I recently read The Count of Monte Cristo. Like several other things I've read recently (Frankenstein, The Martian Chronicles) I read it mostly because I felt it was something I needed to have read or I'd just be lying when I claimed I was well-read.
Unfortunately, like many things you do because you assume you should, and not because you really want to, some of these books have been disappointing. Frankenstein was... well, as a product of its era it was terrific. In comparison to any working decent writer, though, Shelley's ear for dialogue was made of something harder than tin. But as I said, as a product of its time, it's great--and you should read Frankenstein if for no other reason than to have actually read it. In almost every room you'll ever be in, you'll be the only person to have done so.
The Martian Chronicles was... well, typical of Bradbury it was rather more depressing at the end than I really needed.
But the Count of Monte Cristo, on the other hand, totally ruled. I read the abridged version, which I'd recommend to anyone who would be daunted by a book of over 1000 pages. In the post-Harry Potter world, that may be fewer people than before. But even for an abridged version, this book was great. Occasionally you could see where parts had been excised, and certainly much of the prison time was cut out. Still, the book was a terrific read.
If you're looking for something a little different from the standard summer thrillers to read at the beach this year, you could do much worse than Monte Cristo.
1 comment:
Ooo, OOoo. I've actually read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, and believe it or not it was for funsies rather than required. I agree that for the era it was fantastic, and worth all the praise it received at the time. You have to keep that in mind while reading it or the book can seem rather lackluster.
Post a Comment