Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.57 AVERAGE
3.57 AVERAGE
"someone was using my head to power a coffee maker"
i love nearly everything about the way this book is set up.
i love nearly everything about the way this book is set up.
emotional
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
did he know? i mean.. where was he when writing this book? and did he know he was going to drown? i think he did.
WHERE IS MY HAND-PART? people write stuff about something Hand wrote but my book does not have a Hand-part. i bought this book second-hand, was there someone who gave this away while knowing the Hand-part wasn't there?
do i have to buy another You Shall Know Our Velocity now?
WHERE IS MY HAND-PART? people write stuff about something Hand wrote but my book does not have a Hand-part. i bought this book second-hand, was there someone who gave this away while knowing the Hand-part wasn't there?
do i have to buy another You Shall Know Our Velocity now?
Characters are hard to love, but 'The Jumping People' are incredible.
This was interesting to read for a while. The book really has no structured story line, which sounds cool at first, but gets old pretty quickly. Sure, it was enjoyable more often than not, and frequently quite funny, but it could have ended about 100 pages before it actually did. And when that extension just ends up leaving loose ends untied, it's a bit irritating. Though, I can't deny that the novel had some thought provoking philosophical moments, and did manage to squeeze some laughs out of me. Basically: "Eh, it was good."
Really enjoyable read, although not much seemed to happen and (obviously) it got pretentious at times.
To start off with, this is one of my favourite book titles in recent memory. It's commanding without being threatening and I find its implications very poetic. Sadly, but also luckily, I suspect there will be few, if any, times in my life where it is appropriate to announce "You shall know our velocity."
But onto the book. Given the inevitability of this review going viral, I'll insert my **Spoiler Alert!** here.
I didn't start out loving this book, for a few reasons. Firstly the premise (two young guys flying around the world and arbitrarily giving out money they arbitrarily acquired) irritated me. I know it was supposed to. I know the author wasn't trying to advocate for misguided and self-serving efforts at poverty alleviation, but I found that my disinterested dismissal of their plan affected my ability to get into the narrative. Secondly, I did not relate well to the two main characters (though there is only really one main character). This isn't to say that they weren't relatable, just that they represented a demographic (young, aggressive, rage-fueled, distraught, grieving young men) that is pretty detached from my experience. For me, it was their anger that distanced me.
However, maybe this was all part of the plan. I kept on reading, regardless of a clear connection with the story, and all of a sudden I found myself in the head of someone who was going through tragic, confusing, genuine, multi-faceted emotions. And all of a sudden, I was on the same page as him and the fact that it surprised me made it all the more profound.
I think I am going to end this here. And I suppose that means my spoiler alert was all for naught. Michelle Reviews Books 2.0 coming soon with an upgrade in accuracy and insight (hopefully).
But onto the book. Given the inevitability of this review going viral, I'll insert my **Spoiler Alert!** here.
I didn't start out loving this book, for a few reasons. Firstly the premise (two young guys flying around the world and arbitrarily giving out money they arbitrarily acquired) irritated me. I know it was supposed to. I know the author wasn't trying to advocate for misguided and self-serving efforts at poverty alleviation, but I found that my disinterested dismissal of their plan affected my ability to get into the narrative. Secondly, I did not relate well to the two main characters (though there is only really one main character). This isn't to say that they weren't relatable, just that they represented a demographic (young, aggressive, rage-fueled, distraught, grieving young men) that is pretty detached from my experience. For me, it was their anger that distanced me.
However, maybe this was all part of the plan. I kept on reading, regardless of a clear connection with the story, and all of a sudden I found myself in the head of someone who was going through tragic, confusing, genuine, multi-faceted emotions. And all of a sudden, I was on the same page as him and the fact that it surprised me made it all the more profound.
I think I am going to end this here. And I suppose that means my spoiler alert was all for naught. Michelle Reviews Books 2.0 coming soon with an upgrade in accuracy and insight (hopefully).
Eggers is just too hip for me. So hip he's unreadable. I mean, I tried, I really tried. He does have skills -- the dialogue is stupid, but it's realistically stupid, since his characters are nearly believable saps, and he has fresh ways of describing scenery, and he knows how to plant narrative hooks like barbs that tear at your flesh. But, despite all the promise of hugely dramatic action, nothing happens! And after I got to page 260, I concluded that probably nothing was going to happen. Nothing I cared about, anyway.
Here's the story, as near as I could follow (in case you need to make conversation about this book but don't want to invest the time to read it -- good idea): Will Chmielewski, the narrator, is so terribly distraught over the death of his boyhood friend Jack that, when he gets a load of money for no very good reason, he feels compelled to travel to distant countries with his other boyhood friend, Hand, to give it away. Huh? That's a compelling motive? Will can't do anything right, and the obtuse Hand is even worse, and neither has taken the trouble to learn a thing about Senegal, Latvia, or any of the other countries where they stay as briefly as possible, so they (and we the readers) never get to know any of the people they run into, and Will's panic attacks that something terrible is about to happen (like getting dragged around by his penis, or being horribly assaulted some other way) all turn out to be baseless fantasies, because in all this stupid sojourn, nothing happens! Or if it does, it has to be very subtle, because I saw no sign of it even when I skipped to the final pages.
Guess I'm just not hip enough for rarefied pointlessness. I still like stories that go somewhere, where there's some build-up, and the protagonist's and other characters' actions have consequences, instead of just one damned inconsequential thing after another. I know, it's very Aristotelian of me: beginning, middle, and end. But it's a formula that's worked for thousands of years, and there may still be some life in it. 20040207
Here's the story, as near as I could follow (in case you need to make conversation about this book but don't want to invest the time to read it -- good idea): Will Chmielewski, the narrator, is so terribly distraught over the death of his boyhood friend Jack that, when he gets a load of money for no very good reason, he feels compelled to travel to distant countries with his other boyhood friend, Hand, to give it away. Huh? That's a compelling motive? Will can't do anything right, and the obtuse Hand is even worse, and neither has taken the trouble to learn a thing about Senegal, Latvia, or any of the other countries where they stay as briefly as possible, so they (and we the readers) never get to know any of the people they run into, and Will's panic attacks that something terrible is about to happen (like getting dragged around by his penis, or being horribly assaulted some other way) all turn out to be baseless fantasies, because in all this stupid sojourn, nothing happens! Or if it does, it has to be very subtle, because I saw no sign of it even when I skipped to the final pages.
Guess I'm just not hip enough for rarefied pointlessness. I still like stories that go somewhere, where there's some build-up, and the protagonist's and other characters' actions have consequences, instead of just one damned inconsequential thing after another. I know, it's very Aristotelian of me: beginning, middle, and end. But it's a formula that's worked for thousands of years, and there may still be some life in it. 20040207
The set up for adventure was completely underdelivered by the plot. The whimsy of consistently landing in night clubs in foreign countries was not appealing, especially with the ultimately meaningless distribution of money to strangers. I thought the ending may bring some resolve to the enigmatic backstory but it was way too abrupt to find any closure.
The title of this novel is a misnomer. The protagonists -- Will and Hand -- are miserably slow and plodding. Full of piss and vinegar, but with little to actually back it up.
Basically, they plan to fly around the world in a week and give away $32,000. They make it to Africa and Eastern Europe. That's it. And the back of the book reads, "$32,000 must be given away in a week, around the world. But why?" That question is never answered.
Not only is the book's flow sluggish, but it's a complete mind-fuck. The first half of the book follows our heroes as they go from Chicago to Senegal and then to Morocco.
Then, this edition of the book includes a chapter added by "Hand," written after the trip and Will's subsequent death in Mexico in which he comments on the novel and the many inaccuracies.
Of course, it's all fake, so what does it matter? It just shows how big of a douchebag Dave Eggers is.
However, I do like the subtle comment on money and the way the world looks at it. Every time they give someone money there is little reaction. As much as Will and Hand thought they were changing lives, the actual people -- paupers in poor countries -- do not understand the largeness and impact of money. It's really an American vs. The World point of view. Money is important -- to people in Senegal -- because it buys food and water. Money is important -- to Will and Hand -- because it's money.
Also, near the end of the book Will and Hand go to an Estonian beach in which they find an old cannon with ice cream wrappers inside it. What money is to Americans, history is to Europeans.
Basically, they plan to fly around the world in a week and give away $32,000. They make it to Africa and Eastern Europe. That's it. And the back of the book reads, "$32,000 must be given away in a week, around the world. But why?" That question is never answered.
Not only is the book's flow sluggish, but it's a complete mind-fuck. The first half of the book follows our heroes as they go from Chicago to Senegal and then to Morocco.
Then, this edition of the book includes a chapter added by "Hand," written after the trip and Will's subsequent death in Mexico in which he comments on the novel and the many inaccuracies.
Of course, it's all fake, so what does it matter? It just shows how big of a douchebag Dave Eggers is.
However, I do like the subtle comment on money and the way the world looks at it. Every time they give someone money there is little reaction. As much as Will and Hand thought they were changing lives, the actual people -- paupers in poor countries -- do not understand the largeness and impact of money. It's really an American vs. The World point of view. Money is important -- to people in Senegal -- because it buys food and water. Money is important -- to Will and Hand -- because it's money.
Also, near the end of the book Will and Hand go to an Estonian beach in which they find an old cannon with ice cream wrappers inside it. What money is to Americans, history is to Europeans.