hux

I thought the book was perfectly readable but that's the least I expect from a woman who has a degree in English from Cambridge. But beyond that, it all felt a little too convenient and unrealistic. As someone who grew up on council estates in the West Riding, the world she's describing looked nothing like the world I knew. Which brings me to my own personal irritation regarding the book. It seemed clear to me that the writer knew nothing of working class northern life at all and wrote about an almost mythical land that didn't really exist except in the mind of an educated southern middle class girl. What bothered me about this was the fact that had she written about being a small black boy growing up in Detroit, I suspect the people praising her novel would have had a lot of negative things to say about that. But writing about working class white people apparently means you can happily know nothing of the subject matter and no-one will give a crap. I found a lot of the writing overly flowery and would-be-poetic especially given that we're supposed to believe this is coming from the perspective of a small boy -- though it's later revealed he's 15 which took me by surprise. Why the f*** does he keep calling his father 'daddy'? I know the flash forwards suggests an older Daniel narrating about his younger life but that just makes constant references to daddy even more bizarre. And the fact that Daniel grows up to be a generic homosexual felt utterly pointless and purely done to keep the Guardian reviewers happy. As for her use of words like wandt etc to express the Yorkshire dialect, this made no sense to me either. The 'd' isn't pronounced so what's it doing there? It should be pronounced 'want (wasn't), dint (doesn't), wunt (wouldn't) etc etc so again, I'm not sure why the author is being praised for that. Overall, the book was reasonably enjoyable though ultimately uneven and forgettable. I fear the Booker prize nomination may have done her no favours though.

Ulaanbaatar - because it's the best named city ever and when am I ever gonna get to go to Mongolia?

Just read it. Loved it. It took a while for me to get into it and I wasn't really grabbed until Joyce showed up and it became more than just a constant slew of references to fat asses and being hungover. I struggled a little to get used to the simplicity of the prose (not what I'm used to) and the varied and indiscriminate lengths of each chapter. But yeah, once he met Joyce I was pretty much hooked. I avoided Bukowski for years because every dating profile I ever read always mentioned him as their favourite writer so I came to the conclusion that he was some kind of hipster f**kwit's wet dream. And while I can see why he appeals to post-modern , skinny-jean-wearing Starbucks frequenters, I think he deserves a better reputation than that (admittedly based on this one reading). I will definitely investigate his other work though. Having read the book, I'm further confused about the OP suggesting that expression of sexual attraction to women is "a product of it's time." Really? We can't want to f**k women? Not even in our heads?

Peru - to see Machu Picchu

I won't bother starting a new thread; just bump this one. Just finished it. Loved it. I've criticised Atwood before because of her robot protagonists though in both cases (this and Alias, Grace) the women are supposed to be voiceless so I guess it's forgivable. I like the simplicity of the prose and the exploration of the mediocre. We learn about the world she inhabits but only in bits and pieces, dribs and drabs. It was thoroughly compelling and kept me pretty much gripped to the end though the end itself disappointed me. I really didn't see the point of the final chapter and the university speech about the found recordings; didn't add much to be honest and I'd kinda liked the idea of wondering what happened to her. I would have preferred it ended with her being taken away. Like others, I'd also like to talk about feminism. But while they interpreted Atwood's feminism as the bog-standard, straight-forward version, I saw this book more as an attack on certain aspects of feminism. Firstly. Atwood is a very vocal critic of certain brands of feminism and has said that when asked if she's a feminist, she first wants them to define which feminism they're referring to. Secondly, the book shows that the Aunts, Marthas and wives are the ones that designate what role the women should have (including the unwomen) and it is they who ultimately train and prepare the handmaidens -- the aunts in particular taking the role of bad feminist here. The university lecturer mentions that there's nothing new in getting the local, conquered people to run themselves. Thirdly., there's the scene where the Aunt encourages the women to beat the rapist to death. OfGlen knocks him out to spare him any pain because she knows that the accusation is utterly false. But the rest of the women are encouraged to assume guilt. By the Aunt. How very current.

Canada - because I'd like to see America's hat.

Both are fine. My issue with first person is that it's a little phoney. I can hear this character's thoughts and yet they never think anything... controversial. He sees a woman he finds very attractive and thinks 'what a nice looking lady'. Sorry, but that's bullshit. He's thinking far more graphically than that. That's a specific example but it's the general sense of cool, detached thinking that I don't find convincing. That isn't to say it can't be very entertaining to read though. I've only read two Atwood novels (Alias, Grace and Handmaid's Tale) and enjoyed them both thoroughly but I'd be lying if I didn't say the two women seemed... distant, unreal. In those cases, Atwood might receive some benefit of the doubt because the two characters in question are both rather oppressed and victimised. You could argue that it's more acceptable in those circumstances but I have to say, I find the whole iceberg theory very annoying. Truth be told, if I can hear your thoughts then I want to hear something real. Even if it's immature, stupid, racist or disgusting.

How about "Places You'd like to visit and why?" Arkansas - so I can ask someone why it isn't pronounced Our-Kansas.

Zinging stings from the biting frost.

If Audio books count as reading then surely, narrative-heavy TV and movies should too. In which case, I've read thousands of books this year. Good for me.

Xanthic skies and melancholy days

Tingles down your back as the chill sneaks under your collar.

Reindeer taking Santa away for another year.

I just read 'Murphy' by Samuel Beckett and have nothing especially pleasant to say about it (dense, meandering sentences that go absolutely nowhere and left me unable to focus on any of it). Truth be told, it was the least enjoyable reading experience I think I've ever had (despite the guy clearly having an immense talent and way with words it just bored me to death). That all being said, it may contain perhaps my favourite opening line of any book. Very Beckettesque. "The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new."

Prickle-haired pimples and icy goose bumps.