-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
John Irving
- Thread starter cabrasopa
- Start date
in other words is it any good ?
Personally I think it’s questionable if Irving has ever written a „good“ book, and while maybe his older stuff has (seemingly) some appeal his newer drivel is outright shite.
And he gets extra twat points for complaining to the Washington Post about a recent bad review (of which he’s receiving many for his newest nonsense) and in the land of Free Speech: the Post retracted (so to speak) AND apologized for the review.
You’d be *much* better off exploring the worlds of early TC Boyle, Paul Auster, Murakami, early Joyce Carol Oates, John Gardner and any other stuff you’ve been meaning to read but haven’t gotten to.
And he gets extra twat points for complaining to the Washington Post about a recent bad review (of which he’s receiving many for his newest nonsense) and in the land of Free Speech: the Post retracted (so to speak) AND apologized for the review.
You’d be *much* better off exploring the worlds of early TC Boyle, Paul Auster, Murakami, early Joyce Carol Oates, John Gardner and any other stuff you’ve been meaning to read but haven’t gotten to.
Stewart
Active Member
CDA said:
He'd previously had intimate relations with that critic and she did not disclose any prior involvement with the author which, apparently, they are supposed to do in order to prevent biased reviews. That will be why he only complained about that review and not the others panning it.
The review was written by Salmon Rushdie’s now ex-wife. Apparently The Rushdies and the Irvings are/were acquaintances. So this potentially breeches a reviewer’s ‘rule’ that no one with potential personal animosity shall write a review.
While this was a screw-up of the Washington Post, and the reviewer should have (maybe) brought this past personal association to light, the review was *NOT* personal in *ANY* way (I’d offer you the link, but as I said, they retracted it), and if it were I’d hope it wouldn’t have passed through the editorial channels and seen print.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050808/ap_en_ot/john_irving_washington_post
I’ve only flipped through Irving newest stuffs but I found ‘Garp’ and _The Water Method Man_ only ok.
‘Prayer’, my last attempt at Irving, I think I tossed on a fire - I’m not a big fan of being bored.
Irving has continually been in *dire* need of a good editor, but he’s beloved which means he’s apparently untouchable.
j
While this was a screw-up of the Washington Post, and the reviewer should have (maybe) brought this past personal association to light, the review was *NOT* personal in *ANY* way (I’d offer you the link, but as I said, they retracted it), and if it were I’d hope it wouldn’t have passed through the editorial channels and seen print.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050808/ap_en_ot/john_irving_washington_post
I’ve only flipped through Irving newest stuffs but I found ‘Garp’ and _The Water Method Man_ only ok.
‘Prayer’, my last attempt at Irving, I think I tossed on a fire - I’m not a big fan of being bored.
Irving has continually been in *dire* need of a good editor, but he’s beloved which means he’s apparently untouchable.
j
Stewart said:
I think “intimate” is pushing the envelope a bit. ‘Had a few family dinners with’ may be more accurate.
Johnny’s new book seemingly bites and is already slipping place in the Best Seller list and he and/or his agent saw a way to get some publicity out of it.
It’s a shame the Post did kind of botch that one, because I’d imagine anyone (that knows good from bad) could have written a biting “negative” review. Not that that will dissuade those that “love” Irving’s stuff; balanced thinking need not apply when it comes to “fans”.
j
Stewart said:
Well, if you do let us know how you “make out with” him
[Stoopid joke based on another thread; apologies for the cross-pollination]
I can’t say I recommend him, but of course sample for yourself.
I consider him to be just following the career path of John Ackdike [Updike], a guy that maybe had some ok stuff early on, manages to not die so is therefore the cream of the crop for American Letters and can do know wrong.
While this says a lot of the reading public, it also says a bit about the sad state of fiction.
My theory also carries on the Michael ‘yawn’ Chabon is the next guy to get (or already is holding) the baton from Irving.
Pseudo-important writers.
j
novella said:
Oh damn. You are *totally* right.
Ack.
I guess I’ve managed to actually black them out of my memory.
Hopefully this resurface/reminder -which you most assuredly owe me a nice coffee over (as Band-Aid to my wound)- will fade away quickly.
Breathing in, breathing out.
j
Sorry gang, I aint be knowing of a way to re-route this back on topic…
Kookamoor
New Member
I adore John Irving, including his newer stuff - The Fourth Hand was certainly different from his older stuff, but I still enjoyed the tale. It took me a while to get around to reading A Prayer for Owen Meany, but I regretted waiting so long. Not only was it a wonderful story, but it made me think a lot about religion and my own beliefs.
Did anyone see the movie, Simon Birch? I haven't... is it a good interpretation of the book?
Did anyone see the movie, Simon Birch? I haven't... is it a good interpretation of the book?
Kookamoor
New Member
I look forward to it!!cabrasopa said:
Have you read some of him more 'classic' works? Like 'The Hotel New Hampshire' and 'The World According to Garp'? If you're TBR list is stacked, I'd suggest either of those in place of 'The Fourth Hand'. Presuming you enjoy Owen Meany, of course (I so hope you do!!!).
Sitaram
kickbox
Sparknotes are often very useful. Here is what they have on
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/owenmeany/
You might want to look at it after you have read the book, so as to avoid an obvious spoiler.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/owenmeany/
You might want to look at it after you have read the book, so as to avoid an obvious spoiler.