Shelfari: The Site for Books & ReadersShelfari Logo

Request Friendship

Katrina R

Katrina R

"You despise books; you whose lives are absorbed in the vanities of ambition, the pursuit of pleasure or indolence; but remember that all the known world, excepting only savage nations, is governed by books."
Voltaire

"It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you will be when you can't help it."
Oscar...more »
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • member since Tuesday, January 8 2008

Groups

Friends

Katrina R’s last login was 7 hours ago. show recent activity »

My Favorite books

     
 
 
 

Public Notes

  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    Maybe my sentiments seem stronger than they are. I'm certainly not a nationalist when it comes to literature. But to answer your question I think there are nationalist literary establishments - albeit unnofficial - in every country. It is in the interests of local agents with local rights to put their (local) work first, this of course will feed into publishers and retailers. This is detrimental to the reading environment of any country (Britain to say the least).

    As for Smith herself, the partial setting of On Beauty in the US is not the reason why I consider her to have betrayed her Englishness (again, for want of a less dramatic term). The decision to go to America was probably encouraged by her American agent after the relative mauling she recieved for the supposedly disappointing follow-up to White Teeth. Perhaps, then, it wasn't as ungrateful a move as it seemed at first. However, the big money lure of teaching at top American Universities should also be seen as a factor.

    Also, I don't it's too cynical to think that the partial setting of On Beauty in the US was a move to become, if not an American writer, a writer working in the American sphere of literary activity. It is cynical in the sense that it is hard to believe that a writer - even one as good as Smith - would go to such efforts to become part of the gang. However, America's reputation of harboring writers from around the world (Nabokov, Carey, Fatboy, Diaz) is one of which the US establishment is quite proud to hold up like a trophy.

    Thanks again for reading the review. Pardon the lengthy explanation, I am trying to keep this casual...really.

    posted 3 weeks ago. ( send a note )
  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    Cheers Katrina, it is definitely one that could stand a re-reading after a few years, instant classic is not too generous a term. I'm in no rush to read On Beauty though, after her having unceremoniously decamped to the states and sticking two fingers up at the Brit Lit establishment which made her.

    posted 3 weeks ago. ( send a note )
  • Skipbeau

    Skipbeau says

    Drop me a line and let me know how you liked the book! Good reading!

    posted 1 month ago. ( send a note )
  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    I'd definitely re-read it, you also notice thing you didn't the first time around (I'll say no more). I read it for the third time last year before watching the movie and it began to grate a little, maybe a couple of years is a good wait.

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • canary c

    canary c says

    HI, thanks accepting my request.
    have fun

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    Yea, sorry, by intertext or intertextuality I mean the way the novel (and/or the movie) reference other similar works. The novel crosses with a long list of other canonical texts. Off the top of my head: L.P. Hartley's The Go-Between (Briony's message interception), Henry James' The Turn of the Screw (the dinner and the library in part one), Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita (cousin Lola), Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day (inter-war big house story). There are probably others and I've barely read any of the above, but you know what I mean. Oh and Austen's Northanger Abbey, probably more so than any other...

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    I think you're right about the shift away from Jo-jo's (couldn't help myself) relationship to Jed in the film. His relationship with Clarissa does seem half-baked and underdeveloped. As such I suppose its easier to break down.

    You need not apologise for anything.

    As for Atonement, again I thought it was a good movie in its own right. As an adaptation it was every bit grand as McEwan's writing style which was purposefully affected to ape the style of the many other texts which Atonement overlaps with in terms of theme, setting etc. It could be that this lack of intertext is what is missing in the film, it might have been a better film if it played more on other similar Merchant-Ivory style English big-house movies.

    The big shame for me was the ending. A film as long as Atonement, with as big a budget, could always have been slighter longer and with a slighter longer ending. If they had gone to that extra effort I would have felt that the adaptation was more complete. For the most part though, it was thoroughly enjoyable. I feel inclined to say that James McAvoy's performance was as questionable as Kiera's Nighty's. The typewriter was the star of the show.

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Bhupash

    Bhupash says

    Well, you definitely come across as impassioned. If I may ask then, what you think the point of the story was?

    My subjective opinions on the direct differences: director Roger Michel obviously took liberties and in my opinion cleaned up a lot of the novel's weaker, dare I say bourgeouis, ill-informed aspects (the rather odd acquisition of firearms, the conveniently bloodless climax).

    Overall, I don't think that movies and novels are compatible forms. This doesn't stop people trying. Readers love seeing their favourite stories on the screen and rightly so. Equally important is the use of the phrase adaptation.

    To clarify my inflammatory comment: I thought the film adaptation of Enduring Love was a better film in its own right, than the novel was as a novel. The novel was a very good novel, McEwan struck a massive chord with readers and deservedly so (I refer to him as The Master). However, everything about the film floored me, the cinematography, the score, the overall direction, the acting, everything. If taken out of the context of adaptation, Enduring Love is a great alll-round film. Note that these are aspects that don't exist in writing and therein lies the difference. I should have made it clear that I do not see any friction between the two in a head-on way. Yes, the movie was taken from the book, but that does not mean that the novel is a master text and I certainly don't think that film-makers (good or bad) should be confined to attempting to adapt novels in blinkered, word for word manner.

    I sincerely invite any further observations you may have on this or any other comments I post on my shelf.

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Mark M

    Mark M says

    I read One Hundred Years of Solitude first, then Love in the Time of Cholera several years later. That's also the order they were written in so I think that makes most sense. Finished the First Circle, thought it was excellent. One thing I would say is that when the front cover has the phrases "an unqualified masterpiece", "arguably the greatest Russian novel of the twentieth century" and "a majestic work of genius", it raises the expectation level somewhat. Having read it I'm still not sure whether any of those quotes are true, but it was a vivid depiction of special prisons under Stalin and a damn good read.

    posted 2 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Skipbeau

    Skipbeau says

    It looks as though you have read a classic or two -- try the UNABRIDGED "Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas -- so much more to the story than any movie has captured. I also always suggest a good fantasy read like "Weaveworld" by Clive Barker. Happy reading!

    posted 3 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    i think i let my fingers go on for too long :-).
    Also, i meant, 'less than Europe and India.'

    posted 4 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    Well, the braveheart trip close to what you said. :-). The only good part was the guide who lost no opportunity to have lighthearted insults at the expense of the English.
    One memorable one was when we were going through a wildlife area or something and he said 'People can't go in here. But the English can'
    'err, why?' I just had to ask.
    'The animals inside tried some english once but they spat them after one try.' The beautiful seventy year old english lady right next to me was not impressed :-)

    Hmm. Bebo.... like Bebo in UK, which i underst is perhaps the most popular social n/w, in india (and brazil) itz orkut...

    Well, I can tell you a gazillion stories about the attitudes of the indian 'upper castes' . But I have found US to be perhaps a less racist and sexist country frankly. Much less than Europe and England. My feeling is of course anecdotal and based on my own experiences. They are not afraid to discuss the 'difficult' and politically incorrect issues out in the open and not shove it under the carpet unlike the other civilizations i have seen and read about. What do you think?

    Well, it is a very complex and tough question. What happens to cultures with globalization. I also have not figured out my answers. I have some visceral dislikes like when I see stupid teenagers from other cultures aping stupid american teenagers in every way, all trying so badly to be cool. But, well, it is due to globalization that we have such a tool like shelfari and that the two of us, two completely different people with very different backgrounds can have an interesting conversation from two ends of the world.

    posted 4 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    I have visited Scotland once, a few years ago when I was working in England. One of the most beautiful moments ever was having a scottish man, beautifully dressed in a kilt, playing live music. Though I should also admit to having done the 'braveheart trip' which was far less interesting due to the severe packaging.

    Well, parts of India are more americanized than even europe. Someone from manhattan would not feel out of place in parts of mumbai and bangalore though she will have to ignore the swathes of poverty around. But broadly, I am a fan of globalization though...

    The portrayal of the people and the prejudices in God of small things is also very accurate I should say.

    The one place I would now like to see is the Far East esp. Japan.
    Where all in the west have you been to.
    I write @ http://thinkndmuse.blogspot.com/

    posted 4 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    I am originally from Kerala which is a state at the extreme south. I can see 'God of Small things in your shelf and that is set in kerala. That is sort of an accurate portrayal of the place.
    Though I am not fully mentally rooted here and have worked mostly in mumbai and bangalore. In US, have been around chicago a lot, though not to pitt unfortunately, though had planned a trip as I really wanted to see the (remnants) of the beeg industrial plants there.
    Am a techie by profession.

    posted 4 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    Yes, would recommend Lila too. Should warn though that it is a much sadder book :-). No haven't read that K-murti book.
    Wow so, u study the brain along with other stuff i guess. I have been wanting to read V.S. Ramachandran's 'The phantoms in the brain' for a long time.

    posted 4 months ago. ( send a note )
  • Jay

    Jay says

    Zen and the art .... Robert Pirsig. Then try Jiddu Krishnamurthy and Osho

    posted 6 months ago. ( send a note )


© 2008 Tastemakers, Inc. | Portions of Shelfari.com are Copyright © 1996-2008 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy