Awhile ago, the lovely Helena sent me an email advising me that she thought I’d enjoy The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis. In a small world story, I got my copy from the fabulous Janelle through Paperback Swap.
It arrived and I just finished reading it. What was funny is that it has splashed on the cover “Hugo* and Nebula** Award Winning” – I grew up with a Sci-Fi reading mom, and Dh is certainly no stranger to the genre, so I know what those awards are, but I can probably count on one hand the number of Hugo and/or Nebula Award winners I’ve personally read.
Anyway, the book was very good – it was a time travel book between a time in the not to far future where people can be sent back in time (but the technology is pretty new) and the 14th Century. The 14th century part is what I think Helena specifically thought I’d relate to, and she was right. It was very well researched and the storyline was interesting.
However, it unfolded slowly. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it made me contemplate how some books read quickly and some don’t. Admittedly, I did have family visiting and not a lot of time to read, but it took me something like 10 days to read this 500 page book (which is definitely not the norm for me). What makes a book read quickly or slowly? Is it writing style? Font? Subject matter? Each idea I toss out there has something that makes me say, “no, that’s not quite it” – for example – War and Peace reads much quicker than the Brothers Karamazov. What do you think?
Anyway, thank you so much Helena for thinking of me, and Janelle for sending it to me. I enjoyed reading it – and now I can say “oh, yeah, I read Hugo Award winners”
*although, looking at that list – I’ve read the 2005, 2001, 1970, 1962, and 1954winners as well
**and Nebula – the 2007, 1969 and 1966.
(photo credit)
posted by Mimi @ 6/23/2009 03:39:00 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
I'm glad you liked it. I actually read that book in one all-night session, so go figure! :-p
I don't know what makes some books move slowly and other quickly. I'm starting to think that reading is as much about what I the reader bring to the book as what the writer has created. So much of the experience depends on me and my moods and what else is going on in my life and how distracted I am and my patience level and...etc etc.
However, I am always talking to my DH about those writers who grab your arm and guide you through a story masterfully, and all you have to do it give yourself up to them and let them take control. Seems like the pages whiz by when that happens, but it happens so rarely!
A can't put down book happens rarely for me too - increasingly so. But when it does happen, I think it is because I can relate deeply to the relationship dynamics. I related very much to Natasha in her very romantic story-line when I read War and Peace. Brothers Karamazov isn't as romantic, but the scene where Dmitri goes to the other town to spend all his money and meets Grushenka really drew me in. Nowadays it's bits and pieces that carry me away and I have to struggle through the rest, not that the rest isn't worth reading.
nice; I am really enjoying the Brothers Karamazov; we are reading it in installments for a summer book club and I am enjoying reading it one book or two per week.
BTW, what was the Canadian version of book swap again? I forget...
I can't say I have read War and Peace -- yet -- can't seem to get past the battle scenes, but I can say that overall, I find that Tolstoy reads much more easily than Dostoyevsky. Which is a bit of a shame, because Dostoyevsky is so much more Orthodox.
Hello, I wandered my way here from a link Emily's blog.
The Doomsday Book is one of my favorite books. I also love To Say Nothing of the Dog. It's also by Willis, and set in the same time-traveling future England, but most of the time-traveling is to Victorian England. It's so funny! It has a totally different tone.
I agree with Janelle that for me a lot of the what makes a book move slowly or quickly has to do with my own mood.
I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to abandon this blog post.
Janelle - I very much agree that we bring something to the book - where we are. I think Jasper Fforde speaks well to that in his Thursday Next books (which I love).
That's funny that you felt that way about "Doomsday" because I certainly didn't dislike it in anyway, just it didn't reel me in.
AE - Yes, I think that the way we relate in the stories is good too.
I love the vignettes in "Brothers Karamazov" but the overarching storyline leaves me a bit cold.
Elizabeth - bookmooch dot com
Sarah - welcome! I shall look into that book too.
Mrs. Mutton - my favorite Dostoevsky (and one I consider having been instrumental in my Orthodox journey) is the very easy read of "Crime and Punishment".
I've not read "The Idiot" though, and I hear very good things.
Oh, cool! I'm glad you got to read it!
I'm slogging through Middlemarch right now and finding it incredibly soporific. Perhaps I shall keep a copy by my bed for those nights when I have trouble getting to sleep.
Are you having more trouble on Facebook?
The word verification says "frimper."
How about the simplistic answer. I think a book reads quickly if it's a good story. If i really want to know what will happen next I will read faster. Or... sometimes a book will seem like a quick read if it's so well written that I want to keep reading for more examples of luscious ways of putting words together. Maybe? These are my guesses.
Helena - Thank you again for the suggestion.
I have "Middlemarch" in my to read pile, I'm sad to hear it is a slog.
Rosemary - that's a very good point.
I am kind of struggling through "Frederica" by Georgette Heyer (who comes highly recommended) right now, and trying to decide if I'm going to bag it or continue on.
Congrats on reading several Hugo/Nebula award winners! That's one of my goals this summer before my sci-fi class starts up again in September. :-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home