Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.46 AVERAGE
3.46 AVERAGE
Did people just put this on the NPR list because they remember reading it in high school and being told it was Important, or did they actually LIKE reading it in high school?
I can't remember which category I fall under.
I can't remember which category I fall under.
I never read any of the assigned reading in English in High School. In 10th grade, we did this book. The teacher gave a test on the book, and I got an A. Unfortunately, the rest of the class did miserably, and the teacher was extremely disappointed. So she decided to give a True/False quiz to test whether people had actually read it. I failed miserably, and she was dumbfounded. When she asked me about this, I told her I never read anything that was assigned because I found it more of a challenge to get an A without doing the reading. She made me promise that I would do the reading in the future, and I did promise.
And now, I can say I have kept that promise. I did all of the reading in the future, just not when it was assigned. For example, I read The Great Gatsby sometime in film school. The Grapes of Wrath after that. And so on... And with this book, I'm pretty sure that I have now completed all of the required reading from high school. I can also say that I would never have done it, if I had picked this one up early on. This is one that easily validates my policy back then.
The book does manage to be both overwrought and trivial at once, which is no small achievement. Everything is supposed to have the weight of portentousness, but for all that, there's very little substance. So, the little merit that this book has depends on the voice of Gene, the narrator. And he's thoroughly unlikeable and fairly unobservant. He pretends to be smart and observant, but he is more likely to project his inner world onto the outside than he is to capture anything interesting about the outside.
On top of all of this, the book is completely gay, but refuses to come out of the closet. This is manifest, from the wrestling, to the Finny's pink shirt, to the endless admiration of Finny's body, to Leper's losing touch by imagining women's heads on men's bodies. I am dumbfounded that Knowles insists that homosexuality has nothing to do with this book. I guess that just proves that authors are not always the best readers of their own work, and that Knowles' lack of self-awareness mirrors Gene's.
In short, a small, not particularly interesting story, with unlkeable characters and a narrator who has a few nice moments but, for the most part, is annoying. I have no idea why this makes for a "classic."
And now, I can say I have kept that promise. I did all of the reading in the future, just not when it was assigned. For example, I read The Great Gatsby sometime in film school. The Grapes of Wrath after that. And so on... And with this book, I'm pretty sure that I have now completed all of the required reading from high school. I can also say that I would never have done it, if I had picked this one up early on. This is one that easily validates my policy back then.
The book does manage to be both overwrought and trivial at once, which is no small achievement. Everything is supposed to have the weight of portentousness, but for all that, there's very little substance. So, the little merit that this book has depends on the voice of Gene, the narrator. And he's thoroughly unlikeable and fairly unobservant. He pretends to be smart and observant, but he is more likely to project his inner world onto the outside than he is to capture anything interesting about the outside.
On top of all of this, the book is completely gay, but refuses to come out of the closet. This is manifest, from the wrestling, to the Finny's pink shirt, to the endless admiration of Finny's body, to Leper's losing touch by imagining women's heads on men's bodies. I am dumbfounded that Knowles insists that homosexuality has nothing to do with this book. I guess that just proves that authors are not always the best readers of their own work, and that Knowles' lack of self-awareness mirrors Gene's.
In short, a small, not particularly interesting story, with unlkeable characters and a narrator who has a few nice moments but, for the most part, is annoying. I have no idea why this makes for a "classic."
“I began to know that each morning reasserted the problems of night before, that sleep suspended all but changed nothing, that you couldn’t make yourself over between dawn and dusk.”
in this quiet and completely restrained coming-of-age story set during the early years of world war ii, our protagonist, gene, and his best friend, phineas, explore the precipice of adolescence and the violence of their future. a separate peace takes place where most homoerotic relationships with no follow-through take place: a new england boarding school. jk jk, unless...*eyes emoji*
i was surprised by the beautiful prose in this book, with lines like "...his skin glowing from immersions, his whole body hanging between river and sky as though he had transcended gravity and might by gently pushing upward with his foot glide a little way higher and remain suspended in space, encompassing all the glory of the summer and offering it to the sky."
i was surprised, for a book vehemently denied as a queer story, to read various descriptions and soft moments between the two that seemed to transcend friendship into that quiet, something-more, bubble that was so easily popped by the hyper-masculinity of wartime america.
and i was surprised that i enjoyed it nonetheless. the constant feeling that something - some great thing - was about to happen; a kiss, a fight, a crack in the glass, the inevitability of enlisting. even now, when i finished the last sentence - "if he was indeed the enemy" - its abruptness catches me still, wondering if peace will come.
in this quiet and completely restrained coming-of-age story set during the early years of world war ii, our protagonist, gene, and his best friend, phineas, explore the precipice of adolescence and the violence of their future. a separate peace takes place where most homoerotic relationships with no follow-through take place: a new england boarding school. jk jk, unless...*eyes emoji*
i was surprised by the beautiful prose in this book, with lines like "...his skin glowing from immersions, his whole body hanging between river and sky as though he had transcended gravity and might by gently pushing upward with his foot glide a little way higher and remain suspended in space, encompassing all the glory of the summer and offering it to the sky."
i was surprised, for a book vehemently denied as a queer story, to read various descriptions and soft moments between the two that seemed to transcend friendship into that quiet, something-more, bubble that was so easily popped by the hyper-masculinity of wartime america.
and i was surprised that i enjoyed it nonetheless. the constant feeling that something - some great thing - was about to happen; a kiss, a fight, a crack in the glass, the inevitability of enlisting. even now, when i finished the last sentence - "if he was indeed the enemy" - its abruptness catches me still, wondering if peace will come.
I'm still not really sure what to make of this book. I can never quite figure out why "classic" novels for youth have to be dark and negative.
I was able to recognize quite early on (before it really became obvious) that Gene was envious of/hostile to Phineas. The evolution of the story was somewhat interesting.
I just couldn't completely figure out what the point of the story was; what I took away from it was that Gene had already experienced all of the evil that a man could find in himself without actually having to go to war and experience it in what might be an otherwise ameliorating situation.
I found the naturalist's (forgot his name) evaluation of Gene appropos: that Gene could be quite savage when he felt threatened.
I was able to recognize quite early on (before it really became obvious) that Gene was envious of/hostile to Phineas. The evolution of the story was somewhat interesting.
I just couldn't completely figure out what the point of the story was; what I took away from it was that Gene had already experienced all of the evil that a man could find in himself without actually having to go to war and experience it in what might be an otherwise ameliorating situation.
I found the naturalist's (forgot his name) evaluation of Gene appropos: that Gene could be quite savage when he felt threatened.
I appreciated that this book came together in the last few pages, with Knowles more clearly drawing parallels between the characters and the archetypes of youth, of how you approach and process war, and of what someone else's war does to the young. In that sense, this book was poignant and deep and it's a shame that it comes full circle so late, after I had been through pages of being bored and not feeling compelled by the events or narrative.
Maybe that's my own fault. The point of the book wasn't a captivating story per se, but using a boy's school to explore war and its consequences. It just wouldn't have hurt if there was less elaborate description overall and more compelling narrative. There were parts of this, admittedly short, book that I had to slog through because I didn't care enough. Most of these parts were without Phineas and Gene. Their scenes were wonderful.
The biggest fault of this book isn't its fault at all. Since this was written in the 1950s, this is the Original Boys/Boarding School Story With Friends Who Fall Apart. However, I couldn't get The Secret History out of my head, how deeply similar they were at parts, and how different. It's not a fair comparison at all because they serve different purposes and The Secret History came much later. It's one of those cases where I couldn't separate the two and ultimately, TSH just won because it's one of my favorite books.
There's also this underlying current of homoeroticism that books like this (and The Great Gatsby and even The Secret History) have. It's obvious that Gene is obsessed with Phineas and that feeling is reciprocated. Obviously in the 1950s this isn't something that could be explored blatantly or with any sort of romantic lens, but books like this always frustrate me a little because it's so obvious to me that that is what's there and it's never acknowledged forthright.
Overall, not the book I was expecting and honestly it wasn't greatly drawing or compelling for me, but the end certainly made me think.
Maybe that's my own fault. The point of the book wasn't a captivating story per se, but using a boy's school to explore war and its consequences. It just wouldn't have hurt if there was less elaborate description overall and more compelling narrative. There were parts of this, admittedly short, book that I had to slog through because I didn't care enough. Most of these parts were without Phineas and Gene. Their scenes were wonderful.
The biggest fault of this book isn't its fault at all. Since this was written in the 1950s, this is the Original Boys/Boarding School Story With Friends Who Fall Apart. However, I couldn't get The Secret History out of my head, how deeply similar they were at parts, and how different. It's not a fair comparison at all because they serve different purposes and The Secret History came much later. It's one of those cases where I couldn't separate the two and ultimately, TSH just won because it's one of my favorite books.
There's also this underlying current of homoeroticism that books like this (and The Great Gatsby and even The Secret History) have. It's obvious that Gene is obsessed with Phineas and that feeling is reciprocated. Obviously in the 1950s this isn't something that could be explored blatantly or with any sort of romantic lens, but books like this always frustrate me a little because it's so obvious to me that that is what's there and it's never acknowledged forthright.
Overall, not the book I was expecting and honestly it wasn't greatly drawing or compelling for me, but the end certainly made me think.
Excellent writing, but you may not realize how good the writing is if the story pulls you in the way it did me. Great characterization, too, but you may not notice that either, until after, when you weigh the goodness in some of them against the bad. I'd thought it was a coming of age story during WWII, and it is. Mostly though, I saw the humanity. It's a story about humanity.
A Separate Peace exists within World War II. There's no war stories here, only the mind at war with itself. Gene, the narrator, is a conflicted teenager on the cusp of being drafted into a war he sees as the natural state of the world. At Devon boy's school, Gene's best friend is Finny, a boy as athletic as Gene is smart.
These characters are, to some extent, archetypes. Before the modern era, Finny would be the hero and Gene the sidekick, but we get all knowledge from Gene's unreliable neurosis. See, Gene is worried that he won't ever measure up to how great Finny is. And once Finny implies that he worries the same about Gene, Gene backs off his goal to have the best grades in the class because he doesn't want to make Finny embarrassed.
Apparently this is a famous book taught in high school. I've never heard of it before ten days ago. I don't think it's an amazing book, but there's nothing to really complain about, it's short, and it has a lot of easily dissected themes and motifs. (Animal Farm is better but requires a bit of history knowledge.) If you didn't read this in high school to dissect it, I probably wouldn't recommend it as something missed, but you could do a lot worse.
These characters are, to some extent, archetypes. Before the modern era, Finny would be the hero and Gene the sidekick, but we get all knowledge from Gene's unreliable neurosis. See, Gene is worried that he won't ever measure up to how great Finny is. And once Finny implies that he worries the same about Gene, Gene backs off his goal to have the best grades in the class because he doesn't want to make Finny embarrassed.
Apparently this is a famous book taught in high school. I've never heard of it before ten days ago. I don't think it's an amazing book, but there's nothing to really complain about, it's short, and it has a lot of easily dissected themes and motifs. (Animal Farm is better but requires a bit of history knowledge.) If you didn't read this in high school to dissect it, I probably wouldn't recommend it as something missed, but you could do a lot worse.
I had high hopes for this book and I thought the story was good but that's where it ends. I will write a more in depth review asap and i really mean that this time. I plan to catch up on all my outstanding reviews this weekend :)