Booking Through Thursday says:A while ago, I interviewed my readers for a change, and my final question was, “What question have I NOT asked at BTT that you’d love me to ask?” I got some great responses and will be picking out some of the questions from time to time to ask the rest of you. Like now.
Bookish Sarah asks:
What book took you the longest to read, and do you feel it was the content or just the length that made it so?
My response: I'm really tempted to say Emma by Jane Austen. But I think in reality that one only seemed to take an eternity because I did not enjoy it at all, unlike all the other Austens I have read. Middlemarch by George Eliot, on the other hand took me over a month--which is an incredibly long time in Bev reading time. Part of the reason it took so long was, indeed, that it is just one really, really long book--around 800 pages. But it is also a dense book....Eliot can't just tell or show the reader that something happened. No. We must analyze what happened from every angle possible and wring every little bit out of every single incident. But the strange thing is....even though it did take forever to read, I enjoyed it very much. Much more than Emma.
2 comments:
This is funny, because "Emma" is my favorite book by Jane Austen. I read it a few years ago, and yes, I agree it is a rather long book, but, I find all Austen's books rather long. I have watched all the "Emma" movies more than once. All I can say, is I love that spoiled Emma.
I liked the Emma BBC production that I saw WAY better than the book. But I really didn't care for Emma on the page--really annoyed me how she thought she knew best for everyone else....
Post a Comment