(no subject)
Jun. 16th, 2012 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell in between books again. Finished reading Dreaming of You (Gamblers #2) by Lisa Kleypas - which was okay. In some respects better written than the last two, her sex scenes make more sense. And in other's not as good, Ashley's dialogue is better.
Trying to read Jeffrey Eugendes The Marriage Plot - which is still dull as toast.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I'm just not a fan of Jeffrey Eugenides writing, he reminds me a little of Bret Easten Ellis and Donna Tartt, except without the bite. Of the three, the only one that seemed to have anything innovative to say was Donna Tartt and she's not exactly written all that much. If you like the tv series "Girls" - you'll probably like the Marriage Plot, if you find the tv series Girls grating, you won't. My problem with Girls - though, was oddly similar to my problem with Sex in the City once I moved to NYC - which is, I know these people, I've met them, was close friends with them, and eventually broke up with them. I really don't want to see them on my tv set each week.
The problem with realism is that it tends to be depressing and dull. Hardly an escape from stress or frustration. So what's the point? I sometimes think realism as a literary trope exists purely for the frustrated English Literary majors out there to endlessly analyze and contemplate their own navels with. On the other hand...there's something to be said about good writing. Eugenidis can write well. I found the argument between Madeline and her disgusting paramour, Leonard, regarding her ability to take a dump in front of him, rather entertaining. But why is it that male characters in books written by men are unattractive, and female characters are beautiful? Considering we are in Madeline's pov, I would think it would be the opposite. As a result, Madeline comes across as insanely vain or unbelievable. Eugenidis doesn't capture the female psyche well, possibly because he thinks there's more difference between the genders than there actually is?
Off to eat breakfast, watch Bunheads, and possibly True Blood.
Trying to read Jeffrey Eugendes The Marriage Plot - which is still dull as toast.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I'm just not a fan of Jeffrey Eugenides writing, he reminds me a little of Bret Easten Ellis and Donna Tartt, except without the bite. Of the three, the only one that seemed to have anything innovative to say was Donna Tartt and she's not exactly written all that much. If you like the tv series "Girls" - you'll probably like the Marriage Plot, if you find the tv series Girls grating, you won't. My problem with Girls - though, was oddly similar to my problem with Sex in the City once I moved to NYC - which is, I know these people, I've met them, was close friends with them, and eventually broke up with them. I really don't want to see them on my tv set each week.
The problem with realism is that it tends to be depressing and dull. Hardly an escape from stress or frustration. So what's the point? I sometimes think realism as a literary trope exists purely for the frustrated English Literary majors out there to endlessly analyze and contemplate their own navels with. On the other hand...there's something to be said about good writing. Eugenidis can write well. I found the argument between Madeline and her disgusting paramour, Leonard, regarding her ability to take a dump in front of him, rather entertaining. But why is it that male characters in books written by men are unattractive, and female characters are beautiful? Considering we are in Madeline's pov, I would think it would be the opposite. As a result, Madeline comes across as insanely vain or unbelievable. Eugenidis doesn't capture the female psyche well, possibly because he thinks there's more difference between the genders than there actually is?
Off to eat breakfast, watch Bunheads, and possibly True Blood.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-16 09:52 pm (UTC)Mostly I like the equals. Which are harder to find. And two very strong characters. Like Irene Adler/Sherlock (just watched the episode with Irene Adler), or River Song/Doc Who.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-16 10:28 pm (UTC)I prefer equals too, but I get the feeling that too many authors (both women and men) seem to feel that the female character should be subordinate. I have read too many 'fans' of Hunger Games that resented Katniss' independence and lack of devotion to her man (whichever man).
Actually in the Lord Peter Wimsey novels he ends up the hot equal of Harriet Vane even though it is his detective series! Did you ever read 'Gaudy Night'? There is a lot of dialogue about the relationship between men and women who are guided as much by their heads as by their hearts.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-16 11:07 pm (UTC)And there's the opposite response as well...a lot of female readers who are dominant and controlling in their lives and need the female to be subordinate in fantasy, because they want to know what that would be like - to not have to be in control. (I think that may be why my cousin loved the Twilight books - shrug).
I can't remember if I read Sayers or not. I honestly can't. LOL!