Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.74 AVERAGE
3.74 AVERAGE
Meh. This book was an easy quick read but... Let me tell you something be prepared for some vulgarity and XXX rated smut. I didn't expect it so when it happened I was like um.... Alrighty then. I enjoyed the ride, but the book was only so so.
Don Winslow’s Savages starts off with one of the most memorable opening chapters I’ve read; which simply said “F**k you”. These two words set up the feel of this novel really well. Chon and Ben are weed growers in Laguna Beach, California; their product is top of the range. Ben is the botanist that looks after their marijuana and business; Chon looks after the problems. Then there is O; their girlfriend. When the Baja Cartel takes interest in their product, things are bound to get Savage.
I’ve had this book on my radar for a while but since the Oliver Stone adaptation has been released I made sure I read the book before seeing the movie. This is savage noir, full of quick chapters and in the words of Don Winslow; baditude. Snappy dialogue, noirish themes and the dark gritty plot is what makes this novel such a thrill to read. But when you mix the quick, straight to the point chapters; you are practically flying through this book at an outrageous speed.
This book doesn’t pull any punches; it’s gruesome and disturbing so makes sense that Oliver Stone wanted to adapt it. While Stone was pretty faithful to the book, I’m a little disappointed in the lack of O’s mother PAQU (Passive Aggressive Queen of the Universe). I really wanted to see what they would do with this character but unfortunately she wasn’t in the movie at all. It’s like Stone has cut most of the first half of the book and went straight for the point; the kidnapping of O. Also the DEA turncoat seems to have a much larger role in the movie which turned out rather well (simply because this role was played by John Travolta). Finally don’t get me started with the less than tragic ending; typical Hollywood.
The book works well because of the angst and mental back and forth that was conveyed; particularly with Ben. But the movie just goes for the savage violent point and it is gruesome to watch. Personally I much prefer the book, the wit and insight of Winslow just didn’t translate and the movie just felt more like violence for the sake of violence.
In the end, read the book; experience the style and wit of Don Winslow, because this was the best part. If you want to see the movie, maybe do it as a way to see what Hollywood does to a movie adaptation; while less tragic, it was more sardonic. I enjoyed the book but when it came to the movie I think they took it a little too far. But maybe that is just caused by the visual aspects of watching the violence.
This review originally appeared on my blog; http://literary-exploration.com/2013/01/14/book-review-savages/
I’ve had this book on my radar for a while but since the Oliver Stone adaptation has been released I made sure I read the book before seeing the movie. This is savage noir, full of quick chapters and in the words of Don Winslow; baditude. Snappy dialogue, noirish themes and the dark gritty plot is what makes this novel such a thrill to read. But when you mix the quick, straight to the point chapters; you are practically flying through this book at an outrageous speed.
This book doesn’t pull any punches; it’s gruesome and disturbing so makes sense that Oliver Stone wanted to adapt it. While Stone was pretty faithful to the book, I’m a little disappointed in the lack of O’s mother PAQU (Passive Aggressive Queen of the Universe). I really wanted to see what they would do with this character but unfortunately she wasn’t in the movie at all. It’s like Stone has cut most of the first half of the book and went straight for the point; the kidnapping of O. Also the DEA turncoat seems to have a much larger role in the movie which turned out rather well (simply because this role was played by John Travolta). Finally don’t get me started with the less than tragic ending; typical Hollywood.
The book works well because of the angst and mental back and forth that was conveyed; particularly with Ben. But the movie just goes for the savage violent point and it is gruesome to watch. Personally I much prefer the book, the wit and insight of Winslow just didn’t translate and the movie just felt more like violence for the sake of violence.
In the end, read the book; experience the style and wit of Don Winslow, because this was the best part. If you want to see the movie, maybe do it as a way to see what Hollywood does to a movie adaptation; while less tragic, it was more sardonic. I enjoyed the book but when it came to the movie I think they took it a little too far. But maybe that is just caused by the visual aspects of watching the violence.
This review originally appeared on my blog; http://literary-exploration.com/2013/01/14/book-review-savages/
I don't think this was a bad book, so much as it's a bad book for me. There were two basic issues.
One is that of style. What I said to my husband is that the prose reminds me of the older uncle of Bret Easton Ellis & Chuck Palahniuk; in that same family of in-your-face prose, but trying harder to look/be/seem "cool" and not quite as successful. Problem is, I don't really like Ellis or Palahniuk, and I don't like it much with Winslow here. There's nothing wrong with it, objectively speaking, and the success of all three authors shows there's plenty of people who are into it, but I'm not one of them.
The other problem is tangentially related; another part of that particular literary style is a lack of overt affect and/or emotion. Character's emotions are sometimes stated, but it's all bloodless, there's nothing really there for the reader to latch on or feel in sympathy. Which, again, is a perfectly valid writing choice, but it's not what I want from my leisure reading.
I was excited to read this book because it's a mainstream novel that, in theory, centers around a polyamorous relationship. In a real and fundamental way, the relationship between Chon, Ben and O is the crux and center-point of the novel. For any of it to work, I needed to believe in that relationship above all else. But the distanced nature of the prose meant I could never feel that relationship the way I needed, to buy into it. So it became a rather unlikeable story about a lot of incredibly unlikeable people doing things that I couldn't bring myself to care very much about.
And while I'm willing to put up with a more emotionless story for the sake of a really great plot, Savages didn't have that, either. Everything (other than the poly) that happens in this story is stuff I've seen elsewhere and done better.
I was within 20 pages of finishing the book when I put it down and just stopped reading for about a month, because I just didn't like or care enough about the book to finish. Really, the only reason I did finally finish it was because a) I was so close to the end and b) the month off meant I was several books behind on my reading goals for the year and this was one more 'read' book toward my goal. Not a sterling recommendation.
One is that of style. What I said to my husband is that the prose reminds me of the older uncle of Bret Easton Ellis & Chuck Palahniuk; in that same family of in-your-face prose, but trying harder to look/be/seem "cool" and not quite as successful. Problem is, I don't really like Ellis or Palahniuk, and I don't like it much with Winslow here. There's nothing wrong with it, objectively speaking, and the success of all three authors shows there's plenty of people who are into it, but I'm not one of them.
The other problem is tangentially related; another part of that particular literary style is a lack of overt affect and/or emotion. Character's emotions are sometimes stated, but it's all bloodless, there's nothing really there for the reader to latch on or feel in sympathy. Which, again, is a perfectly valid writing choice, but it's not what I want from my leisure reading.
I was excited to read this book because it's a mainstream novel that, in theory, centers around a polyamorous relationship. In a real and fundamental way, the relationship between Chon, Ben and O is the crux and center-point of the novel. For any of it to work, I needed to believe in that relationship above all else. But the distanced nature of the prose meant I could never feel that relationship the way I needed, to buy into it. So it became a rather unlikeable story about a lot of incredibly unlikeable people doing things that I couldn't bring myself to care very much about.
And while I'm willing to put up with a more emotionless story for the sake of a really great plot, Savages didn't have that, either. Everything (other than the poly) that happens in this story is stuff I've seen elsewhere and done better.
I was within 20 pages of finishing the book when I put it down and just stopped reading for about a month, because I just didn't like or care enough about the book to finish. Really, the only reason I did finally finish it was because a) I was so close to the end and b) the month off meant I was several books behind on my reading goals for the year and this was one more 'read' book toward my goal. Not a sterling recommendation.
Savages isn't a flawless book, but it's a hell of a ride with three relentlessly modern characters, written by an author who seems to hurtle forward as furiously as his characters. Winslow isn't subtle, but he's good, and he trusts himself, so we what could be cliche (knowing, sarcastic narration, unconventional punctuation, etc) done right and used to fantastic effect, and a thrilling story that is absolutely, perfectly NOW.