A very generous friend has lent me the book "Seeing" by Jose Saramago, who was the 1998 Nobel Laureate for literature. It lay on my desk for quite sometime, until right after lunch today, I whimsically decided to read the book. (I am actually reading an English translation by Margaret Jull Costa (I know nothing about her yet) of the original work in Portuguese.)
So I read the blurb several weeks back. But I am going to pretend I haven't read it, as I have forgotten most of it anyways. I am going to record my reactions to the book as I read.
First Paragraph:
1. On the usage of conjunctions: In my upbringing writing a long sentence with several conjunctions was frowned upon. The author uses some fine long sentences to describe details that cannot wait for another sentence and I feel it is an effective tool to paint a scene. It is only after the scene is set with three very long sentences, the author breaks into using shorter ones. Very nice
2. Vague remarks on the conviction in the narrative: One often is asked to start with a gripping opening. I have often achieved that (or so I feel). However I have felt that I ebb after a while. I once read about how some author was said to write with a conviction of a man who knew he has a great story to tell. I sensed a part of that here. Very poised start.
3. Lost word, found: I haven't been seeing the word 'Decorum' much these days. It is very nice word, if you think about it - very useful, if you like conveying with parsimony. Very succinct. Decorum: Propriety in manners and conduct.
Second Paragraph:
1. Nice image: 'A sense of unease [..] which you could have cut with a knife'.
2. Smell satire brewing - I was anticipating a gloomy or matter-of-fact narrative. The author seems to be in mood of talking. So perhaps this a witty political satire. Personally I am not a big fan of satires.
3. I don't know if it is this particular copy, but the quotes are missing around direct speech, which I find to be very irritating. Is it how grammar works in Portugal?
4. Interestingly enough, the characters are referred by their positions - presiding officer, secretary, party representative and so forth. They don't seem to need a name. They stand for an idea, associated with that position. Very nice!
5. Note to self: What is a good point to introduce the conflict in a plot?
6. Not unusual, but the book has page long paragraphs.
Third Paragraph:
1. Why am I doing this to myself? I hate anything and everything about politics. I am finding this book to be unbearable. It seems to be about all the things I don't care about.
2. Alright I am going to have to pause this running commentary. Instead I will read a large chunk ahead first before writing anything more about the book. I have a decision to make: Do I want to read any more?
Several Pages later:
Nope. Not my type of book. May be another time. I don't have an appetite for such books at this very moment. I don't find anything funny about politics. Politics just make me feel concerned and worried. Another book I couldn't read was 'Animal Farm'.
So I read the blurb several weeks back. But I am going to pretend I haven't read it, as I have forgotten most of it anyways. I am going to record my reactions to the book as I read.
First Paragraph:
1. On the usage of conjunctions: In my upbringing writing a long sentence with several conjunctions was frowned upon. The author uses some fine long sentences to describe details that cannot wait for another sentence and I feel it is an effective tool to paint a scene. It is only after the scene is set with three very long sentences, the author breaks into using shorter ones. Very nice
2. Vague remarks on the conviction in the narrative: One often is asked to start with a gripping opening. I have often achieved that (or so I feel). However I have felt that I ebb after a while. I once read about how some author was said to write with a conviction of a man who knew he has a great story to tell. I sensed a part of that here. Very poised start.
3. Lost word, found: I haven't been seeing the word 'Decorum' much these days. It is very nice word, if you think about it - very useful, if you like conveying with parsimony. Very succinct. Decorum: Propriety in manners and conduct.
Second Paragraph:
1. Nice image: 'A sense of unease [..] which you could have cut with a knife'.
2. Smell satire brewing - I was anticipating a gloomy or matter-of-fact narrative. The author seems to be in mood of talking. So perhaps this a witty political satire. Personally I am not a big fan of satires.
3. I don't know if it is this particular copy, but the quotes are missing around direct speech, which I find to be very irritating. Is it how grammar works in Portugal?
4. Interestingly enough, the characters are referred by their positions - presiding officer, secretary, party representative and so forth. They don't seem to need a name. They stand for an idea, associated with that position. Very nice!
5. Note to self: What is a good point to introduce the conflict in a plot?
6. Not unusual, but the book has page long paragraphs.
Third Paragraph:
1. Why am I doing this to myself? I hate anything and everything about politics. I am finding this book to be unbearable. It seems to be about all the things I don't care about.
2. Alright I am going to have to pause this running commentary. Instead I will read a large chunk ahead first before writing anything more about the book. I have a decision to make: Do I want to read any more?
Several Pages later:
Nope. Not my type of book. May be another time. I don't have an appetite for such books at this very moment. I don't find anything funny about politics. Politics just make me feel concerned and worried. Another book I couldn't read was 'Animal Farm'.
No comments:
Post a Comment