For the Love of Books!: Looking for a good read?

[Lythium]

Don't worry about it, jungle. You're welcome to join the discussion while August is still around. And there's always September.

 

[greenlink]

I'd been thinking about re-reading some Gaiman for a while now, so i'm in and around about chapter 15, should have it finished this evening. : )

 

[Clownbot]

Oh.

Em.

Gee.

I just finished reading the book, and it blew my mind. I look forward to discussing it with everyone.

 

[Virgilijus]

I shall be finished soooooooooon.

 

[Ayaz18]

I'm right now reading Tess of the D'ubervilles, I just started it but I heard that there are a lot of themes that revolve around modernism, and that kind of stuff interests me.

Also, has anyone read Law of One?

 

[Clownbot]

I'm right now reading Tess of the D'ubervilles, I just started it but I heard that there are a lot of themes that revolve around modernism, and that kind of stuff interests me.

Also, has anyone read Law of One?

I'm... not quite sure you completely understand what's going on here right now.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

twas a good read. Finishing this and 1984[a few days ago] reminded me why I like reading so much.

 

[Clownbot]

I'm watching the series on which the novel is based on right now, and I haven't gotten too far into it, but so far, I find it.... subpar, at best. It just makes me feel so much better about the novel.

 

[Lythium]

I'm right now reading Tess of the D'ubervilles, I just started it but I heard that there are a lot of themes that revolve around modernism, and that kind of stuff interests me.

Also, has anyone read Law of One?

Is that the Messenger of Ra series or something? Sounds familiar. I haven't gotten around to reading Thomas Hardy, but I spent the better part of the last few months in school studying 19th century literature, so it's nice to have a break. If you're interested in joining the discussion for Neverwhere, there's still time to read it.

twas a good read. Finishing this and 1984[a few days ago] reminded me why I like reading so much.

I'm watching the series on which the novel is based on right now, and I haven't gotten too far into it, but so far, I find it.... subpar, at best. It just makes me feel so much better about the novel.

One of my coworkers offered to lend me the series, but she agrees. The book is much better. I think she also said the series was very low-budget.



EDIT: I didn't want to double post, so let the discussion begin!

I have to go buy my mother a birthday present, so I'll post some topics/questions if you guys need a boost in the discussion.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I was mad tht like dude would introduce a character and kill him off a few chapters later.

Rat girl and bodyguard dude

 

[Tom]

mack maine im pretty sure you're drunk

i loved the book. Gaiman is so wonderfully descriptive, and the characters were all very awesome. Yeah Anestesia(?) died very quickly but I thought it was great, and of course the bead in his pocket was a nice device. I liked how the bodyguard we were introduced to first was not the one to get the job and actually died. Hunter was a great character and I enjoyed that her betrayal didn't betray my love for her because she was completely in character and justified. At first, of course, I thought the traitor was the marquis, who is the biggest baller ever. I love his character too. When Door's father's pocketwatch was described, I immediately thought that I would palm it, and then the marquis did. Hehe. Richard was a fairly good everyman. Door is a cutie.

I LOVED Mr. C and Mr. V. I enjoyed having villains I could both hate and be so interested in, and it helped to have two obvious villains throughout the plot while the real antagonist was a secret.

The ending really made me think that Richard was just hobo bat**** insane, after the trial that he went through and his buddy Gary's comments to him near the end of the story, and also his interaction with the old lady with his umbrella from the prologue. But I dont want to accept that he is simply a nutjob and I don't think any of you want to either, so I'll believe he actually had his adventures around London Below. I also think that that is what we are supposed to believe and it did actually all happen.

 

[Clownbot]

I doubt he's insane. The feather that Old Bailey gave him was sufficient vindication (as well as other mementos, like Hunter's knife and Anesthesia(?)'s bead) that it was real.

The book was a real roller coaster for me. It had its upbeat, cheerful moments, and then sad, sorrowful times (both of which were pulled off pretty brilliantly).

There's one thing that made me wonder.... Could Door's sister really be alive?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Tom is right, the characters were so amazing. They definitely made the book for me. The plot and ending was kind of meh/it's ok to me. But the fact that it was happening to these characters just made it SOOO much better.

My goodness, I was so in love with Hunter.
and yes. V and C were so baller. Definitely had like the best mannerisms.

and yessss the marquis, like my dude knows what he's doing. I def thought he was kind of whack at first, but I grew to love him. There was legit no character in this story that wasn't amazing. Gaiman is such a good writer.

Richard. THE WARRIOR. haha i'm so in love with Hunter.

and holy **** the girl that was going to suck the life from Richard. Even though I predicted something like that happening ever since the girl was introduced, it caught me hella off guard when it happened.

 

[Ocho(*8*)]

so did we ever find out why hunter couldn't go above ground that one time, or did that never get addressed towards the end?

Also, after Hunter got chosen as the bodyguard over Varney why would Mr. C have said while on the phone with Islington, "I'm afraid your bodygaurd idea went down like a dead baboon..."

I thought the plan worked since Hunter was working for them all along, hmmm...

 

[Wiscus]

This is about my...er..8th or 9th re-reading of Neverwhere. I just love Gaimen's prose and his wonderful world-building. The thing that most sucked me into the book is the world of London below. I want to know how everything works.

I love all the characters in the book even the minor ones, like the painter children. Richard is a very human character and I love his growth through the novel, I never once thought that he was insane or dreaming up the whole thing. ....

I can ramble on and on without a topic so I will stop there except one more thing...I love the ratspeakers, rats are one of my favorite animals and such a good symbol of the sewers, when most people see them they think of vile and nasty things but underneath that there is more to them. I always thought of that as the "moral" of the book, there is more to everything....or I don't know I have trouble expressing myself.

At Ocho: I always thought that they were talking about the plan with Varney.I don't think they worked with Hunter at the beginning I always assumed that they approached her when she was alone, waiting for Richard and Door to come back. I may be wrong of course...

...did anything I just typed make since? Oh how I love Hunter and Serpentine, somehow with Serpentine in the picture I have a hard time believing that Hunter Is really gone...despite what happened.

BIG WALL OF TEXT

 

[Lythium]

Guys, I must apologize. The unthinkable has happened. My laptop is BROKEN, and as a result, I will be unable to post regularly. I'm not sure how long it will take to fix. I didn't want you to feel abandoned, so I'm currently typing this message from work.

Hopefully, I'll be back in action before we know it.

And yes, I loved this book too. Probably one of the best of Gaiman's that I've read. I don't know why, but I find the idea of a secret world so charming and endearing, even if the world that Gaiman created wasn't quite that. And I loved how he managed to create a world so dark, and yet so wonderful. His description of the Floating Market was probably my favourite part of the book.

I also loved his attention to detail, especially in the characters. For example, Anaesthesia had such a small amount of space in the book, yet her character had so much development in the space of so few pages.

PS - Let me know if you guys want CRAZY discussion questions.

 

[Wiscus]

I'm sorry to hear that your laptop is broken Lythium. I hope it is fixed in the fastest time, with the least expense!

CRAZY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ARE AWESOME!

 

[Tom]

Serpentine is another character that was in the story for such a short amount of time and yet she was so well developed. She is one of seven sisters that I'm sure are legendary and as awesome as she is, and her interactions with Hunter were just so perplexing (and sexy).

Door's sister could very well be alive. Islington said she was alive but then I believe Mr. Croup said she was dead. It just depends on who was lying - their character and the situations they were in. Maybe Islington simply said that so he wouldn't be left stranded on the other side of time and space, or maybe he was telling an angelic truth. Maybe Mr. Croup said she's dead just to take one last masochistic jab at his undoers before they undid him, or maybe he's telling the truth to brag that they killed her.

Lythium I want some crazy discussion questions!

 

[Lythium]

Lunch break!

As requested, crazy discussion questions. Enjoy!

1. Like The Odyssey, Alice in Wonderland, and many mythological stories, Neverwhere involves a descent into an underworld. What is the appeal of exploring a world that exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives? What does the marquis de Carabas mean when he tells Richard that "London Below -- the Underside -- is inhabited by people who fell through the cracks in the world"?
   
2. In what ways can the world of London Below be seen as a kind of inverted mirror of London Above? In what ways does this magical world, with its outrageous characters and floating markets that sell everything from rubbish and lost property to "first-class nightmares" and "things that might have been hats and might have been modern art" comment on the world above? In what sense is Neverwhere satirizing the "normal" world and its values?
   
3. What makes the characters Richard meets in London Below -- Lord Ratspeaker, Door, the marquis de Carabas, Hunter, Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, Serpentine, the Earl, and others -- so engaging? What magical powers do they possess? What character traits make each of them so distinctive? How do their reactions to Richard change over the course of the novel?
   
4. What is the significance of the Angel Islington turning out to be the betrayer and perhaps the most evil character in the novel? What motivates his treachery? In what ways is it appropriate that a man like Arnold Stockton owns the The Angelus statue through which Islington may be reached?
   
5. While in London Below, Richard longs to go home where "Everything is going to be normal again. Boring again. Wonderful again." Why does he find "normal life" so empty and dissatisfying when, after such a heroic effort, he finally does get home? Does he make the right decision in returning to London Below?
   
6. What does Neverwhere, as a whole, say about the themes of trust and betrayal, loyalty and disloyalty, selfishness and compassion?

Enjoy! Do with them as you like!

 

[Virgilijus]

All right, I need to post my opinions (I'll answer Lythium's questions later .

I did really enjoy the book. All of the characters were so diverse and engaging. Gaiman has a way of putting subtle little jokes or spurs of wit that just make me chuckle. The first two that come to mind was explaining the physical differences between Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar: he goes through this entire, colorful explanation of how certain things they did were so subtly off and then ends the description with "They also looked nothing alike." And then towards the end of the book when Richard tells door to open the door for Islington:

"Don't do it Door! We're not important!"

to which the marquis says

"Actually, I think I'm very important. But don't do it anyway!"

The world of London Below was wonderfully woven: as much as it mirrored the layout of the world above and had to be this magical place where infinite types of strange and odd people lived, it still had to be confined and claustrophobic. They almost always walked through tunnels and had no scenery whatsoever, but it was still endearing and lively. This was done mainly due to the characters.

Richard - I imagined Richard as a younger Craig Ferguson which made him rather laughable. It was frustrating to me that it took 4/5 of the book to understand that his London Above knowledge was useless there, but Richard needed to fill that "laughable fool" role for most of the book. I made the connection to the creature from Richard's dream and the Beast explained to Carabas. I read a lot of Gaiman and it was his classic foreshadowing. That left the confrontation with the Beast somewhat suspected and less suspenseful, but I still liked it. I also liked his development at the end. He does go insane, but here sanity is relative. And when the marquis opened up the door I just smiled.

Door - I liked her relationship with Richard. it was never sexual, but they did have a platonic love/comfort for each other. Once they reached London Below she was some what hard on his foolishness, but they slowly became more and more amicable. The role between guardian and guarded continually changed: while she was a child and he a man, he was a child of London Below and she was not. Lovely little relationship they had.

marquis de Carabas - I read that Gaiman's inspiration for the marquis was **** in Boots, and looking back on it he fits it very well. He is the friendly rogue: someone that has the ability and questionable initiative. When he died I did think he would remain dead (I thought his silver box was something else ). He was a very good foil for Richard: his exact opposite, yet still likable and believable to remain in the little troupe.

Hunter - I was not too big of a fan of Hunter. I thought her betrayal and death were very well done, but outside of that her laconic nature just made her a little too bland for me. I envisioned her of a combination of a thundercat and Scary Spice

Islington - Gaiman uses angels a lot in his work and had a feeling he was the one who hired Croup and Vandemar. He played a good sinister villain due to how serene and peaceful he was all the way up (and mostly through!) his reveal as the evil.

Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar - If there is one thing in this book I will remember, it will be Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar. I loved how they played off each other, Croup the talkative, wily explainer and Vandemar the brutish simpleton that would always bluntly answer the question Croup would so carefully walk around. I also liked how their powers (and why they have them) were never explained. They weren't necessarily demons or warlocks or anything. They were just bad men for hire and could catch anyone. They just enjoyed violence and happened to be good at it. They didn't hate the marquis, they hated the fact he survived (eventually) their execution. They were proud of their work and enjoyed it. When Mr. Vandemar said "Bye-bye" to Door before he flew through to oblivion, I saw that as a "Ho hum, it's over. No hard feelings; this is just what I do" and thought it a nice curve to finish their arc.

 

[greenlink]

As always it is a pleasure to read Gaimen and upon this re-reading of Neverwhere I believe I enjoyed it more than my previous favorite of his, Anasi Boys.

I'm going to write my opinions on some of the general stuff in the book then I'll try tackling some of those questions, although I won't answer all of them as when I read a book I tend to become so absorbed in parts of it that I ignore the others.

Firstly I thought that as far as creating a fantasy world goes, Gaimen did amazingly. I have read loads of different types of fantasy and Gaimen makes the perfect blend of intriguing settings, stunning descriptions and a world which reflects on that it is based on. The London Above/Below split acts very well in showcasing what Gaimen clearly believes to be the split in our society, not necessary in class but in mindset at least (although this last part is my personal interpretation of the book, feel free to pick this out and give your opinion on it.)

I also loved how Gaimen would give small hints packed with descriptive texture then let them taper off (eg. The seven sisters, the "below worlds" under Paris and other cities, the child painters) just to make the world seem more vast and diverse, he really gives your imagination something to work with rather than spoon-feeding you.

As far as the characters go, I felt those least touched upon where the best, apart from a few exceptions. The rat-speaker girl was wonderful character who introduced the world of London-Below very nicely, slightly expanding on the mysteries the appearance of Door posed but still keeping us in the dark enough so that Gaimen doesn't have to thrust the whole of London-Below in our face straight away. Similarly I thought the characters and stories of Lair, Hammersmith (to a lesser extent) and Old Bailey were well crafted, and served their purposes well. The only character that I personally think there could and should have been more of was Old Bailey, when I heard his name I expected power, judgment and mercy, what I got was completely different (although I may be missing something there, if I am do tell.) edit: Just a quick thought, maybe this is why Old Baily prefers rooftops, being above people, looking down on them almost. I'd appreciate thoughts on this if you have any.

As far as the 'main' characters go, Richard served the purpose of the generic template man well and Gaimen did good adding as much embellishment possible without removing how easy he was to relate to, I thought the small material items that Gaimen lightly touched on were nice: the trolls, the batman phone, the umbrella which I will go into now...

As I mentioned I have a habit on fixating myself on certain aspects of a book and the contrast Gaimen drew between the beginning and end I found particularly interesting:
Both times Richard is bored of a social event, although Gaimen makes it more obvious at the end. Then during the beginning, the same amount of time is given for this old lady who is described in a very unique way (eg: "and blinked a few times, like an owl who had swallowed a mouse...") which bares similarities to the style that the characters of London-Below are described in. This and the more obvious warning of Doors are a well written foreshadowing. Then at the end, he confides all in Gary but Gaimen makes it very obvious that this doesn't help. Then Gary takes a taxi, and I felt that if Richard had taken a taxi (like he did when he first got back into the above) he would have become part of London-Above again, and the way he didn't was the first sign he would be returning to the below. Then the old women makes a reappearance although this time it is Richard who makes the first communication, it is Richard who seeks out London-Below rather than the way London-Below found him the first time.

I thought the way the umbrella was "faded" at the end was pure genius, Richard was in past the sheen of new London, in the murky unknown, and that was the bit he liked. Pair this with thinks such as the phrase "Those who have fallen through the cracks" which I'll touch more in the questions (oh dear lord I still have the questions to do lol) On second thoughts actually that's another thing which adds depth to Richards character that I hadn't seen before, the way that he has many parallels with those of London-Below, arguably more than those he does with London-Above, although those he has with below are less obvious.

I still have more to say but I don't have to say it all now I suppose. =) So I'll just do a couple of the questions that interest me.

Originally Posted by lythium
What is the appeal of exploring a world that exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives?What does the marquis de Carabas mean when he tells Richard that "London Below -- the Underside -- is inhabited by people who fell through the cracks in the world"?

My personal take on this isn't that the world exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives, only some of us. I think the Above/Below split isn't between the homeless and the upper class and celebrates as might seem immediately obvious. I think the split is between those who actually live in a city, and those who simply use a city. It's the difference between those who have fallen through the cracks, become permanently entwined in every aspect of the place and those who stand on the cracks oblivious of what is below their feet. I suppose you could say simply it is the difference between people who have the city as their home and people who have the city just a place they live. I think "falling through the cracks" and "London-Below" aren't negative ideas as they first appear, but serve to emphasize the depth of this world as well as how it is inverse, but not depreciated to the Above.

In fact, the other questions that I am interested in answering I kind of answered near the beginning of this wall of text, so I think I'll leave it at that although I would like to pose some questions of my own and I would appreciate some opinions as they are about things I am not sure about myself:

-What is the significance of Richard being "safe" and "somebody" why do these two words equate to Richard on London above? What is Gaimen trying to say about Richard (our generic everyman) here?

-How does the ordeal where Richard is mentally assaulted by either what is his own mind or something pretending to be his own mind, compare to the equivocal ending? where the reader decides it is possible that Richard might have just been crazy(especially the parallel appearances between Gary) although Gaimen suggests he wasn't.

-What is the significance of Door's family power? Why did Gaimen give the central character a power which lets her open any door, regardless of lock?

I feel the answer to this centers around the themes of trust betrayal and loyalty which I didn't pay too much attention to as I read the book, as I said I get caught up on certain things and don't pay much attention to others.

So yeah, I was bored this evening and I haven't done anything like this for a while. I just hit the "Preview Post" button and saw how big this is, so thanks to those who actually read it all if anybody does. =)

 

[Marc]

Ho, this is interesting. Didn't know about this topic till Tom told me, but I might join in future discussion. I've mostly read Dutch literature, but gems like Brave New World and Lord of the Flies are pretty much mandatory. Some of you might have even read my favourite book, The Discovery of Heaven by Harry Mulisch (De Ontdekking van de Hemel). It was also made into a movie I still haven't seen. It's rather lengthy (800-900 pages), but I managed to read through it on a 10 hour car trip after an all-nighter, so meh.

 

[Ocho(*8*)]

What does Neverwhere, as a whole, say about the themes of trust and betrayal, loyalty and disloyalty, selfishness and compassion?

I think that the book says that you can never predict who will have those qualities and that the ones who are good or bad are not necessarily the ones who we have been brought up to expect.

- Marquis the shady rogue guy turns out to be suprisingly loyal to Door, when his character was painted as distrustful at best, with incidences like him stealing from Door's dad, or him tricking the musician in the subway station he taught the song too.

- Islington: since he's as Angel he should be the ultimate good guy, yet he's the ultimate bad guy in the story.

- Serpentine whos supposed to be all evil is actually sort of nice.

- Being betrayed by your bodyguard. Not what you would expect in real life.

I also really liked how Mr. Croup and Vandemar were quite loyal and brotherly even though they were the bad guys.

Oh yeah and Lamina. Even a pretty girl who is into you can be evil and really trying to kill you.

hmmm....

 

[Wiscus]

Like The Odyssey, Alice in Wonderland, and many mythological stories, Neverwhere involves a descent into an underworld. What is the appeal of exploring a world that exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives? What does the marquis de Carabas mean when he tells Richard that "London Below -- the Underside -- is inhabited by people who fell through the cracks in the world"?

Oh god don't get me started on my love for Alice in Wonderland...ahem anyway
I always felt that the appeal of the "going to an alternate world that mirrors or own" At least for me is that part of me wishes that there was more to what you see everyday. I am an Escapist and I think Richard is as well despite how much he told himself that he wanted to go back to London above.

In a literary sense throwing your main characters in a place so like there own but obviously not is a good tactic to get your readers to relate to the character, could we not help but feel a little for Richard as he blundered his way through the first part of the book?
Actually Alice and Richard are a little similar to one another, they both tend to ask too many questions and are very curious, they both deal with their danger in a somewhat humorous sometimes detached fashion....Okay I think I'm starting to rant and not make sense.

While in London Below, Richard longs to go home where "Everything is going to be normal again. Boring again. Wonderful again." Why does he find "normal life" so empty and dissatisfying when, after such a heroic effort, he finally does get home? Does he make the right decision in returning to London Below?

To put it simply, After the colourful characters of London below, he couldn't stand the boring dull routine of modern society. London below is exciting. I think that talk with Gary at the end truly showed Richard how unsatisfying he felt that life was and how everyone passively went on with it.
London Below stole his love of "normal, boring life"

Hehe rereading what I just wrote makes me feel silly. I hope that someone can get a point out of that...

The only character that I personally think there could and should have been more of was Old Bailey, when I heard his name I expected power, judgment and mercy, what I got was completely different (although I may be missing something there, if I am do tell.) edit: Just a quick thought, maybe this is why Old Baily prefers rooftops, being above people, looking down on them almost. I'd appreciate thoughts on this if you have any.

I felt that way as well, I really enjoyed Baily's character. I felt that he was great in his role. What you mention about him looking down on people, is something that I missed before. He lives in both London Below and Above, he seems to know many languages and facts of London below. As the Soul-keeper for the Marquis I felt that he must have some sort of power. The way he roams around and blends in with the landscape makes me think of how Gaiman wrote some of the gods in American gods. Fantastic powerful people who are just living their lives.
......
eh, what was my point again, I kinda just rambled....?

 

[Clownbot]

Ah, so many new posts....

I must recover respond!

(I cut out some of the questions, as I couldn't quite answer them well. Sorry )

Lunch break!

As requested, crazy discussion questions. Enjoy!

1. Like The Odyssey, Alice in Wonderland, and many mythological stories, Neverwhere involves a descent into an underworld. What is the appeal of exploring a world that exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives? What does the marquis de Carabas mean when he tells Richard that "London Below -- the Underside -- is inhabited by people who fell through the cracks in the world"?

1. 
   
   I imagine that Richard was able to see Door because he was A) clinically insane or B) he led a very boring, natural life. Deep down, he wasn't really too happy before he met the Underside. His everyday lifestyle, being rather overwhelming, led him to discover a hidden world full of magic.
   
   So, to directly answer you, the "people who fall through the cracks" are usually unhappy people. They lead difficult and upset lives; Iliaster, it seemed, was just a homeless person, and Old Bailey was... well, old.
   
   This is all just what I think.
   
   

   [*]What makes the characters Richard meets in London Below -- Lord Ratspeaker, Door, the marquis de Carabas, Hunter, Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, Serpentine, the Earl, and others -- so engaging? What magical powers do they possess? What character traits make each of them so distinctive? How do their reactions to Richard change over the course of the novel?

   They all have their own little quirks; it would take me too long to list each and every one.
   
   Door has the power to unlock anything; a power that seems to be held by her whole family, which might have something to do with their popularity in London Below. Almost everyone knows, or has seen/heard about a guy like the marquis. He's sly, wise-cracking, and he appears to look highly upon himself. Richard, as mentioned, is one of those "nobodies" at the beginning of the story. But as his character evolves, he becomes something more. I think the major change of character occurred during the ordeal; let me take an excerpt from the book real quick.
   
   "Richard Mayhew, the Upworlder, came toward them through the fog, walking beside the abbot. Richard looked different, somehow.... Hunter scrutinized him, trying to work out what had changed. His center of balance had moved lower, become more centered. No.... it was more than that. He looked less boyish. He looked as if he had begun to grow up."
   
   

   [*]While in London Below, Richard longs to go home where "Everything is going to be normal again. Boring again. Wonderful again." Why does he find "normal life" so empty and dissatisfying when, after such a heroic effort, he finally does get home? Does he make the right decision in returning to London Below?

I would like to think so. The reason Richard wished so much to return home when seeing the Underside was that it was unnatural. Before this, he led a completely natural life, followed schedule, and he worked in an office. Being in Neverwhere changed Richard because it steered him off course; nothing was planned, magic was real, there were Floating Markets and old-fashioned courts and so many things that Richard wasn't used to.

But when he left... he realized that he had come to love the thing he pretended so much to detest. It was unexpected. Spontaneous. Full of so much more life and color than the normal everyday he had experienced before.

Well, that's all. I left some questions out because, quite frankly, I didn't feel like answering them. I answered questions that I wanted to the way I wanted to; otherwise, it would feel too much like homework, which would make me delete this post altogether.

 

[Lythium]

Hey guys. All of you brought different perspectives, which I find interesting. It's fun to view things in a way you never thought about before.

My laptop is still being fixed, so I apologize again for my lack of discussion in this thread. Along with your discussion, if you could post a possible book for the month of September, I would greatly appreciate it. We will be voting again soon!

Also, I was curious as to whether any of you would be interested in having a theme for a month? For example, we could have a modern classic month or a sci-fi month or what have you. Let me know what you think! I know a lot of people would've been interested in doing a classic, but ultimately, it's up to you.

 

[Wiscus]

A theme of the month would be cool, I like it. Then in a way I like it being random, I am no help in this situation, I'm sorry.

September book Wiscus chocies:
Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami
http://www.amazon.com/Kafka-Shore-H...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250986619&sr=8-4

The Bell jar by Sylvia Plath
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Jar-Sylv...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250987144&sr=1-2

Spoiler

I was thinking about suggesting something crazy like Poppy z Brite's Exquisite Corpse but I wouldn't want to be barred from coming in here

To ask something of the rest of you, I wonder: Is their a certain way you like angels being portrayed in works of fiction? I love how Gaiman uses angels in his work. Are there other authors who use angels in a way you like? (Is it okay if I ask questions Lythium as part of discussion? I'm sorry too be rude)

 

[Clownbot]

Iirc, I haven't read any books outside of Neverwhere that have angels as characters.....

I do wish to read The Screwtape Letters, which I believe includes demons and such, if that's any consolation.

Also, Wiscus, I don't believe we're deciding on a new book yet.

 

[Lythium]

A theme of the month would be cool, I like it. Then in a way I like it being random, I am no help in this situation, I'm sorry.

September book Wiscus chocies:
Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami
http://www.amazon.com/Kafka-Shore-H...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250986619&sr=8-4

The Bell jar by Sylvia Plath
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Jar-Sylv...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250987144&sr=1-2

Spoiler

I was thinking about suggesting something crazy like Poppy z Brite's Exquisite Corpse but I wouldn't want to be barred from coming in here

To ask something of the rest of you, I wonder: Is their a certain way you like angels being portrayed in works of fiction? I love how Gaiman uses angels in his work. Are there other authors who use angels in a way you like? (Is it okay if I ask questions Lythium as part of discussion? I'm sorry too be rude)

I love these suggestions. I've been itching to reread some Murakami, and this may give me the excuse to do it.

Don't be silly! Asking questions is part of discussion. Ask as many as you like.

But to answer your question, angels are usually symbolic or metaphoric in literature, especially Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Divine Comedy. I think what Gaiman attempted to do was twist our pre-conceived notions of angels, which worked out quite nicely, because I did not expect Islington to be the antagonist. It seems like most authors use angels (or demons) to attribute to a sense of morality, so we automatically accept them as "good".

I'm going to stop rambling now.

Iirc, I haven't read any books outside of Neverwhere that have angels as characters.....

I do wish to read The Screwtape Letters, which I believe includes demons and such, if that's any consolation.

Also, Wiscus, I don't believe we're deciding on a new book yet.

I think it would be interesting to read C. S. Lewis outside the realm of Narnia. More suggestions please!

 

[Marc]

I love angels/the church being the villains, but that typically only happens in videogames and anime. Although, one could make a strong case for the angels in The Discovery of Heaven being manipulative *******s at the very least.

 

[Clownbot]

Okay, obviously one of my suggestions is The Screwtape Letters

Spoiler

# of times I've mentioned the book since joining this group: 3 =D

, and as for another....

 

[StinkomanFan]

Another suggestion similar to the CB's: One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest.

 

[Lythium]

Thanks for the suggestions! We could probably use a few more though.

 

[Marc]

Another suggestion similar to the CB's: One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest.

Are there major differences in comparison to the movie?

 

[StinkomanFan]

Are there major differences in comparison to the movie?

None that Wikipedia told me. I've never seen or read it but from what I hear it's good.

 

[CRASHiC]

I suggest Sheila Heti's Ticknor and Italo Calvino's If On A Winter's Night A Traveler.

Summaries- Ticknor is a book exploring the human mind when consumed with envy, and how this envy can destroy a person's life ever so subtly. It is loosely based on the real life friendship of two professors.

If On A Winter's Night A Traveler is a book about reading you book, though things are not quite as simple as they seem. You are confronted with the purpose of reading, the role as a reader, the role of a writer, as well as the constant struggle to finish a book, something that proves far more difficult than originally planned, as it takes you to multiple countries and continents, while you can never seem to reach farther than the first chapter. All in all, Italo Calvino expresses all the problems literature faces for its future, from competition with other mediums, the vast growth of the publishing industry, to the countless forgeries, censorship, educational movements and educational anti-movements. Uncovering the truth and finding your place as a reader is difficult, and the conclusion you reach is both chilling, and heart warming.

And yeah, I'm joining.

 

[Lythium]

Thanks for the suggestions! And my suggestion is Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut.

I'm afraid we cannot put it off any longer. It's voting time! If you haven't voted before, please read the OP for the rules of voting.

 

[Virgilijus]

Chances are I'll have to sit this book out: I'm all ready reading 3 books at the moment and don't have time for a 4th (From Hell, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, and Billy Budd for those that are wondering)

I will still vote because that's how I roll.

 

[CRASHiC]

I vote If On A Winter's Night A Traveler because every inch of this book is perfection.

Even the chapter titles, which read out a story in its own.

 

[Marc]

Virg: When do I get my books?

I'll have you guys decide and see if I can join in. University starts up again next week, so I'll already have lots of reading to do.