Rescued Thread When Bill has caught up with some things, please can we have the forum for this back, and then get it moved? Cheers!
Flingo 8th June 2006 11:06 PM
I thought in Bill's absense we could start a couple of threads about Holes here and have the discussion that so many people are keen to do before we forget what we want to say. It should be able to be moved once the new board is open, shouldn't it?
So what are people's first impressions? I know some people have finished it - but please remember anyone could call in here, so spoiler if necessary!
I really enjoyed Holes. My children's librarian mentor has been urging me to read this for ages but I had never got round to it, and am now really disappointed that I left it so long!
It's really clever, although it takes a bit to understand where all the threads of the story are going.
The writing is so easy to read, and you feel drawn in almost immediately. I could felt the heat of Camp Green Lake radiating out of the book - a huge acheivement!
megustaleer 8th June 2006 11:34 PM
I read it some years ago, and loved it. I really don't know why it has not been a bigger hit as a 'crossover' book. I thought that the way all those plot threads were neatly tied up was just so satisfying, and so clever!
Have just checked my reading list, and it is six years since I read it, and I can still remember quite a lot of it; it really made an impression!
katrina 9th June 2006 06:02 PM
Hey, this is my second read of this book in a year, as I had to read it at the start of my PGCE course, its a really popular keystage 3 yext. I prefered it this time around, the first time I was annoyed by it, but I can't remember why now.
Thought the writing was good, and the sense of the lake and the heat were well depicted.
Momo 9th June 2006 06:20 PM
I can well imagine that it's six years since Meg read it. My oldest son read it when he was a year younger than my youngest one is now and he is five years older. It had just come out otherwise he would have done it earlier as my younger one has.
Anyway, even though both my boys had read it, I never did so myself. Somehow it always seemed like a book for little boys. So, I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't that at all. (We even have the DVD and I never watched that either!)
I will recommend this book to anyone. It's a quick read, yet very interesting and there is a lot in this. More than last month's read.
katrina 10th June 2006 08:30 AM
I was wondering if anybody had watched the film version of the book, if I have time this week I'm going to borrow it from school and take a peak at it, I've heard its quite a good adaptation
Flingo 10th June 2006 10:45 AM
I picked it up on Wednesday, and will be watching it tomorrow.
I think we ought to have a thread about the film in this section, so that we can discuss comparisons and similarities? Whoever watches it first can start that!
megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:56 AM
belweb says on another thread that she thought the plot was full of holes! I beg to differ! The thing that I like about this book is that there are no 'holes', everything is all neatly sewn up at the end!
Admittedly a lot of the connections are contrived, but I thought that was part of the humour of the book. My reactions were along the lines of 'Well I Never!! and 'Who'd've Thought It!' , and I thought it was all very cleverly brought to a satisfying (if not necessarily satisfactory) conclusion.
I wouldn't have accepted the neat conclusion in a serious adult novel, but 'Horses for Courses', eh? And there's plenty of food for thought in there, too.
The book probably suffered from being read in the middle of reading for an Eng. Lit. degree. I'm sure it wouldn't stand comparison to the other books occupying belwebb's thoughts.
Momo 16th June 2006 01:45 PM
I don't know either what kind of holes belwebb saw in this novel. As Meg already mentions, and we all should consider this, this is a children's book. We cannot expect deep meanings that you will only understand after studying English Lit.
belwebb 16th June 2006 05:28 PM
Yes, you've made some valid points. However, when you say 'contrived' I think that's the word I should have used - it was incredibly contrived, but then, like you say, I was in the middle of an English lit course!
elfstar 16th June 2006 06:38 PM
I enjoyed this book, it had a nice 'roundness' to it,there was no unhappy or unresolvesd ending for the protagonist, the characters were not as deep as they could have been but it is a childrens book and a such it was very acceptable
donnae 19th June 2006 11:17 PM
I really enjoyed this book. I loved how the story of the past was neatly interlinked with Stanley's story. Contrived maybe, but very enjoyable still. At least it ties up a lot more ends than last month's read!
As this was a children's story, I liked the manner in which the anti-racialism was dealt with, not too heavy-handed. There were some obvious morals going on in the book, but they didn't overshadow the story.
There is a sequel to Holes called Small Steps. This follows the lives of Armpit and Xray.
Holes is a book I will be encouraging my children to read - I think they will all enjoy it. One of my daughters has watched the film and enjoyed it. Flingo, have you watched it yet?
Adrian 20th June 2006 01:50 AM
I was thinking the same thing, donnae. It's pretty obvious when you read it.
megustaleer 20th June 2006 09:34 PM
Because it is a children's book, and apparantly a straightforward account of Stanley's misadventures, perhaps there is a tendency to whiz through it without picking up the clues?
Once you know how it all fits together, of course, a lot of it was clearly hinted at in advance.
Hindsight's a wonderful thing!
Adrian 20th June 2006 09:52 PM
I certainly did that, not giving the book its due respect and racing through it. I'll have to re-read it, or maybe listen to the audio version.
Flingo 23rd June 2006 08:47 PM
I did watch it - though it was really nicely done. Louis Sachar actually wrote the screenplay, which I think helped keeping it true to the book.
Recommend watching it if you enjoyed the book.
Flingo 9th June 2006 10:52 PM
I've been thinking about holes and their relevance. Does anyone else think the holes in the lake bed symbolise more than physical holes?
All the characters had something missing from their lives, something major that could make / have made everything fantastic.
Leading on from this to the ending:
katrina 10th June 2006 08:37 AM
I was wondering about the symbolism whilst I read the book, particuarly in relation to America and kids lives. Have yet to come up with a satisfying answer that isn't too obvious, I think there is more going on with this book than just what is presented at surface level. I didn't pick up on this the first read at all.
'Zero' is obviously a blank which needs filling, a non-entity but as a character he seems the most rounded (no pun intended). The other characters seemed to be hiding behind the roles created by their nicknames. Zero is also the only character not accepted and intigrated into the group
Rescued Thread - Poll lost
Flingo 30th June 2006 06:25 PM
Well we are nearly in July, and despite a lot of people reading Holes there has been little discussion really. So those that did read, or start, what did you really think?
katrina 2nd July 2006 12:56 PM
I enjoyed the book but as I had read it before fairly recently it was too fresh in my mind to really enjoy it. On the discussion side of things I thought that maybe as a book group read for adults it didn't offer enoughscope for discussion, maybe we could have picked a book with more about it, I felt it was too straight forward to really create a grippig discussion.
I was alsos moving during this read so wasn't on the internet much, will have broadband setup this week so i will be able to participate inthe next read. When do we start voting for that? I thought we were going to pick the themes for the next six months as well but that never seemed to come about.
Flingo 11th June 2006 09:39 PM
The nicknames used by the boys in Camp Green Lake was another point I was going to pick up on.
I found Stanley's nickname, Caveman, quite hard to understand.
The boys nicknames are mostly taken from a characteristic that they have displayed - Barfbag (obvious even though we never meet him!), X-ray (not because he has great vision, but because it is pig latin for his real name Rex), Twitch (because he does!).
Although Stanley's nickname seems at odds at first, he fits the role more as he develops through the book.
Does anyone have any other opinions about the nicknames, or maybe a deeper understanding of them from a second read of the book?
belwebb 16th June 2006 08:28 AM
I read Holes during the second year of studying for my English lit degree, which meant that I had high expectations of it because I had so many other book to read. I was disappointed. Greatly. It was all just too uncredible, amateurish, and well, full of holes!! I passed it onto my younger sister and she was of the same opinion. Maybe it should stay with the youngster's??
megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:29 AM
Stanley did, too. I've had another look at that passage, and can't see the reason for it. I wonder what 'they' think of as a caveman's characteristics? Should we be thinking 'Flintstones', or something more primitive?
Momo 16th June 2006 01:44 PM
Maybe it was the way he was digging? That's the only explanation I came up with.
Stanley Yelnats’ Survival Guide to Camp Green Lake - Louis Sachar - 2003
My son had this book and I read it after we read Holes as a group read. It is a funny little book for children who might not want to read too much at one time or who are not that much into fiction. Also for children who have read Holes.