If you want the story, there is a good movie. Russian novels are difficult at best and the only reason I even understand this is because I took a course on Dostoevsky in college. One of the main problems for non-Russians is the variety of names for a single person: there are formal names, semi-formal names, diminutives and short diminutives. The person who reads this book solves that problem because somehow he makes it clear who he is talking about. Overall, the reader is excellent.
This is the third time I've "read" the novel. Each time you notice something different, like with the appreciation of any timeless artwork. This time I noticed Kolya's interaction with the doctor at Ilusha's fbedside. Who cares about Fyodor? This is the real tragedy. Also, I noticed how boring the lawyer's speeches were at the end of the book and I wondered if Dostoevsky had noticed a market for courtroom dramas and was trying to drive up sales . . . ever the cynic.
This is a good book but it starts out with politics and a presumption that everyone feels the way the authors do, a common academic mistake - why do we make such mistakes? Anyhow, I think of the book frequently - getting past the politics, it was good.
I really enjoyed this book. As an academic at a technological research institution, many of my peers think that emotions don't exist. Consequently, emotional intelligence is a very useful competitive tool on par with, say, using performance enhancing drugs to stay up all night tabulating test results. Oh well.
This is an academic or scientific autobiography that discusses drugs in the context of society and the author's life. I enjoyed it and its message is clear. Almost everything I read and see about drug use in the US is from the viewpoint of moral exhortation, which is too bad because it is often untrue (and so no one listens). I'm glad someone is telling the truth.
I like the way the reader does the accents. He's not a southerner but he does well enough that you can tell the character who is speaking by the way he reads - except, of course, when Faulkner himself forgets who is speaking - I still don't completely understand the book and probably never will, which is a good thing, because it's like a gold mine you can go back to over and over again and it never runs dry.
I always wondered about those vague statements I heard regarding autism and vaccines. Now I know why they exist. It's almost like a cult - the human mind is a complex thing indeed.
I think this is the best biography/history I ever read. Using the people surrounding a person to help narrate their lives and time is an excellent idea. It gave me a much better understanding of Lincoln and the Civil war, even though I already knew a great deal about him/it.
The "secret history" described here is about how women's actions are traditionally left out of historical narratives so that the big picture appears skewed. It's really a book about the woman behind Jeanne D'Arc, and sometimes the complexities of her family structure are described in so much detail that they move away from Jeanne's tale. Good nevertheless.
The reader for this made conversations sound real and Raskolnikov's inner musings feel like they are inside his head. This is about the third time I've read this book - the first was over 35 years ago - and I always find something new. Dostoyevsky is good like that.
I need long books to listen to while I'm exercising and I like history so this looked good. Unfortunately, the author is so biased against the US that it's hard to listen to. I don't mind other viewpoints but this isn't a viewpoint, it's a rant. A really LONG rant.
This book made an impression on me for some reason. I like the tone of voice of the author/narrator. It's read well too, but it's the writing that makes it special. There are many scenes still fresh in my mind even though many other things seem to fall through the crack these days.
Report Inappropriate Content