You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
I learned so much from this book. I struggle to understand how as an English major with a teaching degree, I had not come across this book prior.
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Spoiler
It's a book that cannot be spoiled. It has little plot and it all goes into a frame story.Unfortunately, I couldn't find much value in it either. What is the philosophy of a hideaway monastery run by unorthodox lamas? Where most of the lamas were Europeans because we couldn't avoid Western bias even in a book situated in Tibet. Yes, apparently the white race is more susceptible to spiritual enlightenment. Perhaps because the book's target readership was also white. I understand that. Perhaps the pacifist idyll was the secret ingredient that made the book so popular in the stormy thirties. Reminds me of Slaughterhouse 5, another antiwar bestseller written in the right place at the right time.
So maybe I criticise it unfairly. If anything, it disturbed me with its sickly sweet tranquility. A lot of wizened old men crouching here like spiders for anyone who comes near... it's filthy... who'd want to live to an age like that, anyhow?, as Mallinson puts. And it repeated the mantra of moderation so often that it turned into a running joke. It was all too moderate. The book itself ended up being moderately bad/
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Like most people, I have heard of ‘Shangri-la’ but didn’t know where the notion had come from. Hilton’s novel came out in 1933 and somehow the mystery took root in readers’ mind, and kept growing from there.
The story itself is structured in the usual bookended fashion, technique often used to give the illusion of verisimilitude. I didn’t mind this; on the contrary. Also, I couldn’t help smiling at how nearly ‘perfect’ the hero is described. Less fun were the sexist and racist elements, often inherent to texts of this time. Most the characters are stereotyped too (Mallison is beyond annoying), and yet. The focus is really on Shangri-la and all it stands for. Instead of an adventure, Hilton gives us a philosophical study. I must admit it did appeal on an intellectual level, especially with its tenets of moderation. The story ends in a way that fosters the mystery but also allows readers to opt for what they would wish for. Pretty smart.
The story itself is structured in the usual bookended fashion, technique often used to give the illusion of verisimilitude. I didn’t mind this; on the contrary. Also, I couldn’t help smiling at how nearly ‘perfect’ the hero is described. Less fun were the sexist and racist elements, often inherent to texts of this time. Most the characters are stereotyped too (Mallison is beyond annoying), and yet. The focus is really on Shangri-la and all it stands for. Instead of an adventure, Hilton gives us a philosophical study. I must admit it did appeal on an intellectual level, especially with its tenets of moderation. The story ends in a way that fosters the mystery but also allows readers to opt for what they would wish for. Pretty smart.
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A great adventure
A story well suited for anyone with a taste for the calmly unusual. This book goes a long way in proving that an adventure story doesn't have to be swashbuckling to be engaging.
A story well suited for anyone with a taste for the calmly unusual. This book goes a long way in proving that an adventure story doesn't have to be swashbuckling to be engaging.
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The premise of this book caught my eye, I love stories about mountainous settings but the execution of this one I found lacking. Conway felt like a Mary Sue. The sheer imperialistic arrogance and entitlement of all four of the hijacked characters were exhausting. Mallinson, especially, was insufferable. It was definitely a product of its time between that and the racial slurs bandied about. I would have actually liked to have known what happened next but given the book's framework that unfortunately wasn't possible.