During my time working at Knoebels Amusement Park, whenever I'd find some free time I'd work on reading
All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. That book was a trudge. It won the Pulitzer and I'm not sure why. It had nothing new to say about politics (guess what, any idealistic candidate eventually has to lower himself into the muck of politics to get things done) and in fact had little to nothing to with politics for a book that is praised for its depiction of said arena. The book read as if Warren tried to have some big deep meaning in every other paragraph. In other words, the whole book consisted of purple prose. Oh and there was the fifty page section about the narrator's great-uncle that had literally no bearing on the main plot at all.
And for all the trouble the book gave me, I couldn't let myself put it down. First, if I start a book, I have to finish it. That's the way I'm made and I can't change. Second, I couldn't let this specific book win. Every time I sat down with a few free minutes I'd see the horrible red glow emanating from the book cover daring me to continue down the literary road and once again enter the purgatory that was the plot of the book.
For my first post back from my hiatus this is a poorly written one, but this book really gets to me. Do not read. Thumbs down.
Do the FOT like Paul Auster? I'm a big fan of city of glass.
I read Man in the Dark by Paul Auster and really dug the first hundred pages but thought it ended very weakly.