CCBC-Net Archives
Almond's novels
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Ruth I Gordon <druthgo>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:25:24 -0700
Since I neither like nor dislike (nor love nor hate) aesthetic objects, i.e., books, I have nothing personal involved in either of Almond's strongly written novels. Neither one is easy; both are holding. Some readers have been upset because they are not sure "what" Skellig is. That's the joy of not being someone who insists on all t's being crossed and all i's being dotted. Long after one has left this finely developed book with well developed characters and settings--and several holding situations, thought, cogitation, about what this creature is--real or unreal, spirit or flesh, remains and the book "keeps on giving." The reader's imagination is thus engaged in a continuous process of thought which, theoretically, expands one's intelligence--and imagination.
As for "Wilderness," not since Garner and one other Brit. author (sorry, I cannot remember--the book about the young men caught in an abandoned coal mine and one of them is blind. Can someone help me on this? "The Pit"? Westall?), the summoning of several time periods is complex but clear. The novel seems easier to comprehend than "Skellig" but it, too, is multi-layered like an onion revealing character, history, setting, past and present as we read on.
It would be interesting to read "Wilderness" to a group but not "Skellig". The latter really is very personal and somewhat non?tive, while the former is full of a more outward suspense. (In
"Skellig", the life and death of the baby is gripping--but more in a sympathetic rather than empathetic fasion.)
Sorry to have gone on at such length. I'm only now returned from ALA and must go out to the stream to beat my Chicago glad rags into cleanliness.
Grandma
"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Fri 14 Jul 2000 01:25:24 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:25:24 -0700
Since I neither like nor dislike (nor love nor hate) aesthetic objects, i.e., books, I have nothing personal involved in either of Almond's strongly written novels. Neither one is easy; both are holding. Some readers have been upset because they are not sure "what" Skellig is. That's the joy of not being someone who insists on all t's being crossed and all i's being dotted. Long after one has left this finely developed book with well developed characters and settings--and several holding situations, thought, cogitation, about what this creature is--real or unreal, spirit or flesh, remains and the book "keeps on giving." The reader's imagination is thus engaged in a continuous process of thought which, theoretically, expands one's intelligence--and imagination.
As for "Wilderness," not since Garner and one other Brit. author (sorry, I cannot remember--the book about the young men caught in an abandoned coal mine and one of them is blind. Can someone help me on this? "The Pit"? Westall?), the summoning of several time periods is complex but clear. The novel seems easier to comprehend than "Skellig" but it, too, is multi-layered like an onion revealing character, history, setting, past and present as we read on.
It would be interesting to read "Wilderness" to a group but not "Skellig". The latter really is very personal and somewhat non?tive, while the former is full of a more outward suspense. (In
"Skellig", the life and death of the baby is gripping--but more in a sympathetic rather than empathetic fasion.)
Sorry to have gone on at such length. I'm only now returned from ALA and must go out to the stream to beat my Chicago glad rags into cleanliness.
Grandma
"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Fri 14 Jul 2000 01:25:24 PM CDT
