Wed Reading Meme
Feb. 3rd, 2016 10:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[On the political front, according to the newspapers littering my office's lounge area...Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz won the Iowa Caucases, although as various co-workers stated, including Lando, the Caucases don't mean all that much. They did however result in Rand Paul leaving the race. And you can actually give your delegates to another person, once you leave the race. ie. Rand Paul can give his to Ted Cruz. If you are interested - NPR's Iowa Caucus Results - 6 Things That Explain the Iowa Caucus Results is probably your best bet. I'm not worrying or making a firm decision until August. But am having fun discussing it with coworkers in the meantime.]
1.) What I just finished reading?
The Pope's Daughter by Dario Fo for book club. Our book club discussion was rather amusing... the facilitator of the group showed us her copy of The Pope's Daughter, which she loved. It's filled with tabs. But has a completely different cover. Also, I noticed, it was a much thicker and bigger book.
"Did you get a different version?"
She looks at her book, then looks at everyone else's.
"Uh, wait...mine's by Caroline P. Murphy, I thought she was Dario Fo, just translated from the Italian..guess not."
Not only did she get a different version, she got a far more entertaining and better written version. It does, however, explain why she liked the book, when everyone else really didn't.
I don't recommend it. But if you are at all interested...my review is below, I felt the need to give it at least three stars...because, at he's trying to be interesting. So many books published today are retreads of other better-written books.
Difficult book to review, because it's a translation not in the original language of the author. And that makes a definite difference. There's just some things that defy translation.
I didn't enjoy this translation. While there is a wry comedic sense of humor throughout, which at times reminded me a great deal of Machiavelli's The Prince, overall it's a dull book. Odd, considering the subject matter -- in fact, now, I'm rather curious about the Showtime television series entitled "The Borgias", which I'm guessing is more fun and I sort of wish I'd read instead. The Borgias were basically the Kardashians of Renassiance Italy, except with a heck of a lot more power. Lucrezia, at one point, was head of the Catholic Church. This was when her father was off gathering up troops. Her brother, Cesar, was responsible for assassinating one husband, and attempted to kill the other one.
It's also odd, because Fo is a renowned comedian, playwright, and political commentator. This does read at times like a play or screenplay, where most if not all the action is furthered through dialogue. But the dialogue is rather stiff. And the description similar to screenplays and plays is scant at best, there to set the stage or provide background, little more. Since this is Fo's first attempt at a novel, that makes sense. The two mediums are quite different. But wouldn't the dialogue have a bit more oomph to it? Or be more comedic? It's so bland. Can't decide if this is a result of the translation? It may well be.
Fo's purpose appears to wipe clean the character of Lucrezia from historical mud of defamation and slander. Telling us a story of a rather saintly lady, who lived life fully, with love and kindness.
Albeit surrounded by nasty power mongering men intent on controlling and dominating her at every turn.
At one point in the story - he attempts to paint a lovely visual of the historical danse macbre or circus of personalities who attempted at various points to control the international stage. But I think this may have worked better as a theatrical piece or a film than in a novel, for Fo simply lacks the narrative voice to pull it off. Like I said, two things are working against him here - the format of a novel is quite different than a play, and it's a translation.
Overall, disappointing. Some day, I'd like to see a production of one of his plays, so I can get a better grasp of the man's talent. Because it just was not in evidence in his novel.
2) What I'm reading now?
Another romance novel. This one by Lorraine Heath, entitled...damn, I keep forgetting the title.
They sort of blur together after a while. Three things romance novelists are notoriously bad at: cover art, titles, and plotting. Hence the bad rap. Although there are a few that get the plotting right...and don't do too badly with titles. They are: Meredith Duran, Sherry Thomas, Courtney Milan, Elizabeth Hoyt, Madeline Hunter, and Georgette Heyer. Loretta Chase isn't bad either.
My mother will rec these things to me -- she'll go through one in a day. I recommend a book to her, by the end of the week she's read the entire series by the author. Making me feel like an incredibly sluggish reader by comparison. At any rate...she'd tell me the entire plot, the characters, etc...intrigue me, but alas can't remember the title. I'm lucky if she can give me the author's name.
So I hunt down the book. Get around to reading it...by the time I finish it and try to discuss it with her, she's forgotten the book entirely. This is what happens when you read a book in a day -- you tend to forget 98% of it. Although to be fair...much like the mystery genre, they blend together after a while. (We've both binge-read the mystery genre in the 1980s and 1990s. My mother and I are binge readers.)
Anyhow..the title, which I'm sure you've all been waiting for with baited breath... Pleasures of a Nortorious Gentleman -- horrid. Although not quite as bad as "Waking up in Bed with the Duke", which is apparently the next one in the series - that I've been warned to avoid like the plague.
You should see the covers...beautiful woman scantly clad in gorgeous dress, even more scantily clad male hovering over her seductively...it borders on soft-core porn. This is why I love kindles, you can avoid these silly covers.
The plot is rather interesting - it concerns an ex-army nurse who brings a baby boy to the family of a dead solider, claiming to be its mother. Only to discover that the solider is alive, but has no memory of his tour of duty. It takes place shortly after the Crimean War...and goes into detail regarding the horrors of that war. Except it all happens off stage or in flashback. The novel is rather passive in that respect. All the action seems to happen off the page, and is discussed, often ad naseum, after the fact. At any rate -- the nurse in question, is lying about her relationship to the war hero. While she knew him and loved him, they never had sex, and she didn't birth his child. Instead she helped another woman, who'd given birth to his child. When that woman abandoned the child, the nurse adopted it. She brought it to his family -- because she felt that they should have some reminder of who he was. She lies, because she fell in love with the child and didn't want to lose the child. If she claims to be the child's mother, maybe they'll allow her to remain and care for it. When he pops up alive, but with no memory, she continues to lie, because she loves him and wants to keep the child.
According to my mother -- he never reclaims his memory, but he does discover that she's been lying to him. The story delves into what it is like to have no memory, how that affects you. To have that empty space. To be changed, but not remember how. To be critically injured, but not recall it. To have done acts of bravery and great kindness, but not remember any of them. To experience the horrors of war -- and only remember the horrors of the hospital wards afterwards.
It's an interesting method of telling a story -- everything seems to happen off the page, except the principal characters relationship. The focus is on their emotional connection and the characters relationships - as shown through dialogue and sex scenes. With the action sequences discussed after the fact.
Lots of navel gazing and time spent inside the character's heads...which is true of most, if not all, romance novels.
The plot doesn't quite work though. Although it works slightly better than the last one, and from what I've been told the one that comes directly after. Romance novelists aren't exactly known for their plotting skills. One does not read a romance novel for the plot. You read it for the emotional content and the character relationships. (ie. for how it makes you feel).
The next one, Waking up in Bed with the Duke, I think I'll skip. The plot annoys me. It's about
a paralyzed man who convinces his best friend and cousin to impregnant his wife, who blames said best friend for her previous miscarriage and her husband's paralysis. When in reality -- her husband was responsible and has been manipulating everyone. Not only that but her husband had been with his mistress that night, and has several children by his mistress. And the hero knows he has a mistress and several children by her. Ugh. Apparently the writer was interested in exploring men who have two families or mistresses...but handled it all wrong. I'd probably spend the entire book wanting to kill various characters. Not what one wants in a romance novel.
My difficulty with these books is I want to re-write them. Or fix them somehow. This happens to me a lot. Does it happen to anyone else?
3) What I'm reading next?
Well, I need to read Euphoria for book club.
And maybe another, hopefully better, romance novel. (shrugs)
1.) What I just finished reading?
The Pope's Daughter by Dario Fo for book club. Our book club discussion was rather amusing... the facilitator of the group showed us her copy of The Pope's Daughter, which she loved. It's filled with tabs. But has a completely different cover. Also, I noticed, it was a much thicker and bigger book.
"Did you get a different version?"
She looks at her book, then looks at everyone else's.
"Uh, wait...mine's by Caroline P. Murphy, I thought she was Dario Fo, just translated from the Italian..guess not."
Not only did she get a different version, she got a far more entertaining and better written version. It does, however, explain why she liked the book, when everyone else really didn't.
I don't recommend it. But if you are at all interested...my review is below, I felt the need to give it at least three stars...because, at he's trying to be interesting. So many books published today are retreads of other better-written books.
Difficult book to review, because it's a translation not in the original language of the author. And that makes a definite difference. There's just some things that defy translation.
I didn't enjoy this translation. While there is a wry comedic sense of humor throughout, which at times reminded me a great deal of Machiavelli's The Prince, overall it's a dull book. Odd, considering the subject matter -- in fact, now, I'm rather curious about the Showtime television series entitled "The Borgias", which I'm guessing is more fun and I sort of wish I'd read instead. The Borgias were basically the Kardashians of Renassiance Italy, except with a heck of a lot more power. Lucrezia, at one point, was head of the Catholic Church. This was when her father was off gathering up troops. Her brother, Cesar, was responsible for assassinating one husband, and attempted to kill the other one.
It's also odd, because Fo is a renowned comedian, playwright, and political commentator. This does read at times like a play or screenplay, where most if not all the action is furthered through dialogue. But the dialogue is rather stiff. And the description similar to screenplays and plays is scant at best, there to set the stage or provide background, little more. Since this is Fo's first attempt at a novel, that makes sense. The two mediums are quite different. But wouldn't the dialogue have a bit more oomph to it? Or be more comedic? It's so bland. Can't decide if this is a result of the translation? It may well be.
Fo's purpose appears to wipe clean the character of Lucrezia from historical mud of defamation and slander. Telling us a story of a rather saintly lady, who lived life fully, with love and kindness.
Albeit surrounded by nasty power mongering men intent on controlling and dominating her at every turn.
At one point in the story - he attempts to paint a lovely visual of the historical danse macbre or circus of personalities who attempted at various points to control the international stage. But I think this may have worked better as a theatrical piece or a film than in a novel, for Fo simply lacks the narrative voice to pull it off. Like I said, two things are working against him here - the format of a novel is quite different than a play, and it's a translation.
Overall, disappointing. Some day, I'd like to see a production of one of his plays, so I can get a better grasp of the man's talent. Because it just was not in evidence in his novel.
2) What I'm reading now?
Another romance novel. This one by Lorraine Heath, entitled...damn, I keep forgetting the title.
They sort of blur together after a while. Three things romance novelists are notoriously bad at: cover art, titles, and plotting. Hence the bad rap. Although there are a few that get the plotting right...and don't do too badly with titles. They are: Meredith Duran, Sherry Thomas, Courtney Milan, Elizabeth Hoyt, Madeline Hunter, and Georgette Heyer. Loretta Chase isn't bad either.
My mother will rec these things to me -- she'll go through one in a day. I recommend a book to her, by the end of the week she's read the entire series by the author. Making me feel like an incredibly sluggish reader by comparison. At any rate...she'd tell me the entire plot, the characters, etc...intrigue me, but alas can't remember the title. I'm lucky if she can give me the author's name.
So I hunt down the book. Get around to reading it...by the time I finish it and try to discuss it with her, she's forgotten the book entirely. This is what happens when you read a book in a day -- you tend to forget 98% of it. Although to be fair...much like the mystery genre, they blend together after a while. (We've both binge-read the mystery genre in the 1980s and 1990s. My mother and I are binge readers.)
Anyhow..the title, which I'm sure you've all been waiting for with baited breath... Pleasures of a Nortorious Gentleman -- horrid. Although not quite as bad as "Waking up in Bed with the Duke", which is apparently the next one in the series - that I've been warned to avoid like the plague.
You should see the covers...beautiful woman scantly clad in gorgeous dress, even more scantily clad male hovering over her seductively...it borders on soft-core porn. This is why I love kindles, you can avoid these silly covers.
The plot is rather interesting - it concerns an ex-army nurse who brings a baby boy to the family of a dead solider, claiming to be its mother. Only to discover that the solider is alive, but has no memory of his tour of duty. It takes place shortly after the Crimean War...and goes into detail regarding the horrors of that war. Except it all happens off stage or in flashback. The novel is rather passive in that respect. All the action seems to happen off the page, and is discussed, often ad naseum, after the fact. At any rate -- the nurse in question, is lying about her relationship to the war hero. While she knew him and loved him, they never had sex, and she didn't birth his child. Instead she helped another woman, who'd given birth to his child. When that woman abandoned the child, the nurse adopted it. She brought it to his family -- because she felt that they should have some reminder of who he was. She lies, because she fell in love with the child and didn't want to lose the child. If she claims to be the child's mother, maybe they'll allow her to remain and care for it. When he pops up alive, but with no memory, she continues to lie, because she loves him and wants to keep the child.
According to my mother -- he never reclaims his memory, but he does discover that she's been lying to him. The story delves into what it is like to have no memory, how that affects you. To have that empty space. To be changed, but not remember how. To be critically injured, but not recall it. To have done acts of bravery and great kindness, but not remember any of them. To experience the horrors of war -- and only remember the horrors of the hospital wards afterwards.
It's an interesting method of telling a story -- everything seems to happen off the page, except the principal characters relationship. The focus is on their emotional connection and the characters relationships - as shown through dialogue and sex scenes. With the action sequences discussed after the fact.
Lots of navel gazing and time spent inside the character's heads...which is true of most, if not all, romance novels.
The plot doesn't quite work though. Although it works slightly better than the last one, and from what I've been told the one that comes directly after. Romance novelists aren't exactly known for their plotting skills. One does not read a romance novel for the plot. You read it for the emotional content and the character relationships. (ie. for how it makes you feel).
The next one, Waking up in Bed with the Duke, I think I'll skip. The plot annoys me. It's about
a paralyzed man who convinces his best friend and cousin to impregnant his wife, who blames said best friend for her previous miscarriage and her husband's paralysis. When in reality -- her husband was responsible and has been manipulating everyone. Not only that but her husband had been with his mistress that night, and has several children by his mistress. And the hero knows he has a mistress and several children by her. Ugh. Apparently the writer was interested in exploring men who have two families or mistresses...but handled it all wrong. I'd probably spend the entire book wanting to kill various characters. Not what one wants in a romance novel.
My difficulty with these books is I want to re-write them. Or fix them somehow. This happens to me a lot. Does it happen to anyone else?
3) What I'm reading next?
Well, I need to read Euphoria for book club.
And maybe another, hopefully better, romance novel. (shrugs)