Recently completed: Longbourn

[monissaw.livejournal.com]

So I finished Longbourn by Jo Baker. I probably would have liked it more if I cared about the main character. She felt generic. Possibly because her name was Sarah, which is my generic female name. (On such little things that the author has no control over can enjoyment of a novel hang.) I find it curious that while I find the long backstory for James unnecessary and wanted to get back to the main storyline, the writing felt more natural in that section.

(In the back there's a list of "Suggested questions to stimulate debate in your reading groups". (How many readings groups do most people have anyway?) I looked at these early in the reading, and found things like "Jo Baker is a graceful, poised writer, but she is also a visceral one. What other adjectives would you use to describe her writing?" I wouldn't use graceful and poised to start with. Maybe that's how she types? And visceral? (That always makes me think of lots of blood.) Also I would have associated with the writing (with or without blood). And sensual? Humour? Elegant irony? I must have missed these, unless these were the odd details thrown in that made me think the author was trying to hard to be provocative. Maybe it was trying to hard to do humour. Anyway, probably much better book if you don't look at the reading groups questions, they make the book seem pretentious.)

Comments

[littlerdog.livejournal.com]

Don't read the reading group questions! I thought it was an okay read, but not nearly as good a book as people made out.

[monissaw.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that describes most books I read.