Cecily’s Comments (group member since Jan 15, 2015)

Cecily’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Traveller wrote: "... creating cognitive dissonance in the reader..."

I think that's key to the story's power. It's a powerful tool for a writer, but can backfire spectacularly in the pen of a bad or inexperienced writer.

There is so much myth and symbolism bound up in blood, isn't there, especially when you look beyond the gore itself. It's a brilliantly unsettling story. It has some similarities with another short story, also available free online, Pickman's Model.

I'm sorry, Trav. I'm not a good group person, as the timing is rarely right for me. I like to choose what to read and when - and I often change my plans at short notice. If there's a group read of the right book at the right time, or of a book near the top of my TBR, that's great, but lately, I've barely been looking in the groups, as I'm struggling to keep up with friends' updates and my own reading and reviewing.

I was planning to pick up the book and join this discussion a couple of weeks late. But I can't find my copy, and although I could get another, I'm in the mood for something different now. But one day, I may return and necropost. (I'm not very good as a "group" person.)

Too long since I read The Castle (though I plan to again in a couple of weeks), but some fascinating points above, and I have no fear of spoilers.

Michele wrote: "It was so long ago that I read The Metamorphosis. I remember it being more of a straightforward story. Was that just because I was only a teenager. Was it like this?"

That I have read more recently and no, it's not as dream-like. The situation is surreal, but only a single aspect of it is: Gregor waking as an insect, with no explanation ever given. The rest of it is relatively straightforward. The Castle never gets as surreal as that, but there is a constant feeling of things not being quite right.

Traveller wrote: ""Should authors' works be published posthumously even if doing so would be going against the author's wishes?" "

That assumes their wishes are certain - which isn't the case with Kafka. He told Brod more than once to burn his unpublished works, Brod told him he wouldn't, and still Kafka made him literary executor. That implies ambivalence at the very least.

If one is certain an author didn't want something published, then morally, I think that should be respected, but as a reader, I'm not so sure. Think of all the private letters that biographers find so useful.

Tricky.

I've only skimmed it so far.
The trouble is, I know I won't be able to resist studying it in more detail.
Grrrr

;)

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "2465? You are NUTS! And also evil."

What Amy said!

Bloody hell, Trav!

Traveller wrote: "Honestly, which real human being would want to remain in such a cohabitation where the two participants obviously totally work on one another's nerves and value opposing lifestyles."

Honestly? Quite a lot - and that's just thinking of those I know personally.
Very sad.

Yolande, I think the partners option is greyed out if you've made your profile either private, or restricted to people signed in to GR.

Yes, Millie is a characterless character ("paper-thin" - nice), and although in some ways I found that irritating and sexist, I think it's because Bradbury's intended message was the mind-numbing effect of constant screens and sea-shells and virtual life. If the book were written now, Montag might be female (or still male), and Montag's partner (male or female) would still need to be empty.

Clarisse was sweet in a slightly stereotypical way, and although she didn't awaken him, she certainly fanned his doubts (as well as his lust).

As for the wider issue of weak characters in sci-fi and spec-fic, if the core idea is good enough, and the writing is otherwise good, I'm quite forgiving in these genres. Yes, this is also very much about social and human issues, but that's true of many others in these genres. I completely get why some people find it impairs their enjoyment, but for me, with this book, it didn't.

Matt wrote: "Of course now I have to read the "porno-blasphemous crap"..."

Great label.

I've just read Lawrence's The Rainbow and am now on its sequel (sort of), Women in Love. Everyone knows Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned for obscenity, but I don't think I previously knew The Rainbow was as well.

What's surprising and amusing to me is that the sex in The Rainbow is mostly SO elliptically mentioned (all flowers and flames) that it's hard to see it as obscene. On the other hand, it's very close to blasphemy and heresy many times. And the famous lesbian relationship is far more shocking to modern readers, not because they're women (as lesbians invariably are!), but because (view spoiler)[they're teacher and pupil (hide spoiler)].

Found it:
1. Edit Profile (drop-down at top right).
2. Settings (heading along the top).
3. Half way down, "allow partners of Goodreads to display my reviews"

I've always had it unticked.
It's currently greyed out as well, probably because I changed my privacy settings a couple of weeks ago, so that only people logged in as GR members can see my profile (a trio of options immediately before the "partners" one).

Perhaps I need to find a suitably unusual turn of phrase from one of my reviews, though that may be tricky...

Trav, that's shocking in multiple ways. There is (was?) a profile setting where you had to untick a box to say you didn't want your reviews used on other sites, but I can't find it now (nor do I know if it works).

In terms of the content of the book itself (rather than Bradbury's personal views), I was more put off by what I saw as explicit misogyny in 1984 than Montag's archaic and casual masculinisation (or whatever you want to call it). But it's a tricky and sensitive issue where we all react differently.

I highlighted both those passages in my notes - but I didn't include them in my review. I guess I was enjoying the book so much, I made more allowance for the fact it was written in the very early 1950s, when "man" was more commonly used in that way.

(I'm not saying you're wrong to call it out or feel as you do.)

That's what I thought I meant!

If you're familiar with Derren Brown (Tricks of the Mind), that's the sort of thing he does.

Well, apart from the fact I could be fat, round-shouldered, with glasses and braces*, this summarises my impressions:

Source: http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/u...

*I tick only one of those boxes.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I can't actually find any direct reference to Julia lacking "intelligence" ..."

I think you're right. I just looked at my notes and my Penguin 1981 edition.

My notes for p108 have "not intell", which perhaps means "intellectual", rather than "intelligent" as I can't see a direct mention of either; it's mostly discussing her uncritical acceptance of things.

p128 says people like Julia, "By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything..." But again, that's not necessarily related to intelligence at all; if anything, it's the intelligent thing to do.