What does /lit/ think of this book?
I thought it was very boring for the 1/3 of it but felt comfy enough reading it since the text is easy enough for a reading after a busy day and good before sleep. Then maybe after the middle, shit starts happening, constant punk'd happenings, some quality trolling. Now I'm like 80% and can't wait to read more.
Why is it described as post-modern though?
Thought the constant switching up of situations was interesting but sometimes it was hard to follow and work out the symbolism. What point was Fowles trying to drive home with the constant changing of reality?
>Why is it described as post-modern though?
I quite liked this book back when I first read it, though. The pacing isn't the best, and like you said the first third of the book is boring, yet comfy and readable. Nicholas Urfe is such a well written character you'll drudge through it pleasantly. Combined with Fowles' really enjoyable and flowing prose you'd have to be a turbopleb not to enjoy it. Really, wasn't this the first book he wrote? Not bad at all if so.
>youll never meet an old rich weirdo on a greek island and a pair of qt3.14s and be lured into a psychological game that confuses and bewilders you completely.
Fowles left an afterword in the edition I have. A lot of people send him letters asking exactly that, and about the meaning of the book in general. He says himself there wasnt really any intended message or meaning behind it all, apart from any you may see for yourself.
Yeah some times it is obvious like with the black guy being some kind of foreign superior nemesis to him, I mean it feels like that when you look at the thoughts of the protagonist and the "painting-scene" with the flaying frame.
Other times it flies right over my head. He uses so many allusions and often direct references to some art works or books that I have to google them to get them, I really need to read my greeks.
Yeah, Nicolas is also very relatable for our current generation, that is the age group of the male users of this site. When he was being psychologically analysed and some guy gives a footnote of an analysis of the world after the WW2 it is like a perfect description of what is happening right now. Fowles' insight into the abandonment of the nuclear family and the effects of nuclear war on the economy were very interesting.
I expected it to be more about magic and forbidden knowledge but I guess I get what he means by using the character of conchis as a powerful, rich man, capable of creating his own reality. Also the setting of a greek island makes it very picturesque when reading.
Definitely a weird book. I think the strength of it is in the creation of a particular set of moods and feelings. He sets up a number of elaborate happens, whether entirely real or not, and the reader moves through curiosity, excitement, cofusion, and some ethical considerations of what is meant by freedom.
I didn't find it to be an enthralling read, but it was certainly interesting, even the rather confusing ending.
I honestly have no idea how many pages it is since I am reading it on a e-reader but I just know that the first 1/3 or even up to half of the book is not very exciting. But it sets the tone for what is to come.
Yeah, I really like how he explains the word freedom with the events that Conchis related to him from his past. The nazi arc is just perfect, I felt myself really engrossed when he started telling Nicholas that story of his, even if it was just another part of his "play", it really explained the idea well.
This isn't a smart book, it's a book trying to sound smart through obfuscation which is funny cause that's exactly what it's about, an author playing with your expectations with nothing behind it. You could get the gist of it by reading The Tempest instead.