Post feed
Comments feed

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Fail

This week I've read 10 pages of Women In Love and all of A Cut Above by Colette Caddle. A Cut Above was disappointing for a junk read. Everyone got together and, without exception, had a happy ending. It read as if the author had got to a certain point and decided that she liked all of her characters too much to harm any of them - even the hard office bitch who was sleeping with the boss. Not a good way to end a piece of chick lit.

A few weeks ago my mum bought something called The Roald Dahl Treasury on a whim. There are two volumes - one is a collection of songs and poems from Dahl's stories for children, the other is a loose scrapbook of extracts, illustrations and autobiographical material. My favourite is the poetry collection, simply because it's really annoying reading a small extract from something which I remember as being much longer and more satisfying - better to read a complete poem which recalls the greater whole without tantalising. While I was leafing through the scrapbook, though, I came across The Minpins in its entirety. I'd completely forgotten about this wonderful little story, and I set about re-reading it with much anticipation. It was every bit as good as I remember it, but it seemed a whole lot shorter. I must have been very young indeed when I first read it - or else I furnished a vast amount of detail in my own imagination, since forgotten.

I now own a copy of The City of the Dreaming Books by Walter Mores. If I ever finish Women In Love, this will be my next project.

2 comments:

  1. I remember the Minpins. I used to have a full-colour picture book of the story, with these amazing detailed paintings of their little houses and the fire from the monster's breath. Maybe it's the lack of pictures that makes the story seem smaller?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The illustrations were still there - though reduced in size a bit - in the Treasury version, but nonetheless something was missing. Childlike wonder, anyone?

    ReplyDelete

HTML and $\LaTeX$ both work here. Enclose your $\LaTeX$ code in "$" or "\[" as if you were using your favourite editor.