0 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Very bad - poorly written, a classic case of 'emperor's new clothes'.,
This review is from: The Road (Paperback)
I saw, and liked, the film, admiring the look of it, the acting, and the sheer desolation and refusal to give in to Hollywood clichés.
But the film had weaknesses, such as the lack of a real explanation as to how the catastrophe had started, how people had reacted at first etc. And the film seemed to skip over important events, such as the suicide of the man's wife.
I presumed that the filmmakers had decided to focus on the visuals, and skip over detail that was in the book. Seemed like a bizarre decision, but things like that do happen, so I thought I'd buy the book and find out.
Big mistake. The filmmakers clearly took many correct decisions, adding detail to flesh out the gaps in the book, and actually making a silk purse from a pig's ear.
The book is dull. This man read the book. He found the book dull. But he carried on reading anyway. He thought things would get better. Just one more page, and things might improve. But they didn't. Just pages and pages of non-story, repetitive description, pointless dialogue, and failure to develop character. I happened to read this book in French, and thought maybe the problem was down to poor translation, but it seems people are making the same negative comments about the English version. Sounds like it was just poorly written.
I suspect those who profess to like this book do so largely as a way of showing their allegiance to a certain way of thinking. I gather it's been endorsed by prominent so-called environmentalists, for example. In effect, people are allowing their ideology to cloud their judgement, and allowing the books awards and endorsements to blind them to the fact that this is a very poorly written book.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Aug 2012 07:06:58 BDT
Mr. Michael Lumsden says:
Quite agree! One of the challenges for a good sci-fi writer is to create a plot that is scientifically plausible. By refusing to give any background to what had happened the writer effectively had his characters operate in a meaningless and artificial environment unconnected to our current world. This totally undermined any impact.
I re-read "The Fate of the Earth" (published in 1982 in the Cold War) and it seemed that this was not a post-nuclear world (there was not enough grass nor insects).
I felt the author was very lazy to ignore this aspect - which in reality would have been fundamental to the father's plans.
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Sep 2012 14:21:14 BDT
Cheers. My main problem was just that it was poorly written, but the science didn't seem to add up, either.
Looks like we've both been voted down, by the way...
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Oct 2012 22:07:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Oct 2012 22:07:50 BDT
A Customer says:
"I suspect those who profess to like this book do so largely as a way of showing their allegiance to a certain way of thinking. I gather it's been endorsed by prominent so-called environmentalists, for example. In effect, people are allowing their ideology to cloud their judgement, and allowing the books awards and endorsements to blind them to the fact that this is a very poorly written book."
Impeccable logic. Anyone who likes this book is either an environmentalist or has been duped by the book industry. It is great that we have an intellectual colossus like yourself to open our eyes to the 'facts'.
I wonder is it possible to have some sort of variant of Godwin's Law here on Amazon whenever the phrase "Emperor's new clothes" is used? Sigh.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Oct 2012 19:44:48 GMT
Well thank you, you've opened my eyes, and taught me why a poorly written, deadly dull book really is great. Thanks for that. Double plus good.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›