass is greener either in the future or in the past, the reality is, it's greener right now. The thing is we'll only know it's greener when the things we take for granted now are lost to history. So although I might have had that epiphany without the aid of reading the book, I do believe the book helped me get there. I was standing in front of one of my favorite clients and all of a sudden I realized how precious that one moment was, that I was not going to work with that client forever, that hidden inside each and every moment of our lives is some precious jewel that we'll miss later. It was wild.
Well, I must say I envy Mav's ability to speak of the book in such detail. Having finished it about 2 weeks ago, it's hard for me to go into all the specifics unless others refresh my memory, but I will try. I have to say overall, I enjoyed it. Maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10. The first 30 pages were exasperating as I said, although I do believe some of that can be attributed to perhaps bad translation. Here's a particularly bad passage:
" 'I want to be a poet," the boy said once, glancing up obliquely.
He stared at the sea, his blond curls stirring in the warm wind and his eyes, half-closed, interrogating the horizon. The nurse put her arms around him and squeezed his head against her breast. 'No, you're going to be a soldier.'
'Like Father?" The child shook his head. 'Father is a poet too, didn't you know? He's always thinking about something else.'
'That's true,' said the nurse with a sigh. 'Don't go into the sun, my angel, it'll give you a headache.' "
LOL!! What?!?!?!
In other places, I think the characters are just painted as too perfect to seem believable, and the book occaisionally lapses into being too drunk on its own glory (I used the word pretentious already in another thread, so I won't bother with it here) to produce anything of substance.
There were also times, even as it was more interesting later on, when I felt myself say "okay okay jeeeez, get to the point already will you?!"
But again overall, I think it was enjoyable. I liked the way it kindof seemed to stretch time out...like what it must feel at that age to be looking back at a whole lifetime's worth of memories...I had a moment at work during the time I had been reading it when I was standing in front of one of the people I am paid to be a caregiver for and who is one of my favorite clients and it suddenly struck me that every single moment we experience has something really really precious in it, something we can only enjoy in the now and won't be there later. And even though we always feel the grass is greener either in the future or in the past, the reality is, it's greener right now. The thing is we'll only know it's greener when the things we take for granted now are lost to history. So although I might have had that epiphany without the aid of reading the book, I do believe the book helped me get there. I was standing in front of one of my favorite clients and all of a sudden I realized how precious that one moment was, that I was not going to work with that client forever, that hidden inside each and every moment of our lives is some precious jewel that we'll miss later. It was wild.
Bookgroup
Also I really would appreciate it if other people give their two cents on the book. I can only go so far unless people refresh my memory and I'd like to see the book from as many different angles as possible.
Bookgroup
Well, sadly the bookgroup seems to have died at the moment, but I'm sure at least Martino will come back eventually...
In the meantime, Tommy, I have a question...I have come across a total of 3 references to Angela Rippon in my aural travels of UK music now (one of which was an average punk band entitled Angela Rippon's Bum). From the web I have learned she was a T.V. presenter/journalist...she seems to have been not too well liked by these musicians...
can you describe her for me? Was she supposed to be some kind of fashion trend-setter like Jackie O. was? Overall, do you think she was well-liked? Thanks. Just curious.
In the meantime, Tommy, I have a question...I have come across a total of 3 references to Angela Rippon in my aural travels of UK music now (one of which was an average punk band entitled Angela Rippon's Bum). From the web I have learned she was a T.V. presenter/journalist...she seems to have been not too well liked by these musicians...
can you describe her for me? Was she supposed to be some kind of fashion trend-setter like Jackie O. was? Overall, do you think she was well-liked? Thanks. Just curious.
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
Angela Rippon was the woman who read the news, like Peter Jennings. She was a woman. America doesn't let women read the news yet, so you can imagine what a big deal it was when the BBC (No less!) let a woman do it.
She was adequate and indeed was widely lampooned for her ability to move from cut glass BBC English to local dialect when pronouncing non english names. (Famously Joshua Nkomo) At this time the most popular entertainers in England were a double act called Morecombe and Wise. This years big hit on Broadway, "The play what I wrote," was based on their work. Both the broadway show and the original T.V. show feature a segment where a celebrity shows up and performs. Angela Rippon did this way back in the seventies. It caused quite a stir at the time. The item starts with her reading the news when suddenly she pulls her blouse off and climbs over the desk to launch into a song and dance number. At this point it is revealed that she really can dance and that she has fabulous legs. These days this type of thing is common place, Satuday night live etc but back in the day in England it was huge. It was like Maggie Thatcher wearing a mini skirt. Sad to say that although the BBC probably did need loosening up (In the 30's news readers had to wear evening dress to read the news - on the radio) the line between entertainment and news started to get blurred. The news readers became famous in their own right.
She was adequate and indeed was widely lampooned for her ability to move from cut glass BBC English to local dialect when pronouncing non english names. (Famously Joshua Nkomo) At this time the most popular entertainers in England were a double act called Morecombe and Wise. This years big hit on Broadway, "The play what I wrote," was based on their work. Both the broadway show and the original T.V. show feature a segment where a celebrity shows up and performs. Angela Rippon did this way back in the seventies. It caused quite a stir at the time. The item starts with her reading the news when suddenly she pulls her blouse off and climbs over the desk to launch into a song and dance number. At this point it is revealed that she really can dance and that she has fabulous legs. These days this type of thing is common place, Satuday night live etc but back in the day in England it was huge. It was like Maggie Thatcher wearing a mini skirt. Sad to say that although the BBC probably did need loosening up (In the 30's news readers had to wear evening dress to read the news - on the radio) the line between entertainment and news started to get blurred. The news readers became famous in their own right.
martino comes back eventually -- you got it right, marky -- when he gets his lazy ass moving.
i read the book in one session, over the weekend, despite a tiresome head cold that made me fall asleep every two hours. sometimes a good book is the only thing that helps.
but i think i was not able to do justice to Embers. it has been said that you should read any really good book twice: once for the story, the internal logic, the characters; the second time for style and language.
but i was annoyed to discover that the english-language version of this book that i bought at amazon.com was not a translation from the hungarian original but in fact a translation of the german edition of the book! what a crock! what is it with these publishing companies that they market a book as a masterpiece but don't even find it necessary to pay for a proper translation?
normally, i would have sold it and bought "die glut", i.e. the german version, but for the sake of pax acidus i stayed on board.
what is good about Embers is that it is an easy read, an interesting read, suspenseful enough to be enjoyable. it does give you a good first idea of life in habsburg europe in the pre-ww2 period; it conveys how vienna was the most compelling city in the world for a time in the early 20th century.
one of the book's main topics is friendship: what is true friendship?, is it related to love, does a strong friendship have an erotic element? márai writes well about this; i cannot remember reading about friendship as a general topic in another novel in a more thorough way.
but ultimately, i find his beliefs dated and unconvincing. the book, thus, also feels dated.
for me, friendship is something you chose; the element of freedom is what makes the relationship to a friend so much easier and more modern than kinship, or a relationship to a loved one. freedom need not make friendship ephemeral: i have been friends with my three best buddies for over 20 years and they would do anything for me -- and likewise. i would say that freedom is what can make friendship attractive -- cause you know that you have been truly selected by your buddies and not just thrown together by chance.
(incidentially, i always liked what goethe wrote about this and his book "wahlverwandtschaften", = 'elected kin', put it in one great expression).
márais in contrast, if i understand him correctly, is saying that true friendship has a spiritual quality. to him, friendship documents an exemplary emotional and intellectual closeness but is untainted by sexual lust or by reciprocity. so in a way, the relationship to a true friend is deeper, safer and better than any other kind of relationship.
i don't buy this. and i don't like the military-style honor system his understanding of friendship implies. he is not just saying: if you besmirch yourself by betraying a friend, your life is honorless and thus worthless. no, he is also saying: if your friend besmirches you by betraying you, your life is worthless too.
it's a logically consistant system so we can kinda understand that the main character of the book, after being betrayed, does not speak a word to his wife up to the day she dies, eight years later. or that he spends fucking 41 years waiting for resolution of the conflict with his friend.
but it is an anachronism -- a bit of a joke really. if a samurai commits seppuku at least it is gory and romantic but to spend four decades wasting your life because your best friend wronged you -- well, that's the kind of thing that ran austria-hungary down.
it's easy to find this inflated concept of honor romantic but i would point at that this is exactly what causes feuds, such as the types that destroyed yugoslavia.
i would also point out that the philosophy of this book has little or no connection to the easy hedonism of pax acidus.
despite all of the above, i appreciate that you steered me to márai, tommy -- it was an interesting read, thanks indeed.
i read the book in one session, over the weekend, despite a tiresome head cold that made me fall asleep every two hours. sometimes a good book is the only thing that helps.
but i think i was not able to do justice to Embers. it has been said that you should read any really good book twice: once for the story, the internal logic, the characters; the second time for style and language.
but i was annoyed to discover that the english-language version of this book that i bought at amazon.com was not a translation from the hungarian original but in fact a translation of the german edition of the book! what a crock! what is it with these publishing companies that they market a book as a masterpiece but don't even find it necessary to pay for a proper translation?
normally, i would have sold it and bought "die glut", i.e. the german version, but for the sake of pax acidus i stayed on board.
what is good about Embers is that it is an easy read, an interesting read, suspenseful enough to be enjoyable. it does give you a good first idea of life in habsburg europe in the pre-ww2 period; it conveys how vienna was the most compelling city in the world for a time in the early 20th century.
one of the book's main topics is friendship: what is true friendship?, is it related to love, does a strong friendship have an erotic element? márai writes well about this; i cannot remember reading about friendship as a general topic in another novel in a more thorough way.
but ultimately, i find his beliefs dated and unconvincing. the book, thus, also feels dated.
for me, friendship is something you chose; the element of freedom is what makes the relationship to a friend so much easier and more modern than kinship, or a relationship to a loved one. freedom need not make friendship ephemeral: i have been friends with my three best buddies for over 20 years and they would do anything for me -- and likewise. i would say that freedom is what can make friendship attractive -- cause you know that you have been truly selected by your buddies and not just thrown together by chance.
(incidentially, i always liked what goethe wrote about this and his book "wahlverwandtschaften", = 'elected kin', put it in one great expression).
márais in contrast, if i understand him correctly, is saying that true friendship has a spiritual quality. to him, friendship documents an exemplary emotional and intellectual closeness but is untainted by sexual lust or by reciprocity. so in a way, the relationship to a true friend is deeper, safer and better than any other kind of relationship.
i don't buy this. and i don't like the military-style honor system his understanding of friendship implies. he is not just saying: if you besmirch yourself by betraying a friend, your life is honorless and thus worthless. no, he is also saying: if your friend besmirches you by betraying you, your life is worthless too.
it's a logically consistant system so we can kinda understand that the main character of the book, after being betrayed, does not speak a word to his wife up to the day she dies, eight years later. or that he spends fucking 41 years waiting for resolution of the conflict with his friend.
but it is an anachronism -- a bit of a joke really. if a samurai commits seppuku at least it is gory and romantic but to spend four decades wasting your life because your best friend wronged you -- well, that's the kind of thing that ran austria-hungary down.
it's easy to find this inflated concept of honor romantic but i would point at that this is exactly what causes feuds, such as the types that destroyed yugoslavia.
i would also point out that the philosophy of this book has little or no connection to the easy hedonism of pax acidus.
despite all of the above, i appreciate that you steered me to márai, tommy -- it was an interesting read, thanks indeed.