Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Non sense
I am really confused and frusterated by the fact that the author decides to write in this fashion. Half the time he is discussing his own life through that of Flaubert, and the other half he is just on some random tangent I don't see any relevance too. For example that donkey and monkey and the ostrich paragraph what was with that. This book goes off on so many wierd tangents it is driving me insane. I wish there were more of a plot to this book. Instead of discussing someone else's life it would be much more entertaining if you would discuss the interesting points in your own life. The author really should stop writing about his obsession with Flaubert and how he hates people who are obsessive because apparently so is he. Why can he not just be satisfied reading Madame Bovary why does he have to write about the author. I think that he is also hypocrital when he criticises critics he is a critic too. This author is driving me crazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I actually find this book much better for its lack of a plot, but then I am the type of person who prefers slightly organized chaos, and I think it's really "fun" in it's own way how he writes.
kirk, im beginning to think you really like this book. thats not a bad thing, but why? i cant find much to like about it.
Hmmm... well I'm a little on the fence about this issue. I really like Barnes (or Braithwaite's!) writing when he's not discussing boring facts about Flaubert. When he gets into his own groove and starts to really develop a voice, I really enjoy the sarcasm and mocking in his writing. I also like how this book is so different from everything we've read in school... don't you agree Britt and Nic?
You're probably right to slam Barnes for some of his less--how shall I put it?--'tasteful' digressions. but are all of these tangents really that random? Is there some underlying organizing principle here? Or are these tangents simply more string to tie the holes of the net together?
Post a Comment