View Single Post
Old 04-27-2018, 03:02 PM   #96
BookCat
C L J
BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BookCat ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
BookCat's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,911
Karma: 21115458
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham UK
Device: Sony e-reader 505, Kindle PW2, Kindle PW3, Kobo Libra2
I agree with the idea of a novel being like a movie in my head; that's how I read.
I'm not criticising other peoples reading methods in saying that I enjoy reading descriptions and find it hard to understand why people skip them, but from what has been written we're talking about entirely different types of books. I would never, unless forced, read a book with a sports setting, because I'd hate reading about the subject, so both the plot and the descriptions would bore me. Likewise, I would avoid other books whose descriptions would bore me. Yes, some authors do overdo the description, but others do this beautifully.

One of the best books I've read in terms of description of place is Lucy Irvine's Castaway. I have this as a paperback and it's somewhere in my house, too hard to find, so I can't quote it. There are passages, especially her "diary" in which you can almost feel the warm sand between your toes.

Now that I've finished Frenchman's Creek, I realise that I de-tox after finishing a book in order to continue living in that world and cogitating the author's intent. For example, I read this in Wikipedia about Daphne du Maurier:

"In correspondence that her family released to biographer Margaret Forster, du Maurier explained to a trusted few people her own unique slant on her sexuality: her personality comprised two distinct people – the loving wife and mother (the side she showed to the world); and the lover (a "decidedly male energy") hidden from virtually everyone and the power behind her artistic creativity. According to Forster's biography, du Maurier believed the "male energy" propelled her writing. Forster wrote that du Maurier's denial of her bisexuality unveiled a "homophobic" fear of her true nature."

and realise the novel is partly about his, even down to the dressing as a cabin-boy. It expresses the dilemma of the free-spirited Dona who wants to run off with a pirate, as opposed to the "mother" who wants to stay and take care of her children. It's actually a feminist novel in disguise.

I wouldn't have considered this if I'd immediately begun reading another novel. I'm in no way saying that those who do read several books at a time or who begin another book immediately are doing anything wrong.
Everyone is different and reads differently.
BookCat is offline   Reply With Quote