Comments on:

By: admin

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:36:36 +0000

Yeah, I guess. Though a good long novel is infinitely more absorbing than three shorter ones, in the same way one big gun is more deadly than three smaller ones. It just has the opportunity for a greater narrative payload, more plot, more characterisation, more ideas, more everything.

As a rule, I'm more likely to be turned off by the idea of reading a shorter than average book than a longer than average one.

But when they go wrong, they go really wrong. I guess it's a high risk - high return strategy.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:31:55 +0000

D'you know, I think I've only ever read The Jungle Book and the Just So Stories.

I remember being disappointed in The Jungle Book after having seen the Disney movie. I got to the end with Mowgli dancing savagely on the skin of Shere Khan, and it was all a bit WTF. And it contained considerably fewer jolly swing numbers.

By: davegullen

davegullen — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:23:51 +0000

I'm in the same sort of space with Kipling's 'Kim' - always meant to read it, always WANTED to read it, but never did. However, I started this weekend, and so far so good. The boy can write.

By: garycouzens

garycouzens — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:25:31 +0000

I've not read this either. Me, with a degree in English. I haven't read several by Dickens and Eliot that I "should" have read. And since I've enjoyed what I have read of those authors, maybe you should remove the quotes from that "should". But slow reader + very long novel = three or four weeks when I could read two or three other novels I haven't read. I'm weak that way.