A Separate Peace by John Knowles
I found this at one of the Little Free Libraries around the neighborhood. It was the same edition I had read in high school, same cover and everything, and in great condition, so I thought I'd revisit it.
Before I delve into researching other online analyses I'd like to share my own opinion.
Like Catcher in the Rye, I can not understand why this book is considered such a classic, and assigned reading at most schools at some point in the curriculum. I did have to read it in high school and now 40 some years later frankly only remember about two things from it.
1. The tree, the tree, the tree.
2. The description of a classmate's buttocks.
I know the book is well-written, and even in middle school I was an avid reader so it wasn't as if it's the first time I was forced to read something. Recalling first impression, first sentence:
"I went back to the Devon school not long ago,"
Me: Oh crap, it's an "I" book. I hate "I" books.
Then long descriptions of the setting, which has never really bothered me as in ("It takes three pages to describe a cloudy day!") but it was very factual and never really drew me in to any scene.
Getting into it I also recalled thinking - "This is the grayest book I've ever read." The milieu always seemed to be unpleasantly gray, even in the summer scenes. The characters, especially Phineas (full disclosure, the first time, it took me a couple pages to realize that "Finny" and "Phineas" were the same person) were a bunch of informed attributes. That is, we were told about their personalities but not really shown much by dialogue, or in an engaging way. I have known guys that were compelling in their charisma, I saw none of that here except what I was told.
I know the tree is an important factor in itself, and it's supposed to be all symbolic and ****. I just got really tired of going back to it. I know we must have had discussion in class about all these things but I don't recall a single thing anyone, even the teacher, said about it. I do remember reading and discussing a lot about Catch-22 which we covered in the same year, I think. That was brilliant and unforgettable.
I've been moved by many books, but the climax to this one just left me cold, as if reading a newspaper article.
I'll be checking the net to see other reviews, perhaps to see what I am missing. No, I'm not ever going to read it again.
I'm curious to hear my fellow Forumites' thoughts.
I found this at one of the Little Free Libraries around the neighborhood. It was the same edition I had read in high school, same cover and everything, and in great condition, so I thought I'd revisit it.
Before I delve into researching other online analyses I'd like to share my own opinion.
Like Catcher in the Rye, I can not understand why this book is considered such a classic, and assigned reading at most schools at some point in the curriculum. I did have to read it in high school and now 40 some years later frankly only remember about two things from it.
1. The tree, the tree, the tree.
2. The description of a classmate's buttocks.
I know the book is well-written, and even in middle school I was an avid reader so it wasn't as if it's the first time I was forced to read something. Recalling first impression, first sentence:
"I went back to the Devon school not long ago,"
Me: Oh crap, it's an "I" book. I hate "I" books.
Then long descriptions of the setting, which has never really bothered me as in ("It takes three pages to describe a cloudy day!") but it was very factual and never really drew me in to any scene.
Getting into it I also recalled thinking - "This is the grayest book I've ever read." The milieu always seemed to be unpleasantly gray, even in the summer scenes. The characters, especially Phineas (full disclosure, the first time, it took me a couple pages to realize that "Finny" and "Phineas" were the same person) were a bunch of informed attributes. That is, we were told about their personalities but not really shown much by dialogue, or in an engaging way. I have known guys that were compelling in their charisma, I saw none of that here except what I was told.
I know the tree is an important factor in itself, and it's supposed to be all symbolic and ****. I just got really tired of going back to it. I know we must have had discussion in class about all these things but I don't recall a single thing anyone, even the teacher, said about it. I do remember reading and discussing a lot about Catch-22 which we covered in the same year, I think. That was brilliant and unforgettable.
I've been moved by many books, but the climax to this one just left me cold, as if reading a newspaper article.
I'll be checking the net to see other reviews, perhaps to see what I am missing. No, I'm not ever going to read it again.
I'm curious to hear my fellow Forumites' thoughts.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2LdT1nN
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire