Scan barcode
educatedxicana's review against another edition
funny
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
katel1970's review
5.0
I first read this not long after it came out and loved it! Just read it again because 20 years after publication it's now in theaters, and I wanted a refresher before I see it there. (Though after reading reviews of the film, they may have made so many changes the book may be an unrecognizable source). I still love the book! Fascinating and unusual characters, an interesting plot, and wonderfully written. What more could I ask for?
juliahascats's review
5.0
I would give it 4.5 stars if that was an option. So much is incredible, some bits felt a bit forced.
kristinebraley's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
sad
tense
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
4.5
The book and the movie are incredibly different. The only thing that wasn’t drastically changed was the characterization of Lionel Essrog. Perhaps the most well written (and acted by Edward Norton) character in fiction. And that’s a big statement.
getthatbagel's review
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
montigneyrules's review
2.0
#readingchallenge2019 (my book becoming a 2019 movie)
I really wanted to love this novel. I hate that my negative review is based on my experience seeing the movie, but here we are…I saw Motherless Brooklyn in theaters, fell in love with the story-and its characters-and was ecstatic to discover it was based on a book. Books have more right? Chunks missing from movies you wish were included?
Well….in this case, the changes made to the movie were the parts of intrigue. The movie took the setting back to the 1920s, which was way more alluring than EZ passes and wire taps. The movie also focused on a mystery of racial housing discrimination adding elements of historical fiction; while this ‘mystery’ felt dry, with less suspense and less twists!
The Tourette’s was more gimmicky in the novel compared to the movie, in which the condition became an added element to the layers of investigation. Then at the end, it all just ended quickly, with no slow dramatic build.
Go see the movie, Edward Norton took the minimal good elements from the novel and created a better story.
I really wanted to love this novel. I hate that my negative review is based on my experience seeing the movie, but here we are…I saw Motherless Brooklyn in theaters, fell in love with the story-and its characters-and was ecstatic to discover it was based on a book. Books have more right? Chunks missing from movies you wish were included?
Well….in this case, the changes made to the movie were the parts of intrigue. The movie took the setting back to the 1920s, which was way more alluring than EZ passes and wire taps. The movie also focused on a mystery of racial housing discrimination adding elements of historical fiction; while this ‘mystery’ felt dry, with less suspense and less twists!
The Tourette’s was more gimmicky in the novel compared to the movie, in which the condition became an added element to the layers of investigation. Then at the end, it all just ended quickly, with no slow dramatic build.
Go see the movie, Edward Norton took the minimal good elements from the novel and created a better story.
peregrine13's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
dale_in_va's review against another edition
3.0
This is a book that wouldn't normally interest me. I listened to the audiobook as part of the WNYC "All of it" get lit series. I am glad that I took the journey, but it really wasn't my cup of tea. So forewarning, there are deinitely much better reviews out there.
Language is a big theme in this book, I think, because if it is not, then the language distracts from the actual plot. It most likely just went over my head, but I found the language used to tell the story distracting and confusing, but I am sure that someone else who has a more literary background may perceive it as brilliant.
The book is told from the point of view of an orphaned (?, or abandoned?) young (?) man from brooklyn. He grew up in a home for boys, but read his way through his local library (like me). I don't think he has a college education, but his descriptive language alternates between that of a post-doctorate literary professor and an illterate 1950's greaser stereotype. I am sure someone with a vocabulary larger than mine will get alot more out of this book, but for what it was describing, I didn't really feel it was worth taking out a dictionary in order to get the full impact of the descriptions, which to me seemed generally stereotypical.
The most interesting, albeit voyeristic, part of the book was Lionel's descriptions of his Tourette's brain, and how it affected his thinking/behavior, and the coping mechanisms that he enlists to function in a world that doesn't immediately seem accommodating (but which is suprisingingly tolerant) to his condition. As a voyeur, one is always a bit nervous that Lionel's tics are going to get him into big trouble, but he seems to meaneauver he way out of sticky situations rather well.
The pretext of the plot is a whodunit, but the ultimate reveal is so anticlimatic it reinforces the mystery/detective aspect as parenthetical to the life experiences of the main character.
I am looking forward to the WNYC interview with the author, as I am sure it will enlighten me as to the merits of the book (which it always does).
https://www.thegreenespace.org/event/get-lit-with-all-of-it-jonathan-lethem/
Language is a big theme in this book, I think, because if it is not, then the language distracts from the actual plot. It most likely just went over my head, but I found the language used to tell the story distracting and confusing, but I am sure that someone else who has a more literary background may perceive it as brilliant.
The book is told from the point of view of an orphaned (?, or abandoned?) young (?) man from brooklyn. He grew up in a home for boys, but read his way through his local library (like me). I don't think he has a college education, but his descriptive language alternates between that of a post-doctorate literary professor and an illterate 1950's greaser stereotype. I am sure someone with a vocabulary larger than mine will get alot more out of this book, but for what it was describing, I didn't really feel it was worth taking out a dictionary in order to get the full impact of the descriptions, which to me seemed generally stereotypical.
The most interesting, albeit voyeristic, part of the book was Lionel's descriptions of his Tourette's brain, and how it affected his thinking/behavior, and the coping mechanisms that he enlists to function in a world that doesn't immediately seem accommodating (but which is suprisingingly tolerant) to his condition. As a voyeur, one is always a bit nervous that Lionel's tics are going to get him into big trouble, but he seems to meaneauver he way out of sticky situations rather well.
The pretext of the plot is a whodunit, but the ultimate reveal is so anticlimatic it reinforces the mystery/detective aspect as parenthetical to the life experiences of the main character.
I am looking forward to the WNYC interview with the author, as I am sure it will enlighten me as to the merits of the book (which it always does).
https://www.thegreenespace.org/event/get-lit-with-all-of-it-jonathan-lethem/