Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.32 AVERAGE
3.32 AVERAGE
I wanted to like this book, to the point that I read all 750 pages of it even though I didn't like it very much. It seemed to have a lot going for it: my dad is a fan of Helprin; it is about New York City; it contains magical realism (though apparently Helprin disdains that term).
The main thing it had against it going in was that Helprin is a known conservative, but I didn't know whether it would be relevant for a novel or not. Now, the story of WT is not overtly conservative, in the manner of, say, "Atlas Shrugged." But I think part of what I didn't like is the way the author's conservatism came through, in a couple of ways. First, there are a number of passages that seem pretty transparently like the author spouting his opinion (mostly about how society is worse than it used to be) through a character's mouth; not as bad as Rand's John Galt speech, but still clearly there. Beyond not agreeing with the politics, I just find this annoying. Second, I can't help but feel that the way relationships are portrayed is characteristically conservative. There is a lot of falling deeply in love at first sight (or in the case of two particular characters, even before they ever see each other). Helprin is not afraid to portray passion between his characters, but he doesn't ever lay the emotional groundwork for why two characters are really right for each other--kind of like he doesn't have time for it. I don't mind a book that stays away from the mushy stuff (most sci fi), but so much of WT hinges on the romantic relationships that it just feels weird.
The book also shares some similarity in style with "The Crying of Lot 49," a book that I truly hated. I'm not sure how to characterize it exactly, but it's also something that's somewhat present in "Atlas Shrugged": a kind of vulgar overdramatization of events, sometimes to the brink of slapstick. Lots of people "screaming at each other," for example. If you've read WT, the segment with Hardesty in the woods with the hobo is the key example. While I was reading the book, I was wondering how I could dislike magical realism in WT when I enjoy it so much in, say, Murakami. I think this is the reason--Murakami is all understatement; Helprin is all overstatement.
The main thing it had against it going in was that Helprin is a known conservative, but I didn't know whether it would be relevant for a novel or not. Now, the story of WT is not overtly conservative, in the manner of, say, "Atlas Shrugged." But I think part of what I didn't like is the way the author's conservatism came through, in a couple of ways. First, there are a number of passages that seem pretty transparently like the author spouting his opinion (mostly about how society is worse than it used to be) through a character's mouth; not as bad as Rand's John Galt speech, but still clearly there. Beyond not agreeing with the politics, I just find this annoying. Second, I can't help but feel that the way relationships are portrayed is characteristically conservative. There is a lot of falling deeply in love at first sight (or in the case of two particular characters, even before they ever see each other). Helprin is not afraid to portray passion between his characters, but he doesn't ever lay the emotional groundwork for why two characters are really right for each other--kind of like he doesn't have time for it. I don't mind a book that stays away from the mushy stuff (most sci fi), but so much of WT hinges on the romantic relationships that it just feels weird.
The book also shares some similarity in style with "The Crying of Lot 49," a book that I truly hated. I'm not sure how to characterize it exactly, but it's also something that's somewhat present in "Atlas Shrugged": a kind of vulgar overdramatization of events, sometimes to the brink of slapstick. Lots of people "screaming at each other," for example. If you've read WT, the segment with Hardesty in the woods with the hobo is the key example. While I was reading the book, I was wondering how I could dislike magical realism in WT when I enjoy it so much in, say, Murakami. I think this is the reason--Murakami is all understatement; Helprin is all overstatement.
I honestly have no idea what I just read. I’m basically giving it two stars only because I finished it and it did have some beautifully written descriptions of winter.
This ebook came in around 750 pages. After a few hundred pages I had no idea where the book was heading, but I chugged along. It started out in the late 1890’s, New York City, mostly during winter. We met Peter Lake a master criminal turned master mechanic and his nemesis, Pearly Soames and the Short Tails gang. All criminals trying to run the underbelly of NYC. There is also the Penn family, father Isaac, wealthy, own one of the biggest newspapers, The Sun. Beverly, one of the Penn daughters has consumption and is expected to die at any time, but seems to carry on by the cold winter air. Peter Lake breaks into the Penn home to Rob it but ends up falling in love with Beverly and she with him. There were also a lot of fantastical parts, like a white horse who could fly and a town called The Lake of the Coheeries, which not everyone can find or get to.
Hundreds of pages later. Then it jumps to the late 1990’s, Harry Penn, the son of Isaac, is now running the newspaper in NYC. A bunch of new characters brought in. Hardesty, whose father dies and leaves a riddle in his will for Hardesty to decipher and decide upon. We figure out we’re searching for Justice in the world. It starts seeming like an Ayn Rand book. Politics, newspapers, architecture. Virginia and her mom Mrs. Gamely who live at The Lake of the Coheeries but Virginia leaves to make a life in NYC and ends up with Hardesty. Plus Praeger dePinto, high up in the newspaper, eventually mayor, his newspaper nemesis, Craig Binky, who seems surprisingly Trump-like, even though this book was written long before the Trump presidency. Plus a bunch of other smaller characters.
Then lo and behold, Peter Lake returns, not aged one bit and has no recollection of who he is or any memories of his past. Little by little he does regain skills and memories. This all leads to the non-climactic ending of NYC going up in flames at the millennium.
There are so many five star reviews of this book but I don’t get it. Am I too much of a realist? Is fantasy just not my genre, though this didn’t seem like a typical fantasy novel? Was it the length of the book? Or was it really just not that good? I saw they made a movie from the book starring Colin Farrell which I’m tempted to watch if it’s on any of the streaming platforms we get, though the movie reviews aren’t very good and many say it strays a lot from the book.
This ebook came in around 750 pages. After a few hundred pages I had no idea where the book was heading, but I chugged along. It started out in the late 1890’s, New York City, mostly during winter. We met Peter Lake a master criminal turned master mechanic and his nemesis, Pearly Soames and the Short Tails gang. All criminals trying to run the underbelly of NYC. There is also the Penn family, father Isaac, wealthy, own one of the biggest newspapers, The Sun. Beverly, one of the Penn daughters has consumption and is expected to die at any time, but seems to carry on by the cold winter air. Peter Lake breaks into the Penn home to Rob it but ends up falling in love with Beverly and she with him. There were also a lot of fantastical parts, like a white horse who could fly and a town called The Lake of the Coheeries, which not everyone can find or get to.
Hundreds of pages later. Then it jumps to the late 1990’s, Harry Penn, the son of Isaac, is now running the newspaper in NYC. A bunch of new characters brought in. Hardesty, whose father dies and leaves a riddle in his will for Hardesty to decipher and decide upon. We figure out we’re searching for Justice in the world. It starts seeming like an Ayn Rand book. Politics, newspapers, architecture. Virginia and her mom Mrs. Gamely who live at The Lake of the Coheeries but Virginia leaves to make a life in NYC and ends up with Hardesty. Plus Praeger dePinto, high up in the newspaper, eventually mayor, his newspaper nemesis, Craig Binky, who seems surprisingly Trump-like, even though this book was written long before the Trump presidency. Plus a bunch of other smaller characters.
Then lo and behold, Peter Lake returns, not aged one bit and has no recollection of who he is or any memories of his past. Little by little he does regain skills and memories. This all leads to the non-climactic ending of NYC going up in flames at the millennium.
There are so many five star reviews of this book but I don’t get it. Am I too much of a realist? Is fantasy just not my genre, though this didn’t seem like a typical fantasy novel? Was it the length of the book? Or was it really just not that good? I saw they made a movie from the book starring Colin Farrell which I’m tempted to watch if it’s on any of the streaming platforms we get, though the movie reviews aren’t very good and many say it strays a lot from the book.
wow, i can't believe i wasted two months of my life on this book! never again. when i start to feel like a book is going south and i can't connect with it anymore, i'm getting rid of it. this book is almost 800 pages long. i love giant, immersive novels and since this is supposed to be one of the best books of the 20th century, i thought i was in good hands. the NYT reviewer on the back loved this book so much he said he was afraid his review wouldn't do it justice! and i guess bc i am of a poetic temperament, i thought i'd read it during the depths of winter. anyway, the book is broken into 4 parts. part 1 is amazing, totally engaged in peter lake's story, the horse, beverly, loved it, beautiful writing, loved how he created a magical alternate version of new york, all about it. part 2 introduced new characters who have almost nothing to do with anything in book 1, ok fine, even going so far as to have some wacky mountaineering adventures in western america that feel like they fell out of a tom robbins novel (and i am not a tom robbins fan). not as excited about all this but whatever, i will trust the author. part 3 introduces a rivalry between two newspapers that is even more disconnected than all the crazy shit in book 2, getting annoyed now. part 4 even further dissolution into nonsense, no satisfying resolution of anything introduced in book one, even more new characters, the end is even a super obnoxious "and what really happened to peter lake? that's for you to decide inside your own imagination!" like i'm watching mr. roger's neighborhood, not reading a book for adults. i hated this book. there is a lot of beautiful, lyrical writing but i felt like it took all my frustrations surrounding the game of thrones series and condensed them into one book. by the last hundred pages i was skipping over tons of stuff, everything about the winter mayor vs the ermine mayor, fucking mootfowl, craig binky, so much bullshit. i have no idea why this book became so famous/well reviewed, it was magical realism at it's dumbest, minus the fabulous opening of the book, which was super engaging before the author made the bizarre choice of burying it and all it's questions, characters and ideas under like a magic sparkle puke rainbow. :(
I read this on kobo, which is not the place to read a lengthy book while you are wondering if Peter Lake is ever coming back. I chose to read the book because I happened to enjoy the movie, contrary to popular opinion. The book held my interest for a few reasons: 1. Would he ever bring Peter Lake back? and once he did, what on earth was he doing with him? 2. curiosity about how a movie could become so different from a book and 3. curiosity about how such a quirky book with sometimes brilliant passages and sometimes passages that seemed endless and nonsensical, with a story line that didn't always flow, could have become as highly recommended as it often is. And so, my final summary of this book is: it is a very curious literary work. I was disappointed that it didn't evolve into the story I thought it ought to be... but then, that also means I was quite engaged to be recreating it in my mind into what I wanted it to be, doesn't it?
"This was one of my favorite books," said my father, "but I don't remember anything about it."
"I loved this book," said my mother "But all I remember was that there was a description of a machine that was wonderful. Did you get to the bit where it describes a machine?"
I loved this book. It's a story of magical realism set mainly in New York City with forays into the Adirondacks. The plot is almost impossible to describe, which is probably why my parents didn't remember it, but the writing is beautiful and strange. The plot sprawls and wanders (I found myself thinking, partway through, that it was like Cloud Atlas, only good) much like a novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez only, instead of the heat of South America, it focuses on the cold of New York, with which I am more familiar.
I think you should probably read it.
"I loved this book," said my mother "But all I remember was that there was a description of a machine that was wonderful. Did you get to the bit where it describes a machine?"
I loved this book. It's a story of magical realism set mainly in New York City with forays into the Adirondacks. The plot is almost impossible to describe, which is probably why my parents didn't remember it, but the writing is beautiful and strange. The plot sprawls and wanders (I found myself thinking, partway through, that it was like Cloud Atlas, only good) much like a novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez only, instead of the heat of South America, it focuses on the cold of New York, with which I am more familiar.
I think you should probably read it.
Mark Helprin has written an absolutely unforgettable book. The prose is beautiful, the descriptions of New York (the city and upstate) during the winter are enchanting, and the problems that it deals with--love, the ebbing of time, and justice--are universal.
This book is 750 pages long. By the time I got to page 200 I was completely enthralled, and knew that I would probably re-read the whole thing within a year or so. I can't recall the last time I felt that way about a book even half as long.
Why do I and so many other people love this book? Probably because it deals with some very fundamental human problems: our inability to move through time to see loved ones, love, and justice--and actually shows someone who is able to transcend those boundaries in the form of Peter Lake. He is a superhero who is about as normal as a superhero can be. Perhaps the best way to introduce both the themes of the book and the prose are through the following quote:
"they [dancers at a new year's party] coasted into the new year and felt its strength commencing...they cried because of the magic and the contradictions; because time had passed and time was left; because they saw themselves as if they were in a photograph that had winked fast enough to contradict their mortality; because the city around them had conspired to break a hundred thousand hearts; and because they and everyone else had to float upon this sea of troubles, watertight. Sometimes there were islands, and when they found them they held fast, but never could they hold fast enough not to be moved and once again overwhelmed."
Here we see people laughing, living, fighting against time (and the inevitable death and decay that it brings), and trying to live as best they can in the here and now. They dancers live, have fun, and try to grab whatever enjoyment and love that they can before it all slips through their hands. This, I think, is the main problem that the book explores--the ebbing of time and the imperative of finding these "islands of beauty" and transcendent meaning in our day to day lives. Peter Lake is such a compelling character because he is able to overcome these boundaries.
The book is not quite a fantasy, though it is certainly fantastical. And despite being fantastical, the truths that Helprin gives us are closer to reality than what can be revealed in a less fantastical format.
"Justice" comes up a lot here, and it took me a little while to see what Helprin was getting at. What I think he's saying is this: nothing is for naught because all we do is part of a higher purpose, and our actions live to reverberate throughout history long after we're gone. Justice is difficult to rationalize because we can't know the exact consequences of what we do. "Injustice" is defined as not being able to see into the future, escape the limits of time, and go through time, to see how exactly our actions matter. There's quite a bit more to chew on here, I'm sure that we can make some comparisons to Plato's Republic, given how often Helprin talks about the "perfectly just city."
The book is deeply, profoundly conservative on a philosophical level. Thankfully, however, it takes its conservatism from Oakeshott (there's a wonderful passage about the difficulty of rationalizing justice) and Burke rather than from the mainstream Republican Party. I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been more commentary on this from intellectual conservative circles--or academic circles for that matter, as a Google scholar search reveals very little. There's even been an entire book on Whit Stillman's movies, so I'm not sure why we haven't seen something from the New Criterion or a similar organ about this.
All in all, a beautiful book. Do read it. If the length is intimidating, the first 200 pages are relatively self contained and can be read first before deciding to go forward.
This book is 750 pages long. By the time I got to page 200 I was completely enthralled, and knew that I would probably re-read the whole thing within a year or so. I can't recall the last time I felt that way about a book even half as long.
Why do I and so many other people love this book? Probably because it deals with some very fundamental human problems: our inability to move through time to see loved ones, love, and justice--and actually shows someone who is able to transcend those boundaries in the form of Peter Lake. He is a superhero who is about as normal as a superhero can be. Perhaps the best way to introduce both the themes of the book and the prose are through the following quote:
"they [dancers at a new year's party] coasted into the new year and felt its strength commencing...they cried because of the magic and the contradictions; because time had passed and time was left; because they saw themselves as if they were in a photograph that had winked fast enough to contradict their mortality; because the city around them had conspired to break a hundred thousand hearts; and because they and everyone else had to float upon this sea of troubles, watertight. Sometimes there were islands, and when they found them they held fast, but never could they hold fast enough not to be moved and once again overwhelmed."
Here we see people laughing, living, fighting against time (and the inevitable death and decay that it brings), and trying to live as best they can in the here and now. They dancers live, have fun, and try to grab whatever enjoyment and love that they can before it all slips through their hands. This, I think, is the main problem that the book explores--the ebbing of time and the imperative of finding these "islands of beauty" and transcendent meaning in our day to day lives. Peter Lake is such a compelling character because he is able to overcome these boundaries.
The book is not quite a fantasy, though it is certainly fantastical. And despite being fantastical, the truths that Helprin gives us are closer to reality than what can be revealed in a less fantastical format.
"Justice" comes up a lot here, and it took me a little while to see what Helprin was getting at. What I think he's saying is this: nothing is for naught because all we do is part of a higher purpose, and our actions live to reverberate throughout history long after we're gone. Justice is difficult to rationalize because we can't know the exact consequences of what we do. "Injustice" is defined as not being able to see into the future, escape the limits of time, and go through time, to see how exactly our actions matter. There's quite a bit more to chew on here, I'm sure that we can make some comparisons to Plato's Republic, given how often Helprin talks about the "perfectly just city."
The book is deeply, profoundly conservative on a philosophical level. Thankfully, however, it takes its conservatism from Oakeshott (there's a wonderful passage about the difficulty of rationalizing justice) and Burke rather than from the mainstream Republican Party. I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been more commentary on this from intellectual conservative circles--or academic circles for that matter, as a Google scholar search reveals very little. There's even been an entire book on Whit Stillman's movies, so I'm not sure why we haven't seen something from the New Criterion or a similar organ about this.
All in all, a beautiful book. Do read it. If the length is intimidating, the first 200 pages are relatively self contained and can be read first before deciding to go forward.
Second time around, and just as good as the first. Impossible to describe the brilliance that is The Winter's Tale. Seriously. Just read it.
This book is one of the most beautifully written books I have ever read. Every few chapters there would be a passage I would want to ink permanently on my soul. But I'm giving it four instead of five stars because it really, really needed an editor - it was just too big and unfocused and meandering, which was frustrating because the meat of it was just so very good.
An excellent book... a bit of a slog in parts, but definitely worth it. Beautifully realized characters, beautiful language in general. Lovely.
After nearly a month of trekking through, I’ve FINALLY finished this book. Coming in at 748 pages, this is 250 pages longer than in other book I’ve read this year and it definitely felt like it was longer! I did take a bit of time out to read two additional book during the time I read this, but they were much-needed reprieves. I of course decided to read this after seeing a trailer for the film adaptation released this past February.
I can’t say this was a bad book, because it was excellently written, but I can say it was too damn long. Most striking, however, I chose the perfect winter to read it. This winter has definitely felt as if it was one of the epic endless winter’s Helprin wrote about throughout this novel: the constant snow, the frozen water and the plunging temperatures. The only thing missing from my winter was the romance and the magic!
Aside from the length of the novel, I struggled with the reality of the novel. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if this novel was a historical fiction novel or a fantasy novel and apparently it was both. I knew there were fantasy elements of it, but I wasn’t sure how much of it should have been fantastical or real and for some reason I found it incredibly challenging!
Continue reading on my book blog at geoffwhaley.com.
I can’t say this was a bad book, because it was excellently written, but I can say it was too damn long. Most striking, however, I chose the perfect winter to read it. This winter has definitely felt as if it was one of the epic endless winter’s Helprin wrote about throughout this novel: the constant snow, the frozen water and the plunging temperatures. The only thing missing from my winter was the romance and the magic!
Aside from the length of the novel, I struggled with the reality of the novel. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if this novel was a historical fiction novel or a fantasy novel and apparently it was both. I knew there were fantasy elements of it, but I wasn’t sure how much of it should have been fantastical or real and for some reason I found it incredibly challenging!
Continue reading on my book blog at geoffwhaley.com.