Apparently we read two books in April 2010, not sure why now...
It was an interesting discussion - as it flagged up a range of issues to do with writing style, social history etc etc. Also, with it significantly being set in and around the west country a couple of people (Mark T I think for one) found that of added interest. The comments were, on the whole, quite positive other than from Steve and myself and so it was a bit of a surprise when it came to the scoring that they were on the whole quite low to average (apart from Richard and to a lesser extent Mark).
As I recall at this distant moment, the following were key points in the discussion:
The first part of the book was generally agreed to be the best. It told a good story and contained a lot of interesting social commentary e.g. the relationship between master and servant, the reactions to an elephant appearing int he country for (probably) the first time), the description of city and rural life etc
However, there was also a general view that it tailed off in the latter part - in particular when he went to London when several people began to feel that the novel just stopped working
A majority view (though not consensus) that the relationships between the keeper (see I can;t been remember his name - shows what an impact it had on me) and the elephant became unbelievable at the book went on
Differing views on t he writing style. Consensus that he managed to get the flavour of the period but whether it was well written varied from definitely (Richard) to weak (me).
6.01
No comments:
Post a Comment