Paul’s review of An Instance of the Fingerpost > Likes and Comments
123 likes · Like
Yes! My thoughts exactly, except you have described them with way more clarity and levity than I could. All I could say to someone who asked was “this book fucking sucks.”
I couldn't finish this book it was so bad. It tried my patience for the first 100 pages, which is my limit for any book. At that point I gave up.
I should have done that too, grrr. I lasted until nearly page 400 and I'm rather cross. Andy yet, many goodreaders hand out 4 and 5 stars to this chunk of cheerlessness.
I think people should take a break from this unreliable narrator thing for a while. Just because it works brilliantly in Atonement and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and the New Testament they think they can do it too, but it's not as easy as it looks.
yay! bring on the reliable narrators! sounds like an alt folk band!
The Reliable Narrators is an excellent folk band name.
Thank you so much for not liking this. I see I gave it two stars but I was lying. I hated it. I guess I didn't want to admit to myself that after I read this WHOLE DAMN BOOK I had actually been comatose the entire time. It seemed like it SHOULD have been so intriguing and so many people seemed to adore it. I was worried that I was just too thick and pea-brained to be swept away in its glory.
it's a very common experience for me to not understand why so many apparently sensible people like some book or movie so much. My middle name is One Star. Okay, my two middle names.
I've reached part 4 and it still bores me to death. Why do I continue? Is it because I want to be sure my one star will be justly given?
ha, yes..... I look forward to your review
I don't think I'll write one... But I agree with yours: the first part was still ok, part 2 worse, and then it went further down. And the book is far, far too long! What did God make editors for?
well, I decided to write a review after all. (My first one on GR.)
so I see..... well, so I should have kept on to the end, it would have all then made sense, but it would still have been rubbish!
No, you made the right decision. By the end, the plot still was a mystery to me. It's just that I'm reluctant to leave a book unfinished. I only do that when it's really bad. In this case, I hoped for illumination at the end. But I should have known better.
Many years ago I had that quasi-religious impulse to finish every book I started. But I gave up that belief and I was free! I never looked back! And now the world is full of books I have abandoned. Maybe they will haunt me in the afterlife.
Very good. Hopefully, I'm also moving towards that freedom. Life's too short. (This life, anyway. And we'll deal with that afterlife when we get there.)
Having just put my one star review up, I thought I would check if there were any others. Yessss! How can anyone actually have enjoyed this sleep inducing drivel? Who are these people? Do they get out much? Or at all?
people who think this book is any good will be called upon to answer for their crimes against innocent readers in the world that is to come, at least, I hope so. As I say elsewhere, one star, but a richly deserved one.
it was another Paul who commented so. But yeah, it's a curious thing - here on Goodreads five-star awarders of a book get to look one-star haters of the same book right in the eye!
I guess we can both be right, right?
I am on page 420. I really tried to stay engaged. I just can't deal with this book anymore. Wanted to like it.
For everyone who wants to quit during the third part,or at the end of the second , I’d say just jump to the last, where it all comes together better than you expect. This was a tiresome book. Could have been so much better if it had been written in a third of the pages.
Alas, you skipped by far the best chapter of this book, which so far surpasses the others that it erases all of their errors.
The fact that you think that is what the book is about shows you made it at best half way through. Each to their own and all that, but it looks a lot like this went mostly over your head
I made it through three of the four long narratives. So I assume you don't agree that this book is a wildly unrealistic smoothed down scrubbed and washed version of something no 17th century person would ever have written.
I guess you didn't do any research concerning the books content.
nope, not at all. I guess I think novels should be self-contained. Apart from Ulysses.
So you never read a blurb or have any idea of what you are about to read before you read it excepting Ulysses?
well, no... but a blurb isn't research is it. This book is on several best book lists and is very well beloved. But as you see it wasn't for me.
GoodReads is a very big tent and this review is another example of that.
Fingerpost is a capital H Historical Novel with "flat characters" (with the possible exception of the poor insane wretch - a "young poltroon" in Book Two) for whom you have a curious resentment - along with:
"this unpleasant middle aged guy in Oxford" (a professor)
"rancid Oxford dons" and
"sniffy cryptographers"
"perky Italian geezer"
"a second unpleasant old fart"
"a third farty old fart"
Historical novel fans, who expect historical figures and history, may be interested to know that "old farts" #2 and #3 are the second greatest mathematician of his time (behind Newton) and an obscure historian (like Pears himself).
We also have Boyle (an early scientist), Lower (who published an early Anatomy), and Thurloe (an "aide" to the King who lost his head) - along with a famous (in his time) astrologer.
By far the biggest "character" is the setting and history of England - which is richly drawn in many respects - and which is a big reason for Historical novel readers to try this one.
See my review for more:
www(dot)goodreads(dot)com/review/show/24618515?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
SPOILERS. Too bad you didn't read the 4th one and missed an extraordinary twist or two. But you'd already missed the clues throughout regarding the identity of the first narrator, on which the next two relied. Like most of us, they were so wrapped up in their own perspective & motives that they missed what was really going on. The clues are all there, but we tend to make assumptions and stop questioning what's happening around us. In this case, the first narrator wasn't who he intimated he was, and his account was written to mislead so that no one would guess his motive: a very politically-sensitive assignation with the King.
Paul wrote: "I made it through three of the four long narratives. So I assume you don't agree that this book is a wildly unrealistic smoothed down scrubbed and washed version of something no 17th century person..."
Yeah obviously it is. I'm not aware of any historical novel that goes full force galesburg on historical language verisimilitude. Ulverton maybe? The Man on a Donkey is pretty good. This one does fine I think - I wasn't thrown off by anachronisms, it got the atmosphere of 17th century english about right I'd say. I've read Browne, Hobbes, Burton etc
@Jim, thank you for putting things into some perspective here.
This guy has terrible taste. Not up for argument. One of the best ever.
This description is baffling. I'm not exaggerating here when I say it is legitimately incoherent.
It's one thing not to like this absolute masterpiece, though tbh it probably says you're a dolt with a short attention span, but this description is NOT EVEN CLOSE. I do not believe for a second that this person read the first three sections, since they only describe events in the second, and they do that incredibly poorly.
Disregard this buffoons opinion.
Oh man, this poor guy, making it through three narratives and not getting the payoff of the fourth. The worst way you could possibly read this novel. Huge L for this guy
You all in this comment section are so mean, lol. I’ve been following Paul’s reviews for a while, he’s very intelligent and extremely well-read. People are allowed to not like things!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jenny
(new)
Jan 20, 2018 10:47AM
Yes! My thoughts exactly, except you have described them with way more clarity and levity than I could. All I could say to someone who asked was “this book fucking sucks.”
reply
|
flag
I couldn't finish this book it was so bad. It tried my patience for the first 100 pages, which is my limit for any book. At that point I gave up.
I should have done that too, grrr. I lasted until nearly page 400 and I'm rather cross. Andy yet, many goodreaders hand out 4 and 5 stars to this chunk of cheerlessness.
I think people should take a break from this unreliable narrator thing for a while. Just because it works brilliantly in Atonement and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and the New Testament they think they can do it too, but it's not as easy as it looks.
referring to the writing of an unreliable narrator, Manny wrote; "but it's not as easy as it looks. "
Tis.
Tis.
yay! bring on the reliable narrators! sounds like an alt folk band!
The Reliable Narrators is an excellent folk band name.
Thank you so much for not liking this. I see I gave it two stars but I was lying. I hated it. I guess I didn't want to admit to myself that after I read this WHOLE DAMN BOOK I had actually been comatose the entire time. It seemed like it SHOULD have been so intriguing and so many people seemed to adore it. I was worried that I was just too thick and pea-brained to be swept away in its glory.
it's a very common experience for me to not understand why so many apparently sensible people like some book or movie so much. My middle name is One Star. Okay, my two middle names.
I've reached part 4 and it still bores me to death. Why do I continue? Is it because I want to be sure my one star will be justly given?
ha, yes..... I look forward to your review
I don't think I'll write one... But I agree with yours: the first part was still ok, part 2 worse, and then it went further down. And the book is far, far too long! What did God make editors for?
well, I decided to write a review after all. (My first one on GR.)
so I see..... well, so I should have kept on to the end, it would have all then made sense, but it would still have been rubbish!
No, you made the right decision. By the end, the plot still was a mystery to me. It's just that I'm reluctant to leave a book unfinished. I only do that when it's really bad. In this case, I hoped for illumination at the end. But I should have known better.
Many years ago I had that quasi-religious impulse to finish every book I started. But I gave up that belief and I was free! I never looked back! And now the world is full of books I have abandoned. Maybe they will haunt me in the afterlife.
Very good. Hopefully, I'm also moving towards that freedom. Life's too short. (This life, anyway. And we'll deal with that afterlife when we get there.)
Having just put my one star review up, I thought I would check if there were any others. Yessss! How can anyone actually have enjoyed this sleep inducing drivel? Who are these people? Do they get out much? Or at all?
people who think this book is any good will be called upon to answer for their crimes against innocent readers in the world that is to come, at least, I hope so. As I say elsewhere, one star, but a richly deserved one.
it was another Paul who commented so. But yeah, it's a curious thing - here on Goodreads five-star awarders of a book get to look one-star haters of the same book right in the eye! I guess we can both be right, right?
I am on page 420. I really tried to stay engaged. I just can't deal with this book anymore. Wanted to like it.
For everyone who wants to quit during the third part,or at the end of the second , I’d say just jump to the last, where it all comes together better than you expect. This was a tiresome book. Could have been so much better if it had been written in a third of the pages.
Alas, you skipped by far the best chapter of this book, which so far surpasses the others that it erases all of their errors.
The fact that you think that is what the book is about shows you made it at best half way through. Each to their own and all that, but it looks a lot like this went mostly over your head
I made it through three of the four long narratives. So I assume you don't agree that this book is a wildly unrealistic smoothed down scrubbed and washed version of something no 17th century person would ever have written.
I guess you didn't do any research concerning the books content.
nope, not at all. I guess I think novels should be self-contained. Apart from Ulysses.
So you never read a blurb or have any idea of what you are about to read before you read it excepting Ulysses?
well, no... but a blurb isn't research is it. This book is on several best book lists and is very well beloved. But as you see it wasn't for me.
GoodReads is a very big tent and this review is another example of that. Fingerpost is a capital H Historical Novel with "flat characters" (with the possible exception of the poor insane wretch - a "young poltroon" in Book Two) for whom you have a curious resentment - along with:
"this unpleasant middle aged guy in Oxford" (a professor)
"rancid Oxford dons" and
"sniffy cryptographers"
"perky Italian geezer"
"a second unpleasant old fart"
"a third farty old fart"
Historical novel fans, who expect historical figures and history, may be interested to know that "old farts" #2 and #3 are the second greatest mathematician of his time (behind Newton) and an obscure historian (like Pears himself).
We also have Boyle (an early scientist), Lower (who published an early Anatomy), and Thurloe (an "aide" to the King who lost his head) - along with a famous (in his time) astrologer.
By far the biggest "character" is the setting and history of England - which is richly drawn in many respects - and which is a big reason for Historical novel readers to try this one.
See my review for more:
www(dot)goodreads(dot)com/review/show/24618515?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
SPOILERS. Too bad you didn't read the 4th one and missed an extraordinary twist or two. But you'd already missed the clues throughout regarding the identity of the first narrator, on which the next two relied. Like most of us, they were so wrapped up in their own perspective & motives that they missed what was really going on. The clues are all there, but we tend to make assumptions and stop questioning what's happening around us. In this case, the first narrator wasn't who he intimated he was, and his account was written to mislead so that no one would guess his motive: a very politically-sensitive assignation with the King.
Paul wrote: "I made it through three of the four long narratives. So I assume you don't agree that this book is a wildly unrealistic smoothed down scrubbed and washed version of something no 17th century person..."Yeah obviously it is. I'm not aware of any historical novel that goes full force galesburg on historical language verisimilitude. Ulverton maybe? The Man on a Donkey is pretty good. This one does fine I think - I wasn't thrown off by anachronisms, it got the atmosphere of 17th century english about right I'd say. I've read Browne, Hobbes, Burton etc
@Jim, thank you for putting things into some perspective here.
This guy has terrible taste. Not up for argument. One of the best ever.
This description is baffling. I'm not exaggerating here when I say it is legitimately incoherent.It's one thing not to like this absolute masterpiece, though tbh it probably says you're a dolt with a short attention span, but this description is NOT EVEN CLOSE. I do not believe for a second that this person read the first three sections, since they only describe events in the second, and they do that incredibly poorly.
Disregard this buffoons opinion.
Oh man, this poor guy, making it through three narratives and not getting the payoff of the fourth. The worst way you could possibly read this novel. Huge L for this guy
You all in this comment section are so mean, lol. I’ve been following Paul’s reviews for a while, he’s very intelligent and extremely well-read. People are allowed to not like things!
