Freeper Reading Club?

Self | July 19, 2002 | PJ-Comix

[PJ-Comix]

I read Shane before but I'll be reading it again because I'm sure I forgot a lot of what was in there. I do remember that it was the BEST Western (without really feeling like part of that genre) that I ever read. Which is why I chose it.

[PJ-Comix]

I was thinking about starting a thread listing "The Worst Books Hyped as Classics," with the first book, on my list, being "The Catcher in the Rye."

Interesting fact. Salinger chose the name "Holden Caulfield" from the two stars of a postwar comedy movie. The stars were William Holden and Joan Caulfield. I don't remember the name of the movie right now but I believe Salinger chose that movie and the stars' names because the movie comedy was very middle America.

[stylin_geek]

Diehard and Bladerunner were both better than the books they were based on. Along with "Forest Gump."

Shane is one of the few cases where the book and the movie are outstanding.

[PJ-Comix]

Shane is one of the few cases where the book and the movie are outstanding.

True but the book was MUCH better. A lot of the message of Shane didn't get into the movie.

[PJ-Comix]

Sometimes I agree with a book's premise but becauuse it was poorly written I won't be recommending it. A good example is Blood Trail. It had an important message in there somewhere buried under the poor writing. Sometimes authors get so carried away with their messages that they forget the books have to be INTERESTING. Atlas Shrugged had a good message that just didn't get out to many people because of all the speechifying by folks with wooden personalities. Rand had much better books when she wasn't slamming folks with her message.

[stylin_geek]

Yes, I agree with you when it comes to Ayn Rand. I did like Atlas Shrugged but, a lot of characters were not really developed. Which is why I think The Fountainhead is a much better book. Good message, and great characters that are fully developed.

[PJ-Comix]

Here are some bits from an online review of Shane. I have posted just enough here not to give away the plot:

At first glance, it seems like a clear cut case of good versus evil, right versus wrong, good guys in the white hats, bad guys in the black. But every time I reread the book, I find myself intrigued by the multitude of layers Jack Schaefer has woven into this fast-paced, exquisitely written story.....

First of all, the book is written in the first person, from the point of view of Bob Starrett, Joe and Marion's young son. If Bob doesn't see or hear it, it's not in the book.....

But that first person point of view is incredibly effective. Since Bob is only about ten years old, there's an entire layer of the story that he overhears and sees yet doesn't understand. And in his innocence he merely reports the words said, reports the emotions in the room, yet he doesn't label or judge -- or condemn.....

But the book is called Shane, and it's Shane who leaves me breathless even after countless readings. Jack Schaefer leaves me breathless, too -- for creating such a perfect romantic hero. Shane is a multifaceted, complicated man, filled with countless contradictions. Each time I read the book, I am struck by how effortlessly Schaefer has created such a hero without ever writing from Shane's point of view!.....

And that review above was written by a woman so, you see, Shane isn't only a guy's book.

[lizma]

This is a great idea!! Ping me when the ball gets rolling!

PLEASE!!

[PJ-Comix]

Here is some more interesting commentary about Shane:

For many readers, Shane strikes a deep personal chord. In his Foreword to the critical edition of the novel, for example, western historian Marc Simmons declares: "Shane has been an almost lifelong companion. I return to it whenever I need a bit of inspiration or a boost of energy." For him, as for countless others, the book's message is "as deep and vital as the man it describes."

[BullDog108]

Excellent. I'm on my way to the library now....

[WHATNEXT?]

So glad to read someone else that didn't find Atlas that good. You were so right - overkill - redundant. She really needed a vicious editor to cut that book down.

Count me in.

[PJ-Comix]

This is a great idea!! Ping me when the ball gets rolling!

The ball is rolling now. Just pick up a copy of Shane. It should be available at your local library. It is an easy and quick read so you should be finished by August 12. On August 12 we will start posting our impressions of Shane and then, if my credibility is still intact, I will assign the next book.

[PJ-Comix]

Yeah, I would lose my credibility if I assigned Atlas Shrugged. I don't care if I agree with the message. If it doesn't hold readers' interest, it doesn't get assigned. I have my credibility here to protect.

[jumpstartme]

I'll take your recommendation on Shane. Saw it as a kid and have watched it a dozen times since....but, never read the book. I'll give it a try.

[WHATNEXT?]

When you choose the next book - don't give reviews, opinions, details. That's what WE get to do. :^)

[Brytani]

Count me in too - though I typically do not like Westerns I'm more then willing to give this one a try.

I'll be ready with commentary on Aug. 12.

Brytani

[WHATNEXT?]

Isn't the internet wonderful? Just put a "hold" on Shane from the library. I'll pick it up Monday. So, easy. Looking forward to reading it. I also saw the movie as a child, never read it.

[3D-JOY]

I'm convinced! I will find a copy as soon as I can.

Count me in for the future and I have marked my calendar for Aug 12. I am sure I would forget by then.

You say 85 pages? Can it take 4 hours?

[Dianna]

Great idea PJ! I love to read, but I've never read, or seen, Shane.

[cgk]

Count me in. I'm off to the library tomorrow. Never seen the movie, either so that should help, right?

Illbay, care to join? I know you're a reader from the Discworld thread, if you have time.

Mrs K