What is your favorite book ever?
- Thread starter Jace
- Start date
My favourite book is whatever book I happen to be reading at the moment. 
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
My favourite book is whatever book I happen to be reading at the moment.
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
My favourite book is whatever book I happen to be reading at the moment.
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
"Unruly" by David Mitchell is good. It does require a fair knowledge of England's Plantagenet kings and queens, though, but if you don't have that, no worries. David goes through it anyway.
My only complaint is that David stops after Elizabeth I's death, which I thought was a bit odd.
Not surprising, as post-mortems were considered the worst punishment, as it was believed to prevent you from going to heaven.
Likes:
RathDarkblade
Mine is “The Hitch Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy”.
I mean, yes, it’s not actually written well, but it’s the one book I return to time-and-time again and the humour influenced me for the rest of my life. ☺️
I mean, yes, it’s not actually written well, but it’s the one book I return to time-and-time again and the humour influenced me for the rest of my life. ☺️
Likes:
RathDarkblade
I know lots of THGTTG that would disagree on it not being well-written. But I don't disagree. Here's why:
- There is very little structure, other than "put Arthur in danger, pull him out, put him in another danger" etc. until Zaphod finds the actual secret of Magrathea.
- We don't see the antagonists until the end, and they get very little "page-time" (the literary equivalent of screen time).
- The ending is simply a link to the next book.
Then again, the book was simply a novelisation of the radio series, which Douglas wrote VERY quickly, so all that was just to be expected. And there are lots of good things here too:
- The humour, obviously.
- The descriptions of 1980s London draw you in.
- The descriptions of space, spaceships and planets are top notch ... and funny.
- Every time you find yourself unexpectedly feeling sorry for Marvin, he gives you a reason not to be.
- Etc. I'm sure I missed a few things.
Yes, but you cleverly managed not to answer it... *hint*
But I don't disagree. Here's why:- There is very little structure, other than "put Arthur in danger, pull him out, put him in another danger" etc. until Zaphod finds the actual secret of Magrathea.
- We don't see the antagonists until the end, and they get very little "page-time" (the literary equivalent of screen time).
- The ending is simply a link to the next book.
Then again, the book was simply a novelisation of the radio series, which Douglas wrote VERY quickly, so all that was just to be expected. And there are lots of good things here too:
- The humour, obviously.
- The descriptions of 1980s London draw you in.
- The descriptions of space, spaceships and planets are top notch ... and funny.
- Every time you find yourself unexpectedly feeling sorry for Marvin, he gives you a reason not to be.
- Etc. I'm sure I missed a few things.
Yes, but you cleverly managed not to answer it... *hint*
Likes:
Jan Karlsson
That’s it’s only problem (for me), it’s just a string of scenes spliced together and doesn’t, really, have a story to speak of.
I still love it unconditionally, though.
I still love it unconditionally, though.
Likes:
RathDarkblade
Well, I'm not sure about that. It depends on who your protagonist is. If you're writing from the POV of your protagonist (be it in first- or third-person narrative), it's absolutely vital for your protagonist to have a growth arc.
(Second-person narrative is rarely done, and camera view is often reserved for movies. The biggest difference between first/third-person narrative and camera view is that in the former, the story is all about your hero/heroine, and in camera view, your camera tells the story.
So, in the former, you can only see things from the POV of your hero. Your reader only knows what he knows. On the other hand, you can dive in deeper and show your hero's thoughts, feelings, and senses (sight, smell, taste etc.) This works especially well if your hero is handicapped in some way (partial sight etc.), or even if he's temporarily handicapped (e.g. wearing a great helm that defends his head but muffles his hearing and narrows his field of vision).
In camera view, you don't have all that. But now, your reader knows what all your characters know, to compensate for all that. OTOH, you can't dive into any of their thoughts or feelings. If you do, that's head-hopping, and can get really confusing).
So what's all that got to do with HHGTTG? Well ... Zaphdod, Trillian, and Ford don't have growth arcs. That leaves Arthur and Marvin. Does Marvin grow through the story? No. Does Arthur? Not particularly. He is slightly less puzzled by the end, though, and more determined (e.g. not letting the mice have his brain), but that's arguably a survival tactic, not Arthur growing as a person.
So, yes, HHGTTG does not really have a story.
In HHGTTG (the film), I would argue that the hero is Marvin. Why? Because, although his attitude never changes, his passivity changes into activity. He does realise where his problems stem from, and although he is powerless to change that or save himself, he can do something to save the others, and he ends up saving the day despite himself. Congratulations, Marvin! But as he would say: "Gee, thanks. Ghastly, isn't it?"
(Second-person narrative is rarely done, and camera view is often reserved for movies. The biggest difference between first/third-person narrative and camera view is that in the former, the story is all about your hero/heroine, and in camera view, your camera tells the story.
So, in the former, you can only see things from the POV of your hero. Your reader only knows what he knows. On the other hand, you can dive in deeper and show your hero's thoughts, feelings, and senses (sight, smell, taste etc.) This works especially well if your hero is handicapped in some way (partial sight etc.), or even if he's temporarily handicapped (e.g. wearing a great helm that defends his head but muffles his hearing and narrows his field of vision).
In camera view, you don't have all that. But now, your reader knows what all your characters know, to compensate for all that. OTOH, you can't dive into any of their thoughts or feelings. If you do, that's head-hopping, and can get really confusing).
So what's all that got to do with HHGTTG? Well ... Zaphdod, Trillian, and Ford don't have growth arcs. That leaves Arthur and Marvin. Does Marvin grow through the story? No. Does Arthur? Not particularly. He is slightly less puzzled by the end, though, and more determined (e.g. not letting the mice have his brain), but that's arguably a survival tactic, not Arthur growing as a person.
So, yes, HHGTTG does not really have a story.
In HHGTTG (the film), I would argue that the hero is Marvin. Why? Because, although his attitude never changes, his passivity changes into activity. He does realise where his problems stem from, and although he is powerless to change that or save himself, he can do something to save the others, and he ends up saving the day despite himself. Congratulations, Marvin! But as he would say: "Gee, thanks. Ghastly, isn't it?"
Likes:
Jan Karlsson
Witches Brew By Alfred Hitchcock it was the first adult book I have ever read and even though I know most of the stories off by heart every now and then I reread it
I used help with writing nursing papers for a recent nursing research paper and was very satisfied. The writer was knowledgeable and met all my requirements. And what about you??
I used help with writing nursing papers for a recent nursing research paper and was very satisfied. The writer was knowledgeable and met all my requirements. And what about you??
Last edited:
Likes:
=Tamar
HHGTTG is a picaresque novel, a form popular in earlier centuries but disapproved of by the formalists. At its base it is a string of adventures with no major character changes, like most TV series. Don Quixote was a picaresque novel in its first volume. Then someone wrote a bad fanfic of it and Cervantes was so annoyed that he wrote the second volume, which had character development, trashed the imitator, and killed the main character so he couldn't be used again. (This was long before the invention of the prequel.)
One might consider that Rincewind went through a similar transformation, over a longer period of time.
One might consider that Rincewind went through a similar transformation, over a longer period of time.
Likes:
Jan Karlsson
I've never heard the word "picaresque". Thanks, =Tamar. Does that also make Sherlock Holmes a picaresque character? He doesn't change much, and is also killed off (but gets resurrected).
I'm not sure how Rincewind changes over the Discworld series, though. He almost constantly grovels, panics, or runs away. (The fun is seeing how he will get away).
Does that also make Sherlock Holmes a picaresque character? He doesn't change much, and is also killed off (but gets resurrected).I'm not sure how Rincewind changes over the Discworld series, though. He almost constantly grovels, panics, or runs away. (The fun is seeing how he will get away).
Likes:
=Tamar and Jan Karlsson
Yes, I think Sherlock, and many other fictional detectives, would qualify, though he does give up cocaine and change his general misogyny to admire one woman. Watson, on the other hand, marries and moves out of the shared flat, which might make enough difference to change the category of the series.
Likes:
Jan Karlsson
Rincewind changes in The Last Continent when he accepts that his life pattern is to be involved no matter how hard he tries to avoid adventure. We see the change in The Last Hero, when he shows up for the gathering of the adventure group instead of having to be forced into it, while still registering his objections. He does relapse slightly in the first of the Science of Discworld sub-series, but it is perfunctory resistance.
Likes:
Jan Karlsson
