Re: Good reads
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:44 am
I've read 6 and would put The Bridge on the Drina on my list to read as I've done my stomping around Mostar and 'the bridge' in question.
Steinbeck went through a phase of writing novellas that could be easily adapted to the stage or silver screen, like he thought he was onto a new genre or something, and I think the Moon is Downwas one of them, though it's been so long since I read it I don't call. Some of the dialogue in those novellas was electrifying (notably Burning Bright,but other aspects of the traditional short novel were neglected. He was at the peak of his powers with Of Mice and Men, Tortilla Flats, Cannery Row, the Red Pony & the Pearl, however - all novellas written as short novels in the classical sense.paddy no 11 wrote: Steinbeck the moon is down excellent little novella on German occupation of a town in Norway
The Red Pony was one of his weaker novels I thought, the Cannery Row trilogy of novels are very entertaining but I think my favourite of all his books is probably East of Eden which is imo a masterpiece.rowan wrote:Steinbeck went through a phase of writing novellas that could be easily adapted to the stage or silver screen, like he thought he was onto a new genre or something, and I think the Moon is Downwas one of them, though it's been so long since I read it I don't call. Some of the dialogue in those novellas was electrifying (notably Burning Bright,but other aspects of the traditional short novel were neglected. He was at the peak of his powers with Of Mice and Men, Tortilla Flats, Cannery Row, the Red Pony & the Pearl, however - all novellas written as short novels in the classical sense.paddy no 11 wrote: Steinbeck the moon is down excellent little novella on German occupation of a town in Norway
Largely agree, though I seem to recall The Red Pony including some fairly profound psychology, but it's a long time since I did all my Steinbeck reading. The biggest novels were definitely the best - Grapes of Wrath, East of Eden, in Dubious Battle and To a God Unknown being my personal favorites. The obvious exception would be Of Mice and Men, which was pure genius. Can't remember the third novella in the Tortilla-Cannery trilogy, but I do remember there was one I didn't like much at all. The character of Doc got a little tedious after a while too. I think I had the same ideas as you about the Sea of Cortez, which failed to deliver on such a promising title.Numbers wrote:The Red Pony was one of his weaker novels I thought, the Cannery Row trilogy of novels are very entertaining but I think my favourite of all his books is probably East of Eden which is imo a masterpiece.rowan wrote:Steinbeck went through a phase of writing novellas that could be easily adapted to the stage or silver screen, like he thought he was onto a new genre or something, and I think the Moon is Downwas one of them, though it's been so long since I read it I don't call. Some of the dialogue in those novellas was electrifying (notably Burning Bright,but other aspects of the traditional short novel were neglected. He was at the peak of his powers with Of Mice and Men, Tortilla Flats, Cannery Row, the Red Pony & the Pearl, however - all novellas written as short novels in the classical sense.paddy no 11 wrote: Steinbeck the moon is down excellent little novella on German occupation of a town in Norway
Don't bother with The Log from the Sea of Cortez, it gives you some insight into the character of Doc to a small extent, based on a man called Ed Rickett's iirc, the majority of the book however is about the marine research they were undertaking which is now very dated and not particularly interesting.
I'm probably being a bit harsh, tho I am judging him by his own stratospheric standards, he is my favourite author.rowan wrote:Largely agree, though I seem to recall The Red Pony including some fairly profound psychology, but it's a long time since I did all my Steinbeck reading. The biggest novels were definitely the best - Grapes of Wrath, East of Eden, in Dubious Battle and To a God Unknown being my personal favorites. The obvious exception would be Of Mice and Men, which was pure genius. Can't remember the third novella in the Tortilla-Cannery trilogy, but I do remember there was one I didn't like much at all. The character of Doc got a little tedious after a while too. I think I had the same ideas as you about the Sea of Cortez, which failed to deliver on such a promising title.Numbers wrote:The Red Pony was one of his weaker novels I thought, the Cannery Row trilogy of novels are very entertaining but I think my favourite of all his books is probably East of Eden which is imo a masterpiece.rowan wrote:
Steinbeck went through a phase of writing novellas that could be easily adapted to the stage or silver screen, like he thought he was onto a new genre or something, and I think the Moon is Downwas one of them, though it's been so long since I read it I don't call. Some of the dialogue in those novellas was electrifying (notably Burning Bright,but other aspects of the traditional short novel were neglected. He was at the peak of his powers with Of Mice and Men, Tortilla Flats, Cannery Row, the Red Pony & the Pearl, however - all novellas written as short novels in the classical sense.
Don't bother with The Log from the Sea of Cortez, it gives you some insight into the character of Doc to a small extent, based on a man called Ed Rickett's iirc, the majority of the book however is about the marine research they were undertaking which is now very dated and not particularly interesting.
Check out the Melvyn Bragg docco from BBC4 a few years back, it's very good:paddy no 11 wrote:We'll have to do a definite rug*y rebels list and sticky the fucker
East of Eden
Of mice and men
Cannery row
Grapes of wrath
Pastures of heaven
Sweet Thursday
Travels with charley
The pearl
The moon is down
In dubious battle
Tortilla flat
Add and amend away there
Enjoyed that. Brought back a lot and learnt a few things too. Thanks for sharingNumbers wrote:Check out the Melvyn Bragg docco from BBC4 a few years back, it's very good:paddy no 11 wrote:We'll have to do a definite rug*y rebels list and sticky the fucker
East of Eden
Of mice and men
Cannery row
Grapes of wrath
Pastures of heaven
Sweet Thursday
Travels with charley
The pearl
The moon is down
In dubious battle
Tortilla flat
Add and amend away there
Sounds like a good and entirely depressing read franciefrancoisfou wrote:"A Line in the Sand", by James Barr.
in 1916, an Englishman, Mark Sykes and a Frenchman, François Georges-Picot were appointed by their respective governments to carve up the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France
This book charts the Anglo-French rivalry to gain the upper hand in the Middle East between 1915 and 1948. A fascinating account of "allies" at war with each other, double dealing with no holds barred.
Many of us are aware of this Middle Eastern conflict between Britain and France, but I think that few of us - certainly me, had no idea whatsoever of the lengths the two adversaries went to advance their imperial objectives. Much of it makes shocking reading.
I quote a passage from the end of the book. A quote of Sir John Shaw who was the former Chief Secretary of Palestine who was asked to assess Britain's record in their Middle Eastern mandate:
"In many cases we thought we were doing good to the people concerned, and indeed we were", he said. "I mean we stamped out all sports of abuses and malpractices, but if you look at it from a purely philosophical and high-minded point of view, I think it's immoral, and i think it's not only immoral, but it's ill-advised." "Why?", the question was asked. "Why? Well...because it's not your business or my business, or British business or anybody else to interfere in other people's countries and tell them how to run it, even to run it well. They must be left to their own salvation."
The problems in Palestine/Israel today are firmly rooted in the British government's foreign policy at that time in the Middle East along with France's appalling decision to heavily finance Zionist terrorists to destabilise British rule in Palestine and to actively encourage the mass migration of Jews to Palestine.
Aye, Paddy. Clinging on to the wreckage of dwindling Empires doesn't exactly bring a smile to your face, but nonetheless, it's a book that's hard to put down.paddy no 11 wrote:Sounds like a good and entirely depressing read franciefrancoisfou wrote:"A Line in the Sand", by James Barr.
in 1916, an Englishman, Mark Sykes and a Frenchman, François Georges-Picot were appointed by their respective governments to carve up the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France
This book charts the Anglo-French rivalry to gain the upper hand in the Middle East between 1915 and 1948. A fascinating account of "allies" at war with each other, double dealing with no holds barred.
Many of us are aware of this Middle Eastern conflict between Britain and France, but I think that few of us - certainly me, had no idea whatsoever of the lengths the two adversaries went to advance their imperial objectives. Much of it makes shocking reading.
I quote a passage from the end of the book. A quote of Sir John Shaw who was the former Chief Secretary of Palestine who was asked to assess Britain's record in their Middle Eastern mandate:
"In many cases we thought we were doing good to the people concerned, and indeed we were", he said. "I mean we stamped out all sports of abuses and malpractices, but if you look at it from a purely philosophical and high-minded point of view, I think it's immoral, and i think it's not only immoral, but it's ill-advised." "Why?", the question was asked. "Why? Well...because it's not your business or my business, or British business or anybody else to interfere in other people's countries and tell them how to run it, even to run it well. They must be left to their own salvation."
The problems in Palestine/Israel today are firmly rooted in the British government's foreign policy at that time in the Middle East along with France's appalling decision to heavily finance Zionist terrorists to destabilise British rule in Palestine and to actively encourage the mass migration of Jews to Palestine.
Undoubtedly, but the British and French did more than add fuel to the fire in the later years of their quest for a greater influence in the Middle East.SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I read A Line in the Sand while on tour in the Congo and followed it up with Issiah Freedman's Palestine: A Twice Promised Land, which points a far more accusatory finger at Balfour and his 'declaration' to Rothschild in 1926 and suggests that it was this, rather than the British and French carve up that fomented the problems in the middle east.