You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.32 AVERAGE
3.32 AVERAGE
The premise of this book sounded so good, but it was awful. Wordy, long & drawn out, too descriptive. I kept hoping it would redeem itself in the end but was a big disappointment. I can't believe I suffered through the whole thing for that.
Winter’s Tale was, as many others have said, a lot- it was packed full and heady and felt elusive and ephemeral. For me, that gave it potential, meaning and made it stay with me after I turned the last page. The myriad characters and stories all directed in search of some beautiful truth or ideal; the perfect city- they resonated with me in an eerie way, as if this was what I needed to read now more than ever. Not for everyone, I’m sure- but for me, I was happy to be lost in the perfectly just city.
I finished this, in 10 days. Two more than planned but I'm okay with that. I got a bit bogged down in book 3.
This is the kind of magical realism I like best, the kind that forces you to suspend all practicality and common sense and rely solely on faith to see you through. In large parts modern day fairytale, in smaller parts magical fantasy, the story weaves a dream that for the most part I really enjoyed sharing. It lost a star because Helprin likes to meander to his ending, which at times makes the story lag unnecessarily. I like to take the highway, despite the traffic. My parents liked to take the county back roads. Helprin writes for the county back roads-lovin' folk.
Note: What caught my attention was that this was first published in 1983, when NYC was in desperate need of reinvention. And yet, one cannot help today to see the mirror images of a city burning in 2001 (some might argue the true start of a new millennium). Time will tell if NYc exists in a golden age.
This is not a book for everyone. I've read a lot of negative reviews and I can't say I don't agree with a lot of their points, particularly the ones about Helprin's wording. But I am less fussy about that sort of thing. You write "18th century knoll" and I am not going to be irritated by it because I have a tendency to skim adjectives and I don't question what makes a knoll 18th century. I can see how it would really bug some readers, and if you're one of those people, this is not the book for you as Helprin is that kind of writer. That said, I do enjoy the mood that Helprin sets with his words. And mostly, I can feel his deep and abiding love for NYC. This book is an homage to that great city and the characters are merely players on that great stage.
I also have to mention the movie. I saw the movie before I read this book. I saw it without realizing what the movie was (it was on a ship and I caught it 1/3 of the way in--took me 5x before I could see the whole thing). So I pretty much compared the two the whole time I read this. The movie stayed pretty true to Book 1. After that they redid the whole thing, I'm guessing for brevity' sake as well as to give Russell Crowe a bigger role. So because they eliminated 2/3 of the book and pretty much the point of it being written (Bevrly Penn and Peter Lake are not the heart of this story--sorry ladies), the movie went in a totally different direction. And that actually is fine because I think the book's direction would have been really hard to translate on the big screen. But, BUT, why oh why did they have to go and change the women of the story from being these incredibly strong and intelligent and gifted women to simpering, weak decorations? You would have never known how much Helprin appreciates a real woman based on the movie version. Movie Virginia Gamely is a horrific tragedy to female characters.
All in all, it was a fun read. I prefer [b:In Sunlight and in Shadow|13391073|In Sunlight and in Shadow|Mark Helprin|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1338566074s/13391073.jpg|18622061], but not by much (the ending In Sunlight was anticlimactic for me). But I enjoyed reading this and can see why so many friends love it.
This is the kind of magical realism I like best, the kind that forces you to suspend all practicality and common sense and rely solely on faith to see you through. In large parts modern day fairytale, in smaller parts magical fantasy, the story weaves a dream that for the most part I really enjoyed sharing. It lost a star because Helprin likes to meander to his ending, which at times makes the story lag unnecessarily. I like to take the highway, despite the traffic. My parents liked to take the county back roads. Helprin writes for the county back roads-lovin' folk.
Note: What caught my attention was that this was first published in 1983, when NYC was in desperate need of reinvention. And yet, one cannot help today to see the mirror images of a city burning in 2001 (some might argue the true start of a new millennium). Time will tell if NYc exists in a golden age.
This is not a book for everyone. I've read a lot of negative reviews and I can't say I don't agree with a lot of their points, particularly the ones about Helprin's wording. But I am less fussy about that sort of thing. You write "18th century knoll" and I am not going to be irritated by it because I have a tendency to skim adjectives and I don't question what makes a knoll 18th century. I can see how it would really bug some readers, and if you're one of those people, this is not the book for you as Helprin is that kind of writer. That said, I do enjoy the mood that Helprin sets with his words. And mostly, I can feel his deep and abiding love for NYC. This book is an homage to that great city and the characters are merely players on that great stage.
I also have to mention the movie. I saw the movie before I read this book. I saw it without realizing what the movie was (it was on a ship and I caught it 1/3 of the way in--took me 5x before I could see the whole thing). So I pretty much compared the two the whole time I read this. The movie stayed pretty true to Book 1. After that they redid the whole thing, I'm guessing for brevity' sake as well as to give Russell Crowe a bigger role. So because they eliminated 2/3 of the book and pretty much the point of it being written (Bevrly Penn and Peter Lake are not the heart of this story--sorry ladies), the movie went in a totally different direction. And that actually is fine because I think the book's direction would have been really hard to translate on the big screen. But, BUT, why oh why did they have to go and change the women of the story from being these incredibly strong and intelligent and gifted women to simpering, weak decorations? You would have never known how much Helprin appreciates a real woman based on the movie version. Movie Virginia Gamely is a horrific tragedy to female characters.
All in all, it was a fun read. I prefer [b:In Sunlight and in Shadow|13391073|In Sunlight and in Shadow|Mark Helprin|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1338566074s/13391073.jpg|18622061], but not by much (the ending In Sunlight was anticlimactic for me). But I enjoyed reading this and can see why so many friends love it.
This book frustrated me from the beginning, because of how random the story timeline was, and it wasn't always made apparent when the timeline switched. There didn't seem to be a real thread to the stories being told, until well towards the end of the book. I don't just mean that I couldn't see how they tied together, but they didn't seem to belong in the same book. Most frustrating was that the end really didn't seem to be the point of the book. It almost felt like either the ending was an afterthought, or that the entire book, right up until the end (the bridge stuff) was all written to support the end, rather than too tell the story of the characters. I guess I'm saying it wasn't very cohesive. I almost put the book down, but I was hoping for more of Peter Lake's story, because his character interested me, and eventually, I did get more.
I do really love the author's way with words, and I would consider picking up another of his books, but truthfully, this is a book that I least enjoyed in probably the last 10 years of reading, except maybe some that I put down and never finished. I'm conflicted, because I didn't hate the book, and I did enjoy Helprin's writing, but the story itself was frustrating. I wish he'd been able to tighten it up a little bit, because the story did have potential, especially with a writer like Helprin.
I do really love the author's way with words, and I would consider picking up another of his books, but truthfully, this is a book that I least enjoyed in probably the last 10 years of reading, except maybe some that I put down and never finished. I'm conflicted, because I didn't hate the book, and I did enjoy Helprin's writing, but the story itself was frustrating. I wish he'd been able to tighten it up a little bit, because the story did have potential, especially with a writer like Helprin.
I actually did not finish this book, here's why:
I saw the preview for the upcoming movie version of this book and was riveted. Love, time travel, mystery -- who could resist? I immediately checked out the book from the library and that is where my love affair with this book ended. Thankfully my experience with this book was short lived and FREE. I read two rambling, non-cohesive chapters and was lost, but thought maybe Helprin was purposely keeping the reader in the dark like good mystery novels do (not that this is a mystery novel, or is it?). So, I read more chapters, still rambling and going nowhere, and still in the dark. Then I did some research and the darkness and confusion has lifted -- this book kidnaps you for its "scenic route" kind of ride -- slow, haphazardly taking unexpected turns that lead nowhere, and wastes your time. Helprin unapologetically rambles on with his descriptions -- I think he loves words more than he loves using them to write a story. Basically, this is a book full of words, the end. I'm guessing this will be one of the rare instances where the movie will be better than the book. I hope.
I saw the preview for the upcoming movie version of this book and was riveted. Love, time travel, mystery -- who could resist? I immediately checked out the book from the library and that is where my love affair with this book ended. Thankfully my experience with this book was short lived and FREE. I read two rambling, non-cohesive chapters and was lost, but thought maybe Helprin was purposely keeping the reader in the dark like good mystery novels do (not that this is a mystery novel, or is it?). So, I read more chapters, still rambling and going nowhere, and still in the dark. Then I did some research and the darkness and confusion has lifted -- this book kidnaps you for its "scenic route" kind of ride -- slow, haphazardly taking unexpected turns that lead nowhere, and wastes your time. Helprin unapologetically rambles on with his descriptions -- I think he loves words more than he loves using them to write a story. Basically, this is a book full of words, the end. I'm guessing this will be one of the rare instances where the movie will be better than the book. I hope.
Hmm. How to rate this one. There were some things about this book that were fantastic, some that were not good at all, and some that were just meh.
I guess I can break it out like this:
Overall story: C
Evocative use of language: A+
Ability to hold my interest: D
Coherence of story: D
At times I felt myself being captivated by Helprin's poetic use of the the English language. This wore thin, however, when he seemed to get so caught up in describing a scene that was far from pivotal that I frequently stopped caring about the book.
I came close to abandoning the book so many times. It was a long book and so often it dragged. However, I had been captivated by Peter Lake and I was sure that there would be an awesome conclusion to his story. Not so much. It was very anti-climactic. Or perhaps, it just seemed that way because by that point I was so done with the book.
I am interested in seeing the movie. Hopefully, Hollywood can pull the captivating and magical moments into a coherent and more interesting adaption.
I guess I can break it out like this:
Overall story: C
Evocative use of language: A+
Ability to hold my interest: D
Coherence of story: D
At times I felt myself being captivated by Helprin's poetic use of the the English language. This wore thin, however, when he seemed to get so caught up in describing a scene that was far from pivotal that I frequently stopped caring about the book.
I came close to abandoning the book so many times. It was a long book and so often it dragged. However, I had been captivated by Peter Lake and I was sure that there would be an awesome conclusion to his story. Not so much. It was very anti-climactic. Or perhaps, it just seemed that way because by that point I was so done with the book.
I am interested in seeing the movie. Hopefully, Hollywood can pull the captivating and magical moments into a coherent and more interesting adaption.
I want to give this 4 or 5 stars because it's 748 pages kicked my ass and took me almost a month to get through, but in the end, this one was not fantastic, just pretty good. It's magical, and I am a fan of Mark Helprin, but....it was so so very long.
"Oh four or five hundred years I guess, depending on what it is that you call a year"
New York is like a war, but one that could be harnessed, its head held down, and made to run in place.
A girl, who had thrown him so hard that he would be out of breath forever.
But something had changed, or was changing. Everything always did, no matter how much he loved what he had. The only redemption would be if all the tumbling and rearrangement were to mean something. But he was aware of no pattern. If there were one great equality, one fine universal balance that he could understand, then he would know that there were others, and that someday the curtain of the world would lift onto a sunny springlike stillness and reveal that nothing - nothing - had been for nought.
The treasures of the earth were movement, courage, laughter and love.
"Is there someone you love?"
"Yes."
"A woman?"
"Yes."
"Then go home to her."
"And who will remember her?"
"No one. That's just the point. You must take care of all that now."
"Neither a city nor a civilization can be run by its critics. Critics can neither build nor explore. All they do, really, is say yes or no - and complicate it."
"No one ever said that you would live to see th repercussions of everything you do, or that you have guarantees, or that you are not obliged to wander in the dark, or that everything will be proved to you and neatly verified like something in science. Nothing is: at least nothing that is worthwhile. I didn't bring you up to only move across sure ground. I didn't teach you to think that everything must be within our control or understanding."
"Oh four or five hundred years I guess, depending on what it is that you call a year"
New York is like a war, but one that could be harnessed, its head held down, and made to run in place.
A girl, who had thrown him so hard that he would be out of breath forever.
But something had changed, or was changing. Everything always did, no matter how much he loved what he had. The only redemption would be if all the tumbling and rearrangement were to mean something. But he was aware of no pattern. If there were one great equality, one fine universal balance that he could understand, then he would know that there were others, and that someday the curtain of the world would lift onto a sunny springlike stillness and reveal that nothing - nothing - had been for nought.
The treasures of the earth were movement, courage, laughter and love.
"Is there someone you love?"
"Yes."
"A woman?"
"Yes."
"Then go home to her."
"And who will remember her?"
"No one. That's just the point. You must take care of all that now."
"Neither a city nor a civilization can be run by its critics. Critics can neither build nor explore. All they do, really, is say yes or no - and complicate it."
"No one ever said that you would live to see th repercussions of everything you do, or that you have guarantees, or that you are not obliged to wander in the dark, or that everything will be proved to you and neatly verified like something in science. Nothing is: at least nothing that is worthwhile. I didn't bring you up to only move across sure ground. I didn't teach you to think that everything must be within our control or understanding."
Penpal Reading Challenge: two books with the same name
I read it! Or finished dreaming I read it. Or had already read it and forgot and read it again. In any case, I'm out the other side and regret not a single of the 750 pages.
I read it! Or finished dreaming I read it. Or had already read it and forgot and read it again. In any case, I'm out the other side and regret not a single of the 750 pages.
I ended up just stopping. I could never really follow or get into it. Shame, as I like the premise. But it was just too confusing.
