Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.18 AVERAGE
3.18 AVERAGE
Yes, I finally finished this insufferable book. I struggled, but I did it, and only for the sake of my seminar and for the fact that I rarely DNF a book, no matter how bad. Remember, I finished Paper Towns. It was awful, but I finished it.
Nathaniel Piven is far from a sympathetic character. Apparently, Waldman underwent a similar transformation as Tolstoy did when writing ‘Anna Karenina’ in that both writers initially set out to write one-sided, obviously horrible people. But, they found as they continued to write that both characters became complex and showed their good sides. Or at least Anna did. The point of my hatred of this book is not the fact that I didn’t like Nate. No, it goes far deeper than that.
Yes, the whole book I was rooting against the sexist, self-important, intellectualist, superiority-complex-driven Nate, and it was only when things started to go wrong that I felt myself a smidge engaged in the story. But, also, most of it was unbelievable. I found myself distracted by Waldman inserting herself into the story with overly sarcastic exposition, *trying* to make it seem like she wasn’t letting Nate get away with being an asshole. But, in the end, he does. Never mind the fact that the last 10-20 pages are pure exposition and summary of scene, speeding through time and losing any reader interest. Never mind the fact that most, if not all, the female characters are overwhelmingly two-dimensional. This book was dry, dull, and disheartening. I guess I won’t ever understand my professor’s hype.
Overall, my final sentiment is that I’m glad I only paid $0.25 for this wretched novel.
Nathaniel Piven is far from a sympathetic character. Apparently, Waldman underwent a similar transformation as Tolstoy did when writing ‘Anna Karenina’ in that both writers initially set out to write one-sided, obviously horrible people. But, they found as they continued to write that both characters became complex and showed their good sides. Or at least Anna did. The point of my hatred of this book is not the fact that I didn’t like Nate. No, it goes far deeper than that.
Yes, the whole book I was rooting against the sexist, self-important, intellectualist, superiority-complex-driven Nate, and it was only when things started to go wrong that I felt myself a smidge engaged in the story. But, also, most of it was unbelievable. I found myself distracted by Waldman inserting herself into the story with overly sarcastic exposition, *trying* to make it seem like she wasn’t letting Nate get away with being an asshole. But, in the end, he does. Never mind the fact that the last 10-20 pages are pure exposition and summary of scene, speeding through time and losing any reader interest. Never mind the fact that most, if not all, the female characters are overwhelmingly two-dimensional. This book was dry, dull, and disheartening. I guess I won’t ever understand my professor’s hype.
Overall, my final sentiment is that I’m glad I only paid $0.25 for this wretched novel.
A brilliant novel. Just brilliant. The best characters can sound reasonable and convincing even when making convoluted and borderline immoral arguments. Nathaniel does this over and over again. His vision is so consistent, and so couched in feminist principles, that we really want to believe he's right when he decides, over and over again, to act like an ass. And is he even acting like an ass? If so, why? I found myself running up against these questions throughout. And I don't mean to say that this novel read like some thought experiment. I was deeply invested in the plot--in every Sunday morning where they do or do not go to brunch, in every freelance assignment where Nate can or cannot simply ignore Hannah to do his work, and of course in every fight that may or may not end the relationship. I was in it, man. My only concern is whether this novel will hold up over the decades, or if it was too much of a particular time and place (now, where I live). I'll be reading it again to find out.
I'm rather tired of the trend in fiction for completely unlikable protagonists.
There are far too many books, and I am only granted so many readable hours on this earth. I really need to get better at just quitting rather than investing miserable time with miserable books.
I read so many reviews of this book. People said it was a realistic portrait of the inner workings of a mans brain, and what was miraculous is that it was written by a woman. A woman with a keen eye for viewing females through a man's perspective. The only thing I could think the entire time I was reading was "OH GOD I HOPE NOT." First, I don't think men are as pretentious, arrogant, egocentric and dreadfully dull as Nathaniel P. Second, women are not as vapid as those created by the author. I don't know what sort of men this author has dated, or what sort of women this poor author has chosen to surround herself with that gives her such a "spot on perspective" but generally, I think these characters are outliers.
In my world anyway, women have more to offer than their appearances and how they fit into a man's life so that his friends approve. Men have more to offer than their smug Ivy League educations and Oxford shirts.
This author was praised for her writing but I just found it dreadful! At one point she interrupted the flow (if you can call it that) of the plot (however dull) to state that "Oh, yeah- so and so had just bought a drink and is now stabbing the straw down into the ice." I stopped, re-read that. And then thought- HOW DOES THIS CONTRIBUTE TO THE PLOT!?!?! You only have so many words, and so much time to capture a reader and you chose to tell me THIS?!?! When I finally quit (around page 130...) I had was on page 4 of a 6 page internal monologue about yet another one of Nate's past girl friends and all the things she lacked in personality, intelligence and charm.
I don't like to give up on a book, especially when I had already invested so much time. But I just couldn't take it. I didn't CARE about any of the characters or what happened to them. Frankly, if they all threw themselves from the Brooklyn Bridge, it would have been a relief.
I seem to be in the minority of people who didn't like this book. But I just couldn't like anything about it. Perhaps I missed some amazing character development and plot twist that would have turned this book around for me and I missed it because I couldn't finish.
I read so many reviews of this book. People said it was a realistic portrait of the inner workings of a mans brain, and what was miraculous is that it was written by a woman. A woman with a keen eye for viewing females through a man's perspective. The only thing I could think the entire time I was reading was "OH GOD I HOPE NOT." First, I don't think men are as pretentious, arrogant, egocentric and dreadfully dull as Nathaniel P. Second, women are not as vapid as those created by the author. I don't know what sort of men this author has dated, or what sort of women this poor author has chosen to surround herself with that gives her such a "spot on perspective" but generally, I think these characters are outliers.
In my world anyway, women have more to offer than their appearances and how they fit into a man's life so that his friends approve. Men have more to offer than their smug Ivy League educations and Oxford shirts.
This author was praised for her writing but I just found it dreadful! At one point she interrupted the flow (if you can call it that) of the plot (however dull) to state that "Oh, yeah- so and so had just bought a drink and is now stabbing the straw down into the ice." I stopped, re-read that. And then thought- HOW DOES THIS CONTRIBUTE TO THE PLOT!?!?! You only have so many words, and so much time to capture a reader and you chose to tell me THIS?!?! When I finally quit (around page 130...) I had was on page 4 of a 6 page internal monologue about yet another one of Nate's past girl friends and all the things she lacked in personality, intelligence and charm.
I don't like to give up on a book, especially when I had already invested so much time. But I just couldn't take it. I didn't CARE about any of the characters or what happened to them. Frankly, if they all threw themselves from the Brooklyn Bridge, it would have been a relief.
I seem to be in the minority of people who didn't like this book. But I just couldn't like anything about it. Perhaps I missed some amazing character development and plot twist that would have turned this book around for me and I missed it because I couldn't finish.
I love the vocabulary in this book - it isn't condescending or overly intellectual, just appropriate for an intelligent audience. The main character, Nate, is annoying and self-obsessed, but that helps me understand him better. Definitely a great book if you want to read about how stupid and absorbed men can be.
Book club December 2013.
I was fascinated by this book. I kept hoping to see Nate sprout some insight and self-awareness, but nope.... Nate is a self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant, elitist ass. How to rate a book that you couldn't put down, but wanted to chuck across the room?
Also reminded me of the NPR interview I heard for [b:Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight|15841837|Confessions of a Sociopath A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight|M.E. Thomas|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1364852893s/15841837.jpg|21583841]
I was fascinated by this book. I kept hoping to see Nate sprout some insight and self-awareness, but nope.... Nate is a self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant, elitist ass. How to rate a book that you couldn't put down, but wanted to chuck across the room?
Also reminded me of the NPR interview I heard for [b:Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight|15841837|Confessions of a Sociopath A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight|M.E. Thomas|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1364852893s/15841837.jpg|21583841]
I couldn't put this down! Adelle Waldman probably knows guys better than they know themselves and sheds some light on the common young man, both to himself and any of her interested readers. I highly recommend to anyone looking for a fast and addicting read.
OWLs 2020 - 3/5
Ancient Runes - heart on the cover
3.5/5 ⭐️⭐️⭐️
It was better than I expected. I have owned this book for well over 5 years and finally thanks to the readathon I have picked it up.
When I bought it from Daunt books, it was among 4-5 other titles that I picked up that day that have caught my eye - I never really read the synopsis of the books I pick up, I like the mystery. So this cover clearly appealed to me.
I don’t think I would have appreciated this if I had read it in my early 20s, so reading it now, with the my own knowledge and experiences, this was quite an intriguing read.
It dives into the ming of a writer who is sort of dating around, revealing his thoughts through the process. I think I know a couple of men exactly like Nate, I don’t think that’s a good thing. He is unlikeable for most of the novel, yet he is so human and such a man, it is amazing how the author managed to get into a male mind do effortlesly.
Maybe, I am realising that chacter driven stories are not my favourite - I like plot, I like storytelling more than people’s slice of life/moments in time/thoughts and feelings. This is the third book (in a row) that had been an OK read for me, but yes, some bits I would like to come back to, and yet I won’t be thinking about this book as at times it was a chore to read and I have never read a book so slowly, my goodness. It was so densly written, I had to read EVERY. SINGLE. WORD.
Anyway, would I recommend it? Sure, if you’re not afraid to read about life and love of some random giy, give it a go. I think this is like the other version of Norma People by Sally Rooney (that I still need to read
Ancient Runes - heart on the cover
3.5/5 ⭐️⭐️⭐️
It was better than I expected. I have owned this book for well over 5 years and finally thanks to the readathon I have picked it up.
When I bought it from Daunt books, it was among 4-5 other titles that I picked up that day that have caught my eye - I never really read the synopsis of the books I pick up, I like the mystery. So this cover clearly appealed to me.
I don’t think I would have appreciated this if I had read it in my early 20s, so reading it now, with the my own knowledge and experiences, this was quite an intriguing read.
It dives into the ming of a writer who is sort of dating around, revealing his thoughts through the process. I think I know a couple of men exactly like Nate, I don’t think that’s a good thing. He is unlikeable for most of the novel, yet he is so human and such a man, it is amazing how the author managed to get into a male mind do effortlesly.
Maybe, I am realising that chacter driven stories are not my favourite - I like plot, I like storytelling more than people’s slice of life/moments in time/thoughts and feelings. This is the third book (in a row) that had been an OK read for me, but yes, some bits I would like to come back to, and yet I won’t be thinking about this book as at times it was a chore to read and I have never read a book so slowly, my goodness. It was so densly written, I had to read EVERY. SINGLE. WORD.
Anyway, would I recommend it? Sure, if you’re not afraid to read about life and love of some random giy, give it a go. I think this is like the other version of Norma People by Sally Rooney (that I still need to read
I started off not liking this book very much. The writing seemed simplistic and I wondered if the contemporary setting and stereotypical "popular book" packaging was making me not take it seriously. But as it went on, I understood that this wasn't meant to be a complicated eventful story, and it was simply an unfolded and very relatable, thought-provoking view of a male-female push-and-pull of a relationship.
So much of both Hannah and Nate's inner monologues and reactions felt familiar, sometimes unpleasantly so, but Waldman spends more time unpacking these visceral sorts of feelings that perhaps we've absorbed as normal or glossed over, unexamined. The result is very insightful. The descriptions of facial expressions are so spot-on that I can fully picture, and recognize, every exasperated and withering exchange.
Nate is neither entirely criminalized nor forgiven. Waldman does an excellent job painting the picture of how his (dare I say) commitment-phobic thoughts appear, while making you understand from the outside that these thoughts are still not especially fair to others despite Nate's frequent rationalizations to himself about how fair he is being. You can see how he's setting Hannah up to do the things she does and how he exaggerates every emotion into irrational anger and manipulation of him, but you can also see how Nate has come to view tears as manipulative or why he feels like he can't ever turn down sex.
The female characters are not fully formed, and I think that's deliberate. The way that Hannah and Elisa are used as vehicles for Nate's projections onto them is sort of parallel to how they themselves become more passive with him and how he views them more or less only in relation to himself and their reactions to him.
Waldman also includes some intriguing ruminations on "latte liberalism" and the intellectual narcissism of Nate and his friends. Greer is sort of the counterpoint, but gets little airtime.
Definitely worth the read.
So much of both Hannah and Nate's inner monologues and reactions felt familiar, sometimes unpleasantly so, but Waldman spends more time unpacking these visceral sorts of feelings that perhaps we've absorbed as normal or glossed over, unexamined. The result is very insightful. The descriptions of facial expressions are so spot-on that I can fully picture, and recognize, every exasperated and withering exchange.
Nate is neither entirely criminalized nor forgiven. Waldman does an excellent job painting the picture of how his (dare I say) commitment-phobic thoughts appear, while making you understand from the outside that these thoughts are still not especially fair to others despite Nate's frequent rationalizations to himself about how fair he is being. You can see how he's setting Hannah up to do the things she does and how he exaggerates every emotion into irrational anger and manipulation of him, but you can also see how Nate has come to view tears as manipulative or why he feels like he can't ever turn down sex.
The female characters are not fully formed, and I think that's deliberate. The way that Hannah and Elisa are used as vehicles for Nate's projections onto them is sort of parallel to how they themselves become more passive with him and how he views them more or less only in relation to himself and their reactions to him.
Waldman also includes some intriguing ruminations on "latte liberalism" and the intellectual narcissism of Nate and his friends. Greer is sort of the counterpoint, but gets little airtime.
Spoiler
I think ultimately this is why that relationship "works" - it is completely superficial, and Nate does not have to feel like his inner self is being manipulated or made to change in any way. Essentially, he doesn't have to deal with the consequences of any deep feeling.Definitely worth the read.
Is this really how today's eligible bachelors think?! If so, then I am in deep trouble... If the author has indeed captured the thought processes and motivations of the average educated urban male, well then kudos to her.