If you could forget one book...
- Thread starter Tiger
- Start date
JohnnyDee
Tour Winner
The Van by Roddy Doyle - 3rd book of his Barrytown trilogy.
If you've seen the film it's not bad , but as is often the way, not a patch on the book.
If you've seen the film it's not bad , but as is often the way, not a patch on the book.
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Could you ask for it back?
Can't remember who I gave it too!
Tiger
Money List Winner
:rofl:
Biggleswade Blue
Head Pro
Reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with my daughter for her first time was a terrific life affirming few weeks.
Swallows and Amazons?
Swallows and Amazons?
daymond
Tour Rookie
To show my age:-
Treasure Island
Wind in the Willows
Swiss Family Robinson
Swallows and Amazons
Kidnapped and ......lots and lots of ginger beer with Enid Blyton
Treasure Island
Wind in the Willows
Swiss Family Robinson
Swallows and Amazons
Kidnapped and ......lots and lots of ginger beer with Enid Blyton
I remember the Jennings books as a kid. Set in a boarding school and definitely of a bygone era.
Also remember the BFG, Swallows and Amazons and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As a very youn teenager I remember reading The Rats by James Herbert and finding that quite scary.
Also remember the BFG, Swallows and Amazons and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As a very youn teenager I remember reading The Rats by James Herbert and finding that quite scary.
upsidedown
Tour Winner
Ah yes the Jennings books but the one I really enjoyed was The Hobbit
I bought a golf book used online for £2.99- it was listed by some at over £700 and one at £1600- mostly chancers or bots I assume
D
Deleted member 15717
Guest
There really aren't many books to be honest...but, rather appropriately, I think it would be something by Terry Pratchett. Most likely to be Guards! Guards!
I say this..but I also started, a week or so ago, the Discworld books, so I can enjoy them all over again. Only 40 of them..
I say this..but I also started, a week or so ago, the Discworld books, so I can enjoy them all over again. Only 40 of them..
Great to hear people mention Jennings and Derbyshire. I loved that series when I was a kid. I tried to get my son into them but he just wasn't having it.
Wildrover
Tour Rookie
Just checked this out on Amazon as I've got a copy at home, Ker-Ching :thup:
Rooter
Money List Winner
I'm not generally a fan of fantasy fiction, but I felt obligated to read this title, it being the popular example of the genre. The story has a good premise that I can't help but think suffers in its implementation. The collaborative writing and editing processes, to say nothing of numerous translations, render the basic message somewhat indistinct. For example, as early as the first chapter, the authors make an attempt to introduce literally everything into the plot, even going so far as to suggest that the beginning of the story is the beginning of the universe. The rest of the book, however, makes no attempt to reconcile these far-reaching plot threads, instead focusing solely on the actions of a (relatively) small group of characters in the Middle East. Even with these strenuous limitations the remainder of the novel suffers from an overabundance of characters, most of whom are crude caricatures and only mentioned in passing. The authors would have done better to limit the scope of the plot, both in time and setting, to better highlight their message. The few characters who are developed suffer from serious inconsistencies as a result of the collaborative writing process.
Take, for example, the main character, God. In the first half of the book, which has a very linear and logical format, God is something of a bully. Only a few pages into the first chapter he has condemned the entire human race to a lifetime of suffering by casting their ancestors out of an idyllic paradise. Whenever anyone says or does anything critical of him, God either kills them outright or makes them wish they were dead. He kills women and children, he levels cities, at one point he even wipes out the whole human race with the exception of a single elderly couple, who are forced to engage in years of back-breaking manual labor simply to survive. God's history is never fleshed out; the authors simply leave him in place, unchanging, as a literal deus ex machina to be called into play whenever the plot gets too convoluted. It isn't hard to imagine that God's character in this part of the book was inspired by the Greek ideal of Zeus: an omniscient entity who rains suffering upon mankind from on high whenever he's in a bad mood.
At some point the original authors apparently felt they had done their part and the book sat around unfinished for a few centuries until a new group came along to add their contribution. The second portion of the story, the "New Testament", doesn't start off in a promising manner: God, evidently still in his Zeus mode, impregnates a mortal woman who, by his own admission, has done nothing wrong. (The authors even make a point of saying that, although married, she was a virgin prior to this episode.) Predictably, she gives birth to a half-human demigod, who at the age of thirty suddenly decides to start talking to people about his origins. Apparently fatherhood has softened God up somewhat; he's now willing to forgive and forget, no matter what people do, as long as they're willing to tell him how great his son, Jesus, is. The authors make no attempt to explain the about-face, and after a while some Romans show up to kill off the Jesus character, without God's interference.
The intervening portions of the book are devoted to a collection of pithy parables with less-than-subtle morals, presented out of order and without context. Here the editors' methodology of slapping together the works of disparate authors, even leaving out whole books to clear up the larger inconsistencies, comes into play. A few main characters wander about, telling everyone how great Jesus was, presumably so that God, who doesn't show up at all in this part of the story, will treat them well. The narrative is stripped of any chronological basis and on the whole becomes fairly tedious.
Having fortunately sensed that they were losing their audience, a third group of authors then came along and added a brief summary so fantastic that it makes the rest of the book seem like an accurate history. God makes another appearance, just in time to see the human race he allegedly loved destroyed - except, of course, for those people who told other people about what a nice guy his son was.
On the whole, the book could have better presented its moral message by sticking to a well-defined format, be it a chronological narrative or a succession of fables. It's certainly worth a read; just be prepared to be confused by the characters and their motivations.
Take, for example, the main character, God. In the first half of the book, which has a very linear and logical format, God is something of a bully. Only a few pages into the first chapter he has condemned the entire human race to a lifetime of suffering by casting their ancestors out of an idyllic paradise. Whenever anyone says or does anything critical of him, God either kills them outright or makes them wish they were dead. He kills women and children, he levels cities, at one point he even wipes out the whole human race with the exception of a single elderly couple, who are forced to engage in years of back-breaking manual labor simply to survive. God's history is never fleshed out; the authors simply leave him in place, unchanging, as a literal deus ex machina to be called into play whenever the plot gets too convoluted. It isn't hard to imagine that God's character in this part of the book was inspired by the Greek ideal of Zeus: an omniscient entity who rains suffering upon mankind from on high whenever he's in a bad mood.
At some point the original authors apparently felt they had done their part and the book sat around unfinished for a few centuries until a new group came along to add their contribution. The second portion of the story, the "New Testament", doesn't start off in a promising manner: God, evidently still in his Zeus mode, impregnates a mortal woman who, by his own admission, has done nothing wrong. (The authors even make a point of saying that, although married, she was a virgin prior to this episode.) Predictably, she gives birth to a half-human demigod, who at the age of thirty suddenly decides to start talking to people about his origins. Apparently fatherhood has softened God up somewhat; he's now willing to forgive and forget, no matter what people do, as long as they're willing to tell him how great his son, Jesus, is. The authors make no attempt to explain the about-face, and after a while some Romans show up to kill off the Jesus character, without God's interference.
The intervening portions of the book are devoted to a collection of pithy parables with less-than-subtle morals, presented out of order and without context. Here the editors' methodology of slapping together the works of disparate authors, even leaving out whole books to clear up the larger inconsistencies, comes into play. A few main characters wander about, telling everyone how great Jesus was, presumably so that God, who doesn't show up at all in this part of the story, will treat them well. The narrative is stripped of any chronological basis and on the whole becomes fairly tedious.
Having fortunately sensed that they were losing their audience, a third group of authors then came along and added a brief summary so fantastic that it makes the rest of the book seem like an accurate history. God makes another appearance, just in time to see the human race he allegedly loved destroyed - except, of course, for those people who told other people about what a nice guy his son was.
On the whole, the book could have better presented its moral message by sticking to a well-defined format, be it a chronological narrative or a succession of fables. It's certainly worth a read; just be prepared to be confused by the characters and their motivations.
richart
Major Champion
I preferred the film version, but seem to remember the lead character was called Brian.
Tiger
Money List Winner
I preferred the film version, but seem to remember the lead character was called Brian.
Rooter with too much time on his hands as per usual :rofl: and a classic deadpan richart response :thup:
This thread has reminded me of so many great books from my youth - thanks for sharing
All apart from the Hobbit. I read that again before the first film came out. Well I tried to read it but IMHO Tolkien has a brilliant imagination but can't write for toffee! 
I can understand that. It's a different time and educational concept entirely compared to the modern day and I think it's archaic and out of touch now. They were still great books
JohnnyDee
Tour Winner
Fossilised Fishooks! That brings back many fond childhood memories!
Loved J&D and the now wildly un-PC Billy Bunter books.
C
c1973
Guest
Either Asterix in Britain or Tintin in Cigars of the Pharoah.
Rooter
Money List Winner
Rooter with too much time on his hands as per usual :
I can't take the credit! I stole it from an Amazon review!
