Rating: 
Summary: Over-rated - I'm sorry I spent the time and the money on it.
Review: This book was hardly the compelling story it was cracked up to be. In fact, one wonders whether it would have done so well without Oprah's endorsement of it. Because of her endorsement, I view with skepticism any other books she has endorsed, and her endorsement is never a reason I would read a book.
Rating:
Summary: Better than any other emetic I've ever tried
Review: This is a waste of paper, of time, of the use of your musclesto turn the pages! It is the worst kind of tripe. I kept on reading, thinking,"Surely there is some redeeming moment here, some value, some reason that people whose literary opinion I trust enjoyed this book!" I never found that redeeming moment, and when I was finally done I did something I've never done: I gave away a hardback book to the library book sale. Not only that, but I put a post-it note in it warning that it was drivel. This is male fantasy. It is no coincidence that the hero (for lack of a better word) has the same name as the author. He (either/both) is free, strong, brave, heroic, creative, sexual. She is "just-a-housewife", bound to her home, her farm, her tedious husband and uninteresting kids. He sweeps her off her feet, bears her away on a tide of irresistible passion -- and when it is over, they go their separate ways, and he is still free, strong, brave, etc, and she is still bound to her home, etc. He got his, but did she get hers? The author doesn't really care, because he's free, strong, brave. . . My only consolation is that I didn't pay full price for this fewmet, but I will never regain the time and energy I wasted reading it. Life is too short to read crap.
Rating:
Summary: Better than any other emetic I've ever tried
Review: This is a waste of paper, of time, of the use of your muscles to turn the pages! It is the worst kind of tripe. I kept on reading, thinking,"Surely there is some redeeming moment here, some value, some reason that people whose literary opinion I trust enjoyed this book!" I never found that redeeming moment, and when I was finally done I did something I've never done: I gave away a hardback book to the library book sale. Not only that, but I put a post-it note in it warning that it was drivel. This is male fantasy. It is no coincidence that the hero (for lack of a better word) has the same name as the author. He (either/both) is free, strong, brave, heroic, creative, sexual. She is "just-a-housewife", bound to her home, her farm, her tedious husband and uninteresting kids. He sweeps her off her feet, bears her away on a tide of irresistible passion -- and when it is over, they go their separate ways, and he is still free, strong, brave, etc, and she is still bound to her home, etc. He got his, but did she get hers? The author doesn't really care, because he's free, strong, brave. . . My only consolation is that I didn't pay full price for this fewmet, but I will never regain the time and energy I wasted reading it. Life is too short to read crap.
Rating: 
Summary: An amazing novel that draws you in, if you let it
Review: I read this book in two days, the second day staying up until 4:00 a.m. It was so engrossing, and I particulary liked the way the author described the whole story. Every aspect of each character is layed open, and you can easily identify with both characters. The parts of the book that really hit me were the subtle touches, like when Francesca accepts Kincaid's cigarette without hesitation (although with some amount of shock!). How many times have we done something so out of character, so spontaneous, just because another person was there? The story is short, but it tells you all you need to know in such great detail you don't even need to see the movie (though it is also quite good). Basically, this novel allows you to believe in something greater than yourself, that love is the most powerful force in the world and that just touching it once, for a brief moment in your life, can be the difference between living and existing. Oh yeah, I wasn't crying, something was in my eye.
Rating:
Summary: Misery
Review: This book is so bad, so horrible, so nauseating and phoney that it's amazing. Sure, I could go on about how it lacks originality, lacks descriptive power, how the thoughts are all trite and childish, and even how a nice story can be ruined for all time. But I won't. Instead, let's play a game where we all pick out the absolutely worst sentence. Mine: "And out of the pickup came Rober Kincaid, looking like some vision from a never-written book called An Illustrated History of Shamans." Is there a more nonsensical way to describe the first appearance of someone to someone else in a novel? I've never seen it.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointment after the movie
Review: I quite enjoyed the movie - so the book can't be all bad! Nevertheless I found it to have a distinct phoney quality - starting with the author's photograph! The story is fine, but the way it was written makes me feel as if it was written by an advertising agency.
Rating: 
Summary: Waller is laughing at all the SAPS!!!!
Review: I read this book and hated it like the majority of people above. I wanted to slap all the people who loved the book and tell them "shame on you for liking such drivel and how dare you recommend it to me?" I couldn't understand how intelligent friends of mine could have even considered this even half as good as they professed. It was baffling as most of you thinking minds who have read this book thought. So I looked deeper into the book and I think I discovered something that is the key to the whole book. The story professes to be a true story. Suckers want to believe it to be true and thus the popularity. It is a little different to Harlequin romances in that they are obviously fiction. But this one tries to be documenting real people. However, there is a part in the end where the Jazz musician talks about Kincaid and he mentions a moment in the story that it would have been impossible for him to have known about, unfortunately, I don't remember the detail since I read the book years ago and then threw it out of the train window in disgust. Anyways, this incongruity was sooo obvious that I think Waller put it there at the end on purpose as if he was saying THIS IS ALL CRAP and if you believe it you are an idiot! HAHA! So, if this is true I think Waller deserves a little respect for the way he has parodied the myth of sapping romance and our desire for wanting them to be true. That's why I gave it a three.
Rating:
Summary: Ego stroking and maudlin
Review: When this book showed up on everyone's must read list I stepped out of character and read it. In the opening section of the book Waller compares himself to the hero, who he has been following/researching in order to complete the tale. He believes that he and the hero are now practically the same person. He then portrays a person with no faults, complete self-reliance, who is strong and sensitive. He lovingly strokes this character all throughout the book. There wasn't much more to it besides some very sad people who made some difficult decisions and didn't want to live with them anymore. Poor babies. I couldn't get over the fact that he was essentially writing this story about what an amazing person he himself is. By the time I was through with it, about a half an hour later, I resigned myself to never read a book off the best seller list again. Waller is not a literary author, he is a trashy romance novelist.
Rating:
Summary: This is quite possibly the worst book I have ever read
Review: ...and I have read some pretty bad ones in my lifetime! The only way I was able to get through is was on a Thanksgiving day drive to my cousin's. Everyone in the car took turns reading it aloud. It's a maudlin, unrealistic, hideous piece of garbage. The melodramatic readings made it merely palatable. I fear for the fans of this book.
Rating:
Summary: don't let him write a sequel
Review: Why is this book in the "Literature and Fiction" section? It should be considered a Romance - and a very poorly written one at that. The plot is mawkish but vaguely plausible. With compelling characters, it might have been interesting. However, the characters are unbelievably flat - they never do anything unexpected, they have no faults, and as a result, the reader has no interest in what happens to them. Waller's florid text does not improve matters. I have not read such a poorly-written book in years. The "2" rating is generous. If you're looking for something romantic, don't read this book - it will turn you into a cynic. Read "A Room with a View" instead.
|
