CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Cormier and Hope
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: rukhsanakhan <irrualli>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:05:21 -0700
Jeffrey,
You make it sound like I'm unentitled to my opinion. Must I read all his books before I can pronounce them 'not for me'? What's the point when there are so many wonderful books out there, yet to be read, that will be more likely to resonate in the depths of my soul?
Life's too short.
Besides, what happened to that declaration that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head making them read a book? (I do not like them, Sam I Am. *g*)
I have been commenting on The Chocolate War, which I did indeed read, and about which I have every right to comment. It may not be fair to judge a writer's entire body of work on one book but you'd be naive not to know that it happens all the time. One book--if that much-- is about all the chance a writer gets to impress a reader.
Besides I've heard enough about his other books and read enough about their premises to know that they're not the kind of books I'd like to curl up with.
I've been asking myself exactly why I didn't like The Chocolate War, and the conclusion I've come to is that it's not the 'darkness' of them. I often write quite 'dark' myself. (my current project deals with female infanticide in seventh century Arabia for pete's sake!) I think what bothered me the most was that Jerry was in fact taking a stand for the sake of taking a stand. There was no moral high ground in his actions, except insomuch as he was defying tyrranical authority. To me, that's not enough of a reason. And look at the consequences of his actions. They were devastating. Was it worth it? Nuh uh. Not when there are so many real causes worth fighting for.
It was a minor inconvenience for him to sell the darn chocolates. If he'd stood up for noble reasons, because someone was being persecuted unjustly or because the brother was abusing his authority, then you bet I would have rooted for him. As it was it was just a case of him getting his back up and brother Leon (or whatever his name was--I can't exactly remember) getting his back up. Both being too stubborn to lose face. There is a concept called picking your battles.
But that said, what I did find amazing about Cormier was the way he could make me care enough about what happened to these pathetic characters to finish the book. The way he showed powerful forces at work in the mundane. Amazing.
Rukhsana
p.s. I'll be away for the weekend visiting that sick friend of mine.
----- Original Message ----From: Jeffrey Canton To: rukhsanakhan ; Jeffrey Canton
; Megan Schliesman
; Subscribers of ccbc-net
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [CCBC-Net] Cormier and Hope
on...
Received on Fri 24 Aug 2001 12:05:21 AM CDT
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:05:21 -0700
Jeffrey,
You make it sound like I'm unentitled to my opinion. Must I read all his books before I can pronounce them 'not for me'? What's the point when there are so many wonderful books out there, yet to be read, that will be more likely to resonate in the depths of my soul?
Life's too short.
Besides, what happened to that declaration that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head making them read a book? (I do not like them, Sam I Am. *g*)
I have been commenting on The Chocolate War, which I did indeed read, and about which I have every right to comment. It may not be fair to judge a writer's entire body of work on one book but you'd be naive not to know that it happens all the time. One book--if that much-- is about all the chance a writer gets to impress a reader.
Besides I've heard enough about his other books and read enough about their premises to know that they're not the kind of books I'd like to curl up with.
I've been asking myself exactly why I didn't like The Chocolate War, and the conclusion I've come to is that it's not the 'darkness' of them. I often write quite 'dark' myself. (my current project deals with female infanticide in seventh century Arabia for pete's sake!) I think what bothered me the most was that Jerry was in fact taking a stand for the sake of taking a stand. There was no moral high ground in his actions, except insomuch as he was defying tyrranical authority. To me, that's not enough of a reason. And look at the consequences of his actions. They were devastating. Was it worth it? Nuh uh. Not when there are so many real causes worth fighting for.
It was a minor inconvenience for him to sell the darn chocolates. If he'd stood up for noble reasons, because someone was being persecuted unjustly or because the brother was abusing his authority, then you bet I would have rooted for him. As it was it was just a case of him getting his back up and brother Leon (or whatever his name was--I can't exactly remember) getting his back up. Both being too stubborn to lose face. There is a concept called picking your battles.
But that said, what I did find amazing about Cormier was the way he could make me care enough about what happened to these pathetic characters to finish the book. The way he showed powerful forces at work in the mundane. Amazing.
Rukhsana
p.s. I'll be away for the weekend visiting that sick friend of mine.
----- Original Message ----From: Jeffrey Canton To: rukhsanakhan ; Jeffrey Canton
; Megan Schliesman
; Subscribers of ccbc-net
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [CCBC-Net] Cormier and Hope
on...
Received on Fri 24 Aug 2001 12:05:21 AM CDT
