?

Log in

Books - Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
harryh

[ website | harryh enterprises ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Books [Dec. 1st, 2008|02:40 pm]
harryh
[Tags|, , ]

I read Bringing Down The House this weekend. It was awful and full of lies. I'm not sure why I wasted my time. Probably because reading it required no brainpower. I'm also a hundred pages into 2666 which is a lot better, but requires more concentration. I wish I had an English Professor on call that I could get to explain certain things to me like, why does Bolaño occasionally have sentences go on for pages wandering from topic to topic without a period to be seen. Clearly this was a conscious choice, but I don't understand what point he's making.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: candid
2008-12-01 07:55 pm (UTC)
I can see how the chemistry between Steve Martin and Queen Latifah wouldn't translate well to book form.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: herbaliser
2008-12-02 12:58 am (UTC)
I was about to say that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queen_elvis
2008-12-01 08:12 pm (UTC)
Ugh. I just assume sentences like that are a result of not enough editing. I wouldn't ascribe any artistic intent to it other than maybe pretension. Though I am more inclined to be forgiving now that I see it's a translation.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: joshc
2008-12-01 09:08 pm (UTC)
that, and Bolaño died five years ago.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queen_elvis
2008-12-02 01:47 am (UTC)
? Assuming he wrote them himself, what does it matter if he died afterward?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: joshc
2008-12-02 01:54 am (UTC)
Your original comment was about there not being enough editing. If he had been alive for the translation and final edits, maybe there could have been some give and take with the revisions? I haven't read it; so this is all idle speculation anyway.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: monkey1976
2008-12-02 06:02 pm (UTC)
i read it as well. what parts were untrue? (not defending it, i'm totally neutral. didn't hate it. didn't love it. more curious than anything).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: harryh
2008-12-02 06:05 pm (UTC)
There's some stuff on the wikipedia page: the thing with the strippers cashing in their chips, the bit about the guy getting beat up in the Caribbean, some other things.

Also, a lot of the blackjack numbers don't really add up. The author clearly exaggerates their winnings.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: powkang
2008-12-03 04:16 pm (UTC)
i liked the movie, though. because i think jim sturgess is adorable. and that's pretty much the only reason. oh, and maybe the use of mgmt during the opening credits?
(Reply) (Thread)