I'm still plowing my way through this book, on OSC's recomendation only, no real other reason. I got excited around page 544 when something looked like it was actually going to happen, but it seems to have fizzled out by page 600. I can't quite give it up for a lost cause, but it's the kind of book that I can happily put down for days at a time without a problem. I'm pretty determined to get through it. Anybody read it?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
There are lots of fans here--I don't happen to be one of them. I didn't even get as far as you did. I asked my best friend (who absolutely loved it, and who also knows me pretty well), "So, Carrie, if I don't love this book yet and don't really care what happens to anybody in it, do you think that's going to change if I keep reading?" She said probably not, so I took that for permission to put it down.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I think you'be hit the nail on the head. I care a only a little about what might happen to the characters, enough to keep reading though. What is bothering me is how long she's taking for that to happen. There are things I really like: the basic premise, the cleverness of the writing, the mannered approach to the story. I guess the biggest frustration is that there doesn't seem to be much of a plot, just a series of only vaguely connected social contacts between characters, with the faint hint that at some stage (page 800? page 950?) these will resolve into something. At this stage I will keep reading, but it feels like just finishing for the sake of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There is in fact a plot. But if you're reading for plot, you're reading the wrong book.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
You're right Tom, maybe I need to let go of plot, and read for the other things that I am enjoying.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I just had fun reading it...difficult to pin down why, really. Probably a blend of dialogue and setting and wit, I think. But I do remember things happened quite slowly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I read, and enjoyed, Strange and Norrell very much. I even bought it as a gift for a bookworm client. I liked it more for the language than for the plot.
I read it just after finishing "The Eyre Affair", and for a while I was thinking all my thoughts with footnotes.*
* footnotes feature prominently in both books
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I just loved the footnotes in Strange and Norrell.
How hilarious that you finally got interested at around page 500. I tell everyone that they have to read at least 550 pages before they give up. I enjoyed the book, but it's hard to put my finger on why. It was deliciously creepy and otherworldly, and I was really comfortable with her writing style. *shrug* I still can't explain it.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I enjoyed the book while I was reading it, but almost all the way through the story kept feeling like it was background to what was *really* going to happen. Since I had had the same feeling all the way through Frankenstein (which I had just read before starting this one), I wasn't sure if I was imagining it or what. I discovered by the time I got to the end that it was in fact mostly background for what was really going to happen. Didn't make it any less worth reading; I really did enjoy what was going on and especially the discussions of English magic and so on, but I wish I'd known I wasn't going crazy thinking she hadn't quite gotten to the story yet. I recall one of the chapters felt exactly like it could be cut out of the book and sold as a short (fantasy horror) story, especially since it ended with one of those "ew, creepy" shudder moments. Kinda a weird feeling to get when reading a book, that one of the chapters could be a short story, but there it is. I heard they're making it into a movie.
Posted by Diana Bailey (Member # 8313) on :
It's a terrific "Victorian" novel...long, complex and wordy. There are wonderful, magic parts and the military bits are great. My son insisted that I read it, and I loved it. Keep going!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's got nice parts, but it expects too much from me. Give me a reason to read. No book should expect the reader to force through 500 pages before it becomes worth reading for its own sake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No book should expect the reader to force through 500 pages before it becomes worth reading for its own sake.
The book is worth reading after the first sentence. Only if you read for plot can you claim otherwise.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The plot does take quite a while to build momentum...but once it does, I realized everything the author had spent time establishing had a very good reason for being there.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't read only for plot, but I also expect something more than flowery language and general setting. I keep wondering why I'm still reading.
It's good, but it's not mind-blowing good. Whatever it has going for it isn't enough to keep me interested.
I honestly don't see how a plot would take anything away from it.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Tom wrote: "The book is worth reading after the first sentence. Only if you read for plot can you claim otherwise."
I agree. We are a plot-driven society, these days. I just loved the language. I remember taking forever to finish Dickens, the Brontes, Shakespeare, and many others, simply because I reread passages out of simple adoration of the writing. Tha is how I felt about Jonathan Strange. I have so many images flashing through my brain at this moment, just thinking about that novel.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I was bored to tears. The writing was nice, but I found the characters boring as people and the plot uncompelling. There aren't too many books I commit to read and don't finish, but this is one of them. Middlemarch was close, but the characters were just interesting enough for me to finish.
If I may derail the thread for a moment, I'm reading, "Fabulous Small Jews," by Joseph Epstein as I write this, and I'm enjoying every little story.
Posted by jd2cly60 (Member # 450) on :
I adored the book I fell in love with it. Hell I fell into the world. I think the only other [s]two[/s] three times I've been so seduced by writing was Dune, Ender's Game, and A Game of Thrones.
Basically I agree with what Tom said about the first sentance, just incredible from that moment on. I wanted to hug the book.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I loved it from the first sentence too, as weird as that may sound given the tone of my first post. I told my wife about how much I was enjoying it, and my daughter who loves Jane Austen. I guess the thing that has been frustrating me has been the fact that it just seems to take so long to do whatever it's doing, so I've lost interest to a degree. I'm still reading, but it'll probably take me a while.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I've been meaning to read it for ages, especially since the first part happens in my town! (the bit with the cathedral and the statues...)
But it's so long! I always keep getting distracted by other books before I reach halfway.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Hell I fell into the world.
Exactly how I felt. What a fantastic world.
I probably wouldn't have stuck it out (I'm a plot person), but I was highly motivated by the rave reviews I read here on this very forum. You guys rarely lead me wrong and you didn't in this case either.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I've read it, and found myself in a similar boat to many people here. I did enjoy the language and the setting, but I am primarily driven to read fiction by plot (stories!), so I didn't really start to feel the need to finish the book til things began to pick up in the last bit. Before that, I would read half a chapter-ish, enjoy the language, and then set the book down (sometimes for as much as a week, which is NOT something I typically do). In contrast, when I got near the end, I actually couldn't put it down, and polished off the last...um...quarter or so? of the book in one afternoon.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Thanks Megan, I'm highly encouraged. Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
*is too*
Definitely on my list Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I agree. It took me about a year to read the first two hundred pages and two weeks to read the last five hundred.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
The first half was certainly slow-going -- but I was somehow never tempted to give up. It's possible that the more one knows about the true history of the period and the conventions the author is spoofing, the more one will enjoy the 'journey'.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'm another person who took a while to get through it -- got halfway through it when it first came out, then got distracted and didn't get back to it for a couple years. Finally finished it last month when I got to listen to a great audio version.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I finally tried read this stupid book, after having been hounded by many friends and people whose literary opinions I consider better than mine, mostly because it was on sale at B. Dalton for $4.50.
I can't do this. The book is insufferably dull, the characters are unexciting, uninspired and unoriginal, the thematic misspellings are distracting to the point of annoyance. I'm 120 pages in and I highly doubt I will ever revisit it.
What a waste of time.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I've been meaning to read it for ages, especially since the first part happens in my town! (the bit with the cathedral and the statues...)
But it's so long! I always keep getting distracted by other books before I reach halfway.
You're from York? I was there last summer, and I loved it. That's one thing that got me hooked on that book. I only spent one day in your town (and a few other days in Yorkshire), but reading a story set there really sucked me in. I could just imagine the streets, the buildings and the cathedral as the characters were inhabiting them. By the time the story moved to London I was hooked and unable to stop.
The book reminded me of Yoko Kanno, Tenacious D, or the last album by The Decemberists. It starts off as a pastiche of a beloved genre, and it does it with so much wit and creativity that it ends up matching or beating anything that it's trying to imitate. I was so taken by the depth of the world created by the book that by the time the plot kicked in, it really took me off guard.
It's kind of like Ender's Game or Lost Boys. If the author had wanted to distill the plot down to its essence, it could have been written as a decent short story. But the world created was so realistic and rich in detail that the extra 800 pages it took to tell the story properly were fully justified. In my opinion, of course.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I read the book and enjoy it. It's funny--I usually prefer concise, plot-driving stories, but I liked the language, and the footnotes, and hilarious commentary on high society.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm about a quarter of the way through it. It didn't sound like something I'd like, but I'd heard such good things about it, and I found it in hardback on the discount rack for $4.99. I've enjoyed it pretty much from the get-go, and I don't like victorian novels or comedies of manners. It's so brilliantly written! So far, I think of it as an intelligent Terry Pratchet. I find it hard to pick up (because the size is intimidating) and hard to put down (because every sentence is a treasure).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I read a good deal of it, and finally got sick of it. Couldn't stand anybody in the book, and the reason it's so long is that the author takes a page to write a sentence. Overblown.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Wow.... Okay, I was shocked when I picked up War and Peace and found it fascinating.. Again shocked when I found out that Shakespeare is genuinely cool. Probably not fair comparisons, I know.
I handled about 10 pages of Strange and Norrel and gave up, not because it was hard to read, but because I thought it was terribly boring.
I had the same experience with the Once and Future King (Okay, I made it much farther in this book). Interesting, but so slow... I have no idea how I powered through the Lord of the Rings series.
I like long, realistic books, and I am a huge Sci-Fi fan. I thought I was very found of Fantasy, and Strange and Norell seemed like a sure fit for me... and then it wasn't. Who knows?
Lately I find that I prefer Kurt Vonnegut to pretty much anyone.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell -
This is usually the type of book I don't like, a Victorian, semi-Gothic, semi-tragic, 'setting/period' piece. I really have trouble reading classsic literature like 'Tale of Two Cities', 'David Copperfield', and many many more. They just drag to the point of grating on my nerves, but I liked 'Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell' even though it is all of those things.
It has a very 'classic' feel to it, and it rambles from scene to apparently unrelated scene, but near the end of the book, all these pieces, all the scenes, all these people are pulled together into something coherent.
Though again, to some extent this is a setting/period piece, so it is more about a time and place in (fictional) history. There aren't any great epic battles or anything like that.
Despite that this book is everything I don't like in a book, it did hold my interest and I found the ending somewhat tragic, but it is not a book with great thrilling highs, and I think that is because it is trying to capture this 'classic' 'Victorian' style of writing which it does well.
In a way, the style of writing itself is part of the story. So, if you are looking for a 'thrill a minute' style of book, this is probably not it. This, again, is more a character, time, and place sort of book.
I'm sure that doesn't help at all, but it is an odd book that is difficult to explain to people, but even the 'oddness' of it is also part of the story.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Certainly, Susannah Clarke is almost the anti-Vonnegut.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
After my last book binge I took a solemn vow to buy no more new books for myself until I finished reading all the ones I'd purchased. That was I think two years ago. One of the books I bought was Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.
Yeah...I pretty much screwed myself there :\. Luckily for me library books and used books don't count .
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am having a similar problem. It is fine while I'm reading it. I just don't care enough about these people to need to know what happens to them next. I didn't notice anything particularly noteworthy about the language, but I often read older novels so the style may have escaped my notice.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
haven't tried Strange, but am running into about the same issue trying to work my way through Atlas Shrugged... I'm at about p. 450-500 and still am not really that interested in what little plot/character development there has been so far. I want to finish it for the little intrigue it's piqued in me, but getting through the second 450 pages is going to take like a year at this pace. while the writing is in principle good, it reads more like a philosophical treatise than a novel of any normal definition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because it pretty much is.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That, ans Atlas Shrugged is unbelievably repetitive. She has to beat the point into your head.
-o-
Wow. Once and Future King was hard to get through? To me it read like a kids' book. (I swear I mean no disrespect by that. I actually mean it as a compliment for Once and Future King, specifically in terms of holding interest and being full of action.) I just can't imagine anybody finding that book hard to plow through.
[ March 26, 2007, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Philistines. What is this plot you speak of?
::goes off to speed read The Golden Bowl::
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I think reactions to Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might be as sure a litmus test for a certain type of personality as someone's response to the first Achewood strip. They might even test for the same kind of person.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, I just don't buy that, Tom. It seems to me that there are so many reasons to like or dislike something, that the overall reaction to one work can't be that telling. It's not the first time you've expressed a similar sentiment, and I found it troublesome the last time too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How do you feel about the first Achewood strip? And who's your favorite Beatle? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've never read Achewood--or heard of it.
I don't think I can choose a favorite Beatle.
Except it's not Ringo.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Icarus, you're one of a small handful of people I know with that sentiment about the Once & Future King. Personally, I couldn't get past about 200 pages, and those were required for school (medieval history, sophomore year of high school). Most of my friends/classmates had similar problems.
Then again, the school requirement may have been precisely why so many of us had trouble with it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* That makes sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You read Once and Future King for medieval history? *blink*
I love the book. I'd recommend it to anyone alive. But as a history text...?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You read Once and Future King for medieval history? *blink*
I love the book. I'd recommend it to anyone alive. But as a history text...?
It was our teacher's idea of "let's have fun!" at the end of the semester.
Y'know, I think I still have it somewhere. It may be worth trying again, now that that class is seven years removed.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I got about halfway through The Once and Future King back in high school. I think that's when I decided I didn't like Arthurian fantasy after all.
ladyday, I have a similar rule. I have to read 5 books I already own before I'm allowed to buy a new book. Used books do count...BUT I have a loophole, which is that can just get rid of a book if I decide I don't want to read it. Which may save me, as Strange and Norrell is on my shelf. (It's not really my fault, because one of my students gave it to me!) I tried to start it once, but only gave it about a paragraph. I'll try again sometime, I'm sure.
Why do people think Dickens lacks plot? All you have to do is skip over all of the dull-as-dishwater description, and you're left with a galloping story. I adore Austen. There's TONS of plot in Austen. *confused*
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Interesting, but so slow... I have no idea how I powered through the Lord of the Rings series.
I started them about 20 years ago and got bogged down ... only managed to finish them because I swore I'd read them before the movies came out and I had a deadline. I was ultimately glad I did and have read them again since. But the pace is not what I was used to.
Deadlines work wonders. Posted by bluenessuno (Member # 5535) on :
Loved Jonathan Strange's war 'exploits' and his first step into a mirror; he directed himself toward Henry Lascelles. Surprise! A bit of comeuppance there. Also took to Childermass as he stepped to the fore. These were highs for me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I adore Austen. There's TONS of plot in Austen. *confused*
Huh. Austen is what I was afraid this book would be like. I hate her books; I find her unreadably dull. Johnathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is so much funnier! How can you all dislike a book that is so funny?!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I thought the book was fascinating and funny for quite a number of pages. Then everything kind of soured and the book started to feel more full of itself than anything else.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
If anyone has trouble reading LotR, I highly recommend the excellent unabridged audio version read by Rob Inglis. When read by a storyteller, it's easier to be patient with Tolkien's descriptions and lore and to savor them for the treasure that they are. (Similarly, it took finding an audio version of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell for me to finish that one.)
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Tom, do you have a theory as to what kinds of personalities like/dislike Strange and Norrell? I'm not familiar with Achewood.
As for The Once and Future King, it's one of my all-time favorites.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know what I like about fat books? They're not over so quickly.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I agree, if it's a fat book that I like. Right now I'm hashing my way through a fat book that I think is just 'ok.' I'll be glad to finally get through it. (Norrell, however, was a fat book that I loved.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I really wanted to like this one, but I've started and stopped half a dozen times. I'm about half way through, and nothing is happening at all.
I felt the same way with the first book in Neal Stephenson's latest series set in England. Just too slow moving, too fancy pants interested in sounding floofy and elegant or developing character's quirky personality.
The writing's nice enough, but get to the point before page 350.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then everything kind of soured and the book started to feel more full of itself than anything else.
One of the brilliant things about the book is the way that its tone at any given moment tends to precisely mirror its events.
Jane Austen is very funny. I thought Once and Future King was a children's book (juvenile fiction anyway - especially the first part). Strange and Norrell is paced just fine; it just doesn't have anyone in it I care about - so far.
edit: Oh, and George Harrison, but it's close.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* George Harrison is like a blend of the best qualities of the other Beatles. He doesn't quite have the brilliance of Lennon, but his other qualities balance out nicely. I have his boxed set on vinyl, and I wish I had it on CD so I could listen to it more often.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, and the comic strip Tom linked to was completely meaningless to me. I didn't get it at all. This probably means I have no sense of humor or that I'm stupid or something. :-\ Can someone explain to me why it's funny?
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
It's funny because some people are completely impotent?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh. I don't even get your reply. :-|
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Boy, I didn't get that at all.
*blinks, looks again
Nope.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I was merely guessing, I didn't find it all that funny either.
I guess it has something to do with how pointless it is...
I am slightly amused at the simplicity, and how Philippe looks so happy to be standing on an instruction manual...
Yeah, it's pretty strange.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I make no claims of objective merit; like I said on another thread, I like McDonald's cheeseburgers, too.
There are people who find that Achewood strip not only achingly funny but absolutely brilliant. I strongly suspect that these same people consider the Qwantz.com strips to be genius, too. I would expect a degree of correlation between those people and the people who really, really like Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, for reasons it'd take me a long time to fully articulate. *grin*
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I suppose so. I'm a huge fan of Qwantz.com, and neither achewood nor strange/norrell are my thing. I'm amused that you mentioned them because I almost linked qwantz just to show a web comic that was funny, for the sake of comparison.
busy busy busy ...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It might be fun to draw an interlocking circle diagram of webcomic audiences. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I make no claims of objective merit; like I said on another thread, I like McDonald's cheeseburgers, too.
Okay, but can you explain it to me anyway? Because I can't even begin to imagine what might be funny about it. What am I just missing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suspect it operates on a level similar to the lighthearted joy some people find in "magic realism" (in movies or books and whatever). The strip exists with no context, especially since it's the first strip of the run; we don't know any of these people, but we know there are three of them, one of them has a drum machine, and one of them is standing on its manual -- in the corner -- in a slightly sheepish way.
The artwork is deliberately crude; there is no motion between panels, and the first two characters appear to be expressionless templates. The dialogue is tonally flat, slightly simple and yet tinged with formality -- a trait shared by the font chosen. In fact, we seem to exist in a stiff, somewhat formal world in this comic, one in which people can be "utterly confounded" by drum machines.
And then the third panel.
The first two characters appear to be animals of some sort, albeit ones dressed for the 1930s. Philippe is a curvy, ambiguous tube in baggy pants -- and has an expression! He's happy! He's happy because...he's...standing? In the corner? On the drum machine manual?
And that's the "joke." We don't know why. We never learn why. It is providing him with happiness. We can assume that this happiness is why the other character is reluctant to take the manual from him, but it works just as well to assume that Philippe is psychotically violent and would resist the attempt. At this stage, we don't know -- and it's irrelevant.
What's important is that we are encountering here a phenomenon or behavior for which we have no referent, and yet which gives pleasure. "Philippe," we say, "you are the sort of tube-shaped thing that enjoys standing on a drum machine manual. And you bring us glee."
And looking at what I just wrote, that last paragraph there strikes me as hysterically funny. So YMMV. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh.
Seriously, thank you for trying. I thought maybe there was some hidden cleverness I was not getting, but it sounds more like some sort of postmodern thing--it's funny because it makes no sense.
Have you seriously found a correlation in the people in your life between enjoying that strip and enjoying Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell?
I guess I have mixed feelings about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Have you seriously found a correlation in the people in your life between enjoying that strip and enjoying Johnathan Strange and Mr Norrell?
I haven't really looked for one. But I suspect there is one. That's not to say that people couldn't enjoy that strip for reasons that don't intersect the reasons other people might have for liking Susannah Clarke's stuff -- but I think there's a huge intersection there right in the middle that consists of a love of pseudo-formal post-modernism.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:What's important is that we are encountering here a phenomenon or behavior for which we have no referent, and yet which gives pleasure. "Philippe," we say, "you are the sort of tube-shaped thing that enjoys standing on a drum machine manual. And you bring us glee."
What's also important about the Achewood strip is that this world appears, for unexplained reasons, to be populated with stuffy well dressed European bulldogs. I find that utterly hilarious.
And I think Jonathan Strange may be the best novel published in the past two or three years.
So, there's one representative.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I enjoyed Jonathan Strange, but I don't like Achewood at all. I'm in the non-human camp with Icky on that one.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
dum comic makes me feel bad about myself
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love reading. I love LotR.
I don't dislike Strange and Norell, but I have not bothered to finish it, even though it was a lot better. I like parts of it, but over all I am bored wiht it.
I don't remember how long it has been since I tried to read a book that bored me so much that I didn't bother to finish it.
I disliked that cartoon as well. It seemed just....stupid. No point, and not funny at all.
I had a friend who thought I was crazy because I wasn't a Python fan. I liked some of it, but even the HG was too long and stuffed with not-so-funny scenes.
He thought that only people who weren't smart enough to get the jokes didn't think they were funny. I got them, they just seemed not-so-funny after about 10 min of listening to it. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it has anything to do with smarts. I think it has to do with how people react to disappointed expectations and/or cognitive dissonance.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Okay that strip cracked me up. To the point where I showed it to my husband and it became the joke of the evening.
...I guess I could try JS&MrN again...
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Just finished reading it. It's an amazing book (IMHO)! I also just...entered the world. Surreal and yet so real :-)
I will miss the characters, the story, everything...
This land is all too shallow It is painted on the sky And trembles like the wind-shook rain When the Raven King goes by
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Okay, so when I first saw the strip it left me with nothing but a big fat, "Huh? What am I missing?" (I'd never read Achewood at all before.)
But it intrigued me to the point where I just kept clicking, and grew to enjoy it. Just had to share this one:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)