|
I just finished this book, and want to talk about it, and want you to read it. At 800something pages, it's the longest novel to have won the Man Booker award (the most recent winner), and at 28, Catton is the youngest author to have received the honor. "The Luminaries" has murder, gold, whores, lawyers, opium, shipwrecks, seances, bastards, hotel proprietorship, and swag. Most online reviews will begin its summary describing the plight of Walter Moody, (the character whose arrival in New Zealand begins the book) as if he's the protagonist of the book, but that's a false impression. He's one of a large number of characters whose fates intertwine. The book is notable for its structure. The dozen men both implicated in and innocent of the central murder mystery each correspond to one of the signs of the zodiac, and there are seven planetary figures they interact with, who are much more involved with the mysteries of the plot. These characters interact on the basis of the heavens as they were back in 1865-66. The twelve chapters correspond to the waning moon, and therefore the first is 300-some pages you can delve into, and the latter few are only a few pages each, which you tear through furiously. What did you think? And a plot device question for those who've already read, what/who did Walter Moody encounter in the hold of the Godspeed? Was it actually Emery Staines?
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
I want to read this but the length is intimidating. It'll have to be drat good to match up to A Tale For The Time Being...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Just wanted to say I started this. When I read your post I went to add it on my "to read" list only to see it was already on it without me remembering where I heard of it before. It's certainly intriguing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I read this back in February and really enjoyed it, despite an utter lack of knowledge about the Zodiac. The story itself is interesting enough. I had a little trouble keeping the characters straight, and I felt like some of them got short shrift - especially Te Rau Tauwhare, the Maori guy. But the mystery kept me going, especially the way she would slowly dole out clues along the way until finally everything (mostly) fit together and made sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Chamberk posted:I read this back in February and really enjoyed it, despite an utter lack of knowledge about the Zodiac. Yeah, Catton states at the beginning that the zodiacal thing was really just a mechanic she used rather than integral to characterization, and no knowledge of astrology is required to enjoy it (which I can confirm). She DOES make a snarky point in the intro aimed at astrological devotees (that Bill Nye has made before): our modern conception of astrology is rooted in the Ptolomeic sky: that is, if you call yourself an Aquarius, the sun is supposed to rise through Aquarius on your birthday. It did back 2000 years ago, but today, since the universe actually moves, it's fully two signs off. So you're really a Pisces or whatever. Since her constellations reflect how things actually were in 1865-66, and not the horoscope calendar, she writes the intro to stave off butthurt. But yeah, Te Rau, Edgar Clinch, and Cowell Devlin got the short end of the he narrative stick. But I'm glad Gascoigne got more attention, as he was a pretty fully-realized character. And as far as keeping them all straight, my bookmark was just a piece of paper that had all the characters on it with their corresponding sign (e.g. Sagittarius - Belfour - shipping agent; Jupiter - Lauderback - politician), so I wouldn't have to constantly flip back to the dramatis personae.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
I'm reading this book now for a course, and while it's pretty good there's something that annoys me but I can't quite put my finger on. The characters are all interesting, well rounded and their interactions are really well done, but there's still something very flat about the narration. There's far too much telling going on as opposed to showing, but that goes with the territory, I suppose. I'm only 300 or so pages in so I've still got a ways to go, and I do like it so far, but I feel like the acclaim it received is more due to its technical qualities and less the artistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
I want to read this so badly, but I find myself intimidated. I burnt through The Goldfinch no problem but can't bring myself to read Infinite Jest. Maybe I just need to sit down and try 50 pages of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Just finished this. In line with Anna Karenina imo. Really one of the better books I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 15:22
|
|
