I forsee a library visit in my future.
Buffy ,'Sleeper'
We're Literary 2: To Read Makes Our Speaking English Good
There's more to life than watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer! No. Really, there is! Honestly! Here's a place for Buffistas to come and discuss what it is they're reading, their favorite authors and poets. "Geez. Crack a book sometime."
Margaret Atwood commenting on Pinter's Nobel.
Sitting in her publisher's west London office, Atwood sounds neither dry, nor fierce, but given rather to delighted hoots of laughter that punctuate her carefully phrased answers. She purrs with pleasure at the honour for her collaborator, whose work she admiringly described as "prickly, bothersome, mordant and dour", and as "coming up on you sideways with an alarming glare". Now, she says: "I was particularly touched by the picture of him in the paper in which he looked childishly happy - innocently happy. Which is not a look you usually see coming from Mr Pinter. He looked genuinely surprised - 'How could this be happening?' It was quite lovely."
Huh. 42 holds on the new Lemony Snicket at the library.
I think a lunchtime trip to Borders might be in order.
Ian McHugh says that the problem with fantasy is that wizards are boring.
Personally, I got no beef with Mickey Mouse, and all other wizards I will have to take on a case-by-case basis.
On another tack, O ye romance readers, how many of you read Sir Walter Scott or Alexandre Dumas? And can you express why you do/don't?
The only Dumas I've read is Count of Monte Cristo. I cherish my unabridged copy that was stolen for my from my old high school's library. Edmund Dantes (the Count) gets tiresome, but the rest of the characters are fascinating.
edit: Oh, and I've read Ivanhoe. the unabridged was a whole lot more interesting than the abridged I got in school. The Ivanhoe characters were a tad more three-dimensional than the Monte Cristo characters.
I haven't read the other stories by either of them.
Nutty- I responded it movies, but I generally find I can't read Dumas or Scott. Especially Scott. I think because of the generally floweryness and density. Same thing with Henry James, actually. I must have tried to read Portrait of a Lady 15 billion times. I am not sure why, as I can read Thomas Hardy, who many people find really tough going.
I have read Monte Cristo, as you know, and I would hardly classify it as romance, at least in the modern sense that I think you were using in "ye romance readers" above. I'd call it, um, melodrama?
Okay, The Count of Monte Cristo is actually a swashbuckling melodrama. But with a big romantic element, what with Young Morrel and Valentine Wossname. I mean, okay, 1500 pages, so a lot happens, but...?
How about The Three Musketeers?
O ye romance readers, how many of you read Sir Walter Scott or Alexandre Dumas? And can you express why you do/don't?
I haven't, but not for any deeper reason than "haven't gotten around to it yet."
ION, I've become convinced I really need to give Dorothy Dunnett a second try. I attempted the first Lymond book years ago and never got past the first chapter. Any advice?