OT Good summer books

I meant The Fountainhead -- granted, the plot summaries say "patterned
after FLW." Similar to the way that Citizen Kane is "patterned
after" William Randolph Hearst.

Nann


On May 27, 11:41*am, Jack Campin - bogus address
wrote:
I included The Women in my seasonal book review this year. *I preface
it by saying that FLW is the only architect I know of who has been the
subject of three novels. *The Women is the third; then Loving Frank,
and then....people are puzzled.

Do you know what the first one is? *(I'll let people guess!)

Wikipedia lists *two* others (1943 and 1990-1998). *Neither of which
I could imagine myself wanting to read even given all eternity to waste.

==== j a c k *at *c a m p i n . m e . u k *=== *http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: *Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******

"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in message
...

There may be some good things in it, but I have NO patience for books
(or in this case tetralogies) of such self-indulgent length.

Uh, gee, I've not chosen books based on how many words they contain since
3rd grade.

I've read really bad "short" books and really great "long" books. And vice
versa.

I don't think Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky used word processors and their books
had LOTS of words in them.

Cindy... still mind boggled

They had The Women at the library this morning! I'm so excited!

Cindy


"Nann" wrote in message
...
I meant The Fountainhead -- granted, the plot summaries say "patterned
after FLW." Similar to the way that Citizen Kane is "patterned
after" William Randolph Hearst.

Nann


On May 27, 11:41 am, Jack Campin - bogus address
wrote:
I included The Women in my seasonal book review this year. I preface
it by saying that FLW is the only architect I know of who has been the
subject of three novels. The Women is the third; then Loving Frank,
and then....people are puzzled.

Do you know what the first one is? (I'll let people guess!)

Wikipedia lists *two* others (1943 and 1990-1998). Neither of which
I could imagine myself wanting to read even given all eternity to waste.

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739
557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic
fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted
******

"John" wrote in message
...
It is just that this time the Americas are wearing Tuxedoes and driving
fancy cars.

John


*******

Um, that would be Bond. James Bond.

LOL
Cindy

On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:01:08 -0500, "teleflora"
wrote:


"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in message
...

There may be some good things in it, but I have NO patience for books
(or in this case tetralogies) of such self-indulgent length.

Uh, gee, I've not chosen books based on how many words they contain since
3rd grade.

I've read really bad "short" books and really great "long" books. And vice
versa.

I don't think Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky used word processors and their books
had LOTS of words in them.

I have to confess I only read all the long political speeches in
"Atlas Shrugged" the first time through.
I think such speeches are like sex scenes in books. Read them the
first time and that is good enough, you can skip them when you read it
again, and it sometimes improves the book.

What I don't get is why some authors devote time and care to
painstakingly describing something at length, and then never
mentioning it again for the rest of the book. In the case of Proust
(30 pages on getting out of bed?!!), or Dostoyevsky (the washerwoman
in "Crime and Punishemnt", lovingly detailed never seen again after
her description) for example, I have to wonder if it is something
about translation. Was there some great symbology or allusion later
in the book that was just poorly translated?
On the other hand there is just no excuse for the likes of William
Faulkner. His books aren't even all that long, yet it seems that he
just goes on and on and on. Also there is just no excuse for a six
page long run on sentance. Even I, with my very poor writing skills
would not do a thing like that!

I do like long stories. I always feel gypped by an author who does not
write a decent length book. Short stories are fine for magazines or
textbooks, but I don't really much care for them. Probably why I have
been fond of story cycles since I first read the Oz books in elemenary
school. Nowdays I am a total sucker for a well bound omnibus edition.
I have all of Oz in a two volume leatherbound set (G)
I have several omnibus editions that convince me that publishers are
often just evil. They read like one book, but were published as
several. I think The Chronicles of Amber is the worst for that, it was
originally published in what was it? Nine Volumes?

At present I am reading fluff. I got a new JD Robb book so I am
rereading what I have, in order, again. JD Robb=Nora Roberts writing
SF crime novels, the "*whatever* in Death" books.

NightMist

--

Legolas is my house elf

"NightMist" wrote in message
...
What I don't get is why some authors devote time and care to
painstakingly describing something at length, and then never
mentioning it again for the rest of the book. In the case of Proust
(30 pages on getting out of bed?!!), or Dostoyevsky (the washerwoman
in "Crime and Punishemnt", lovingly detailed never seen again after
her description) for example, I have to wonder if it is something
about translation. Was there some great symbology or allusion later
in the book that was just poorly translated?

Like speechmakers, some authors just love to hear the sound of their own
voices.

I was never a huge Steinbeck fan. Too many words when fewer would work.

I do like long stories. I always feel gypped by an author who does not
write a decent length book. Short stories are fine for magazines or
textbooks, but I don't really much care for them. Probably why I have
been fond of story cycles since I first read the Oz books in elemenary
school. Nowdays I am a total sucker for a well bound omnibus edition.
I have all of Oz in a two volume leatherbound set (G)
I have several omnibus editions that convince me that publishers are
often just evil. They read like one book, but were published as
several. I think The Chronicles of Amber is the worst for that, it was
originally published in what was it? Nine Volumes?

The story is the thing for me. I like long stories and I like a well written
short story. I like anthologies, especially of Horror and SF.


At present I am reading fluff. I got a new JD Robb book so I am
rereading what I have, in order, again. JD Robb=Nora Roberts writing
SF crime novels, the "*whatever* in Death" books.

Never heard of that series. Sounds like perfect summertime reading. Not a
huge Nora Roberts fan, but that's the kind of book you need for sittin on
the dock waitin for something to hit your line.

Cindy

Nightmist - I feel exactly the same way about James Michener's books! I
tried to read a couple of his books & by the time he was done describing the
blue of the ocean or the green of the leaf on the tree, I was absolutely
bored. But then, I always say I have a pretty short attention span anyway

I just picked up a JD Robb mystery - haven't started it yet, but I've read
several of Nora Roberts' books - the ones that aren't too romancey!!

Pauline
Northern California

"NightMist" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:01:08 -0500, "teleflora"
wrote:


"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in message
...

There may be some good things in it, but I have NO patience for books
(or in this case tetralogies) of such self-indulgent length.

Uh, gee, I've not chosen books based on how many words they contain since
3rd grade.

I've read really bad "short" books and really great "long" books. And vice
versa.

I don't think Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky used word processors and their books
had LOTS of words in them.

I have to confess I only read all the long political speeches in
"Atlas Shrugged" the first time through.
I think such speeches are like sex scenes in books. Read them the
first time and that is good enough, you can skip them when you read it
again, and it sometimes improves the book.

What I don't get is why some authors devote time and care to
painstakingly describing something at length, and then never
mentioning it again for the rest of the book. In the case of Proust
(30 pages on getting out of bed?!!), or Dostoyevsky (the washerwoman
in "Crime and Punishemnt", lovingly detailed never seen again after
her description) for example, I have to wonder if it is something
about translation. Was there some great symbology or allusion later
in the book that was just poorly translated?
On the other hand there is just no excuse for the likes of William
Faulkner. His books aren't even all that long, yet it seems that he
just goes on and on and on. Also there is just no excuse for a six
page long run on sentance. Even I, with my very poor writing skills
would not do a thing like that!

I do like long stories. I always feel gypped by an author who does not
write a decent length book. Short stories are fine for magazines or
textbooks, but I don't really much care for them. Probably why I have
been fond of story cycles since I first read the Oz books in elemenary
school. Nowdays I am a total sucker for a well bound omnibus edition.
I have all of Oz in a two volume leatherbound set (G)
I have several omnibus editions that convince me that publishers are
often just evil. They read like one book, but were published as
several. I think The Chronicles of Amber is the worst for that, it was
originally published in what was it? Nine Volumes?

At present I am reading fluff. I got a new JD Robb book so I am
rereading what I have, in order, again. JD Robb=Nora Roberts writing
SF crime novels, the "*whatever* in Death" books.

NightMist

--

Legolas is my house elf

"Pauline" wrote in message
...

I just picked up a JD Robb mystery - haven't started it yet, but I've read
several of Nora Roberts' books - the ones that aren't too romancey!!


Yeah, Pauline! I feel exactly the same way! I don't have anything against
romance novels, but I grew up with a mom who read Harlequin Romances by the
truck load. I could never get her to read anything but romance novels.

She was in good company, but I always thought they were "popcorn" books.
Plus, once I figured out that life was seldom "happy ever after", I kind of
lost my taste for them.

But in my mom's world, it really was happy ever after and she lived that
philosophy every day of her life.

So, when she could no longer get out to get them, I got them for her. I
even put two brand new ones in her coffin.

Gosh, I miss her, even if we didn't share the same taste in books.

Cindy

So happy you both came home at the same time.
Barbara in SC

On May 27, 5:03*pm, "teleflora" wrote:
"John" wrote in message

...
*It is just that this time the Americas are wearing Tuxedoes and driving
fancy cars.

John

*******

Um, that would be Bond. James Bond.

LOL
Cindy

It is sort of like that. But the people involved were real Artists and
Writers and the Americans were well meaning amateurs, who happened to
be wealthy and have government connections. Kind of like the original
participants in the war time OSS, the precursor to the CIA. Harvard
and Yale types, who were selected for their language skills and
overseas experience. Even Julia Child was chosen to join the OSS and
that conjures up some seemingly funny images. Bon Appetite!

John