Rating: 
Summary: Mildly Entertaining Pulp Fiction
Review: On the level of, say, the works of Stephen King or John Grisham, "The Beach" is fairly interesting and even, for a debut, quite well-written and entertaining. I'd rate this, for instance, slightly above "Carrie." But any of you Xers who are laboring under the silly delusion that this novel comes anywhere CLOSE to literature...shame on you. Garland shows the promise of some technical ability here (not unlike King, Grisham et. al.), but this novel--whose very soul and structure are lifted straight from the pages of past classics and mixed, inexplicably, with a flood of pop-culture references--is utterly bereft of emotional and intellectual originality. Garland apparently spent the bulk of his formative years (like so many of his generation) glued to the Mortal Kombat screen. Well, garbage in, garbage out, I suppose. Garland at least should have had the decency to pay homage to "Lord of the Flies" at some point in the story, rather than pretend this was an original concept. (Meanwhile, of course, he quotes Conrad in the preface, knowing that it will only invite comparisons. How pretentious can you get?) The strengths of the book are plot development and description; in all fairness, they actually rival those of a more mature novelist. The weaknesses? Well...where to begin? First, the dream sequences with Mr. Duck are so poorly done, so stilted and ridiculous, that they utterly spoiled the story. For a lesson in hallucinatory imagery, try Johnson's "Jesus' Son." (THAT, my young friends, is literature.) Also, the characters are all cardboard cutouts. And the prose is virtually non-existent. It reads like the back of a picture postcard. Bottom line: He may just give Grisham a run for his money. But all you little Gen-X brats who utter Garland's name in the same quivering breath as Conrad or Greene...put your damn Game Boys down and actually READ a Greene novel for once. I'd like to slap the lot of you and send you back to Lit 101 class! This time, for God's sake, PAY ATTENTION!
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining story about lost Paradise fails to convince
Review: Garland's story is truly an entertining one, and I read the book virtually without putting it down once. The story of the quest for Paradise and the all too common threats against utopian life proves an interesting read indeed. That said, I have some doubts as to the literary qualities of the novel. "The Beach" is Garland's debut, and I think it shows. The characthers are way too shallow, and it's a mystery how he can fail to utilise the sexual tension between Richard, Etienne and Francoise to it's full potential. I find the "madness" part with Richard's invisible pal Mr Duck less than convincing, and the Vietnam war reference tedious. There are a number of other details that flaw an otherwise excellent story. Like the weed issue. If the hippies have cultivated such a magnificient garden, why don't they grow their own dope? Rather than stealing it from the armed drug gangsters, bringing down disaster on themselves. There doesn't seem like there are equal couples on the Beach, yet Garland wants us to believe the small isolated community have been able to survive year in, year out without any noteable sexual tension. And come on, if you want us to believe three completely healthy guys like the Swedes living isolated from the rest of the community at least make them gay so we have some possibility believing it.
Rating: 
Summary: Ramblings of a lazy author who smoked too much weed
Review: A friend of mine recommended this book saying that it was the best book he has ever read. I was severly disappointed, not only by the book, but by my friend's obviously horrendous taste in literature. I think that Garland starts out nicely, but the remaining 90 percent of the book bored me to no end. I just wanted to finish it in the rare event that something actually happened. I felt the potential, honestly I did. But, nothing happened, the characters were 2-dimensional, and I hated their names (but that's just personal taste). Also, they seemed to all reside in a world of their own removed from any context or history. Some say that's the point. I say it's a cop-out. Why would anyone want to read about characters adrift in life, from a presumably diverse set of backgrounds, without knowing what or who they are, what motivates their actions, etc.? I'm not a very forgiving reader, so I'll give this one star for the first 50 pages that actually held my interest.
Rating: 
Summary: NEGATIVE REACTIONS?!?!?!
Review: nonono!! This book is beautiful! I suppose it depends on what you like, but i feel that i could truly reccomend this book to anyone and everyone. I've never been so fully engaged in a novel. It's a wicked good page turner, with wonderful writing and a thrilling plotline! just read it with an open mind and see!
Rating:
Summary: One of the best books I have ever read
Review: I'm not one to go with the media hype, but I was hearing so much about this book that I decided to give it a try. Boy, am I glad I did! Very rarely does anything hold my interest with such an iron grip that I find it hard to put it down. I read this in the span of three days (brfore work, on breaks, while eating dinner, before bed)and it facinated me so much that I was constantly thinking about it. I laughed out loud, I got excited and scared. Alex Garland wrote a modern classic, better than almost anything else. His writing style is fluid and strong, with well defined characters, scenery and situations. I was sad when it was over. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: LAUGHABLY BAD
Review: This is the worst book I've read in a long time. What makes it so awful is the kind of bad writing John Gardner refers to in the Art of Fiction, wherein the author undermines any empathy the reader might have with a character or situation by making gross comparisons or connections. Gardner's example is a writer describing his red-faced, weeping father as looking like a baby trying to squeeze out a dump. Though I don't have an example from Garland -- I couldn't get rid of the book fast enough -- believe me, it's full of them. The whole book, in fact, is nothing but a series of ridiculously inappropriate and wholly incredible reactions -- e.g., the narrator risks his life to get away from dope farmers, then returns to taunt them. I might be able to stomach this book better if there were a little irony in it. But it's just dumb, dumb, dumb.
Rating:
Summary: Relating to this book is easy
Review: After reading this book I lent it to a friend and now it has been passed on countless times, each person taking from it a their own views. I found Garlands writing to be captavating and page turning. Being from "Generation X" I can relate to Richard and the trials that he goes through. The self-discovery and awakings he has of himself and of thoes surrounding him in his Eden. I found it amazing how Garland was able to show Richarding slowly going crazy in first person. The fact that as a reader you gradulaly came to realize that he was becoming a different person. I think this is a must read for any adventiours person.
Rating:
Summary: 3 stars because, simply - I just didn't like it much
Review: There is so much great stuff in this book - a wonderful writing style, great characters, nicely described settings, and a distinctive voice of the younger generation. With all these elements, this should be a five star, hands down. But...well, I think the story just wasn't for me. As another reader said, I was ethusiastic for the first 60 pages, then found myself first dissapointed, then bored, with where the plot went. (Even the ending failed to creep me much.) I have a feeling the next guy over, however, would be enthralled - and that this rating is just personal taste. Read the book (I recommend it just for its writing alone) and judge for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, please.
Review: What saves this book from a one-star rating is that Mr. Garland writes reasonably well--but then again, it seems like everybody does these days. My personal guess is that this was first written in screenplay format, because it definitely reads like some Gen X'er's "woe-is-me-life-sucks, but-I-want-to-be-the-next Kevin Williamson anyway" type of screenplay. Unfortunately there's a ton of those out floating around Hollywood (and London too, I'm sure), so he quotes Conrad and starts getting called the next Graham Greene. Please. "The Beach" is a decent enough thriller, but comparisons to Greene are ludicrous. Apart from extremely banal young-adult angst, the characters are largely without motivation. None seems to have a history, and all are quite poorly drawn. (Are we just supposed to assume that life sure is bleak if you live in a house with air conditioning and have too much disposable income?) In the hands of a writer more capable of creating character--with histories, feelings, and goals--this might have, in fact, been a brilliant story. As it is, it's marginally better than Tom Clancy.
Rating: 
Summary: "To Each His Own"
Review: I've read the criticisms and I can understand why people have had negative reactions to the book. However, I cannot stop thinking about "The Beach." I was fascinated the whole read and was totally surprised by the ending. I didn't think the beach was paradise by any means but the story really held my attention. I guess it just depends on what you like to read.
|
