What is your favorite book & why?

WhatDoesLisa

Anything by Bill Bryson or Sherman Alexie. Bill Bryson because he is so hilarious as in tears-rolling-down-your face funny. I like Sherman Alexie's writing and I totally respect his viewpoint. This is from a 1997 interview with him in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/05/magazine/questions-for-sherman-alexie.html?ref=shermanalexie

You have to read his books in the order that they were written or it is hard to follow since he uses recurring characters. I am not of Indian descent but I just love his writing. And I sort of think he would tell me to go F myself but hey I still like him!

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

shell22holmes

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

shell22holmes

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

jenbit

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

My friends and I have a running joke that only SK short stories make good movies. His full legmth books make better mini-series or mini-movies. The Stand was great also liked Kingdom Hospital



However my Favorite books happenn to be the Wheel of Time series

gingerjen7

I am a Stephen King fan, my absolute favourite book is Bag of Bones be SK.
Jane Eyre is second.

I'm a King fan as well. My favorite book is The Shining. I love the relationship between Jack and Danny and the exploration of the permeability of the human mind and soul, not to mention the horror of such a thing. I could never like Stanley Kubrick after the way he mutilated such a wonderful story into such a pile of crap.

The made-for-tv version, which was truer to the King book is good. Kubrick focused on Jack slipping in to craziness and not the downward spiral of his marriage, parenting, his alcoholism and how those things affected every aspect of his life. I prefer that version over Kubricks.....but I'll still watch Kubricks movie as its a classic.

I did like the made for TV version. The reason the book is so good is because of Jack's relationship with Danny, in my opinion, and the contrast to his father, which Kubrick's version didn't even touch on. And I think it did a poor job of showing Jack becoming crazy, as he really started out the film as an unlikable a-hole who seemed on shaky footing mentally. Also, the characters in the film were so different from the book. (I wish there were a way to put spoiler tags up for those who haven't read it).

In the book Danny is incredibly bright and also has his special gift; in the movie, he seems almost as though he has an autism spectrum disorder, doesn't seem particularly bright (that's not to say that individuals on the spectrum are not bright by any means; the two characteristics are separated here), and his explanation of "Tony" makes him seem like he's not entirely mentally stable either. Wendy--well, you know. She's not entirely a strong and independent woman in the book, though she tries, but she's certainly not the sniveling, simpering wisp of a woman that Shelley Duvall portrayed. Jack, I've already touched on, but we could go into greater detail if we wanted to, I'm sure. Even Ulmann was inaccurately portrayed.

And that's just looking at it as an adaptation. As a film itself, I'm not particularly fond of it, as I find it mostly very boring with some disturbing images randomly thrown in here and there. And I'm not a fan of using the soundtrack to build up tension so that a character can walk into an empty room. At the time that might have been innovative, I suppose, but at the time I was too young to notice anything except the creepy twins (who were described in the beginning of the film as being NOT twins, as they were 8 and 10), and having not watched it again until just three weeks ago, found it more annoying than innovative.

Now look; I've gone and gotten all off topic.

Off topic continuing: Stephen Kings books are hardly ever adapted to screen well. Bag of Bones was a made-for-tv movie too and the killed it (killed not in a good way) I turned it off after 5 minutes. The only good adaptions are The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption & Stand By Me, which aren't your typical SK stories, the are all derived from the shorter stories (minus The Green Mile)

I agree with all...except that it had been so long since I read Bag of Bones that I rather enjoyed the movie. Except the ending; I don't remember why but that seemed off to me. I would add 1408 to that list; for such a short story, I thought they did quite well with it, not quite in spite of, but possibly because of the additions which were made. On the other hand, I remember that I was so creeped out at one point reading the story that I had to set the book aside and come back to it later, where the movie wasn't all that scary to me. But I was under the influence of something when I first saw it, and found it more amusing than frightening. While I find John Cusack somewhat obnoxious as a person, I do respect him a lot as an actor and I thought he did a fine job in the film. Regardless, I hope that the adaptation of Cell doesn't go forward with or without him as the lead. I've had it up to here (some place really high) with all this zombie nonsense! I think it's time to leave off with vampires and zombies and move on to some other supernatural fictional creatures. Witches, perhaps.

SammyLou28

Hands down, "The Time Machine" by H.G Wells. Love that classic Sci-Fi! I read a lot of stuff by him and Jules Verne.

I've been getting into Kurt Vonnegut lately.

EnderNC

Ender's Game. (In case you couldn't tell by my screen name :P) Loved it since I was a kid. It has a chemistry that can't quite be explained. Plus, playing laser tag in zero gravity would be pretty awesome, don't you agree?

traceyleighgirl

"She's Come Undone" by Wally Lamb. Incredible book. I reread it every year. I find it so well-written. I felt like I lived the life of Dolores. I hated having it end. You grow up with her, from age 4 to 40. The book haunts me. It sticks with me. Great books do that to you. They never leave you.

SammyLou28

Definitely George Orwell's 1984.

I love dystopian fiction and this was by far the most spine-chilling rendition of a dystopian society that I've ever read.

Another one of my favorites.

Skinny_minny_mo

i have too many favourites, but top 3:

The power of one by bryce courtenay
Catcher in the Rye
The Kite Runner

Diyah13

I have favorite authors---Rick Riordan (his three demigod series), Sue Grafton (alphabet mysteries), Nevada Barr (Anna Pigeon mysteries) are among my favorites. I love mysteries, and I love a good story. I can put these books down for a couple of years and come back to read them and enjoy them all over again.

EnderNC

@SammyLou28. I was about to start my sentence with Hands down! lol I changed it before I posted, but made me smile anyway :P

SammyLou28

Ender's Game. (In case you couldn't tell by my screen name :P) Loved it since I was a kid. It has a chemistry that can't quite be explained. Plus, playing laser tag in zero gravity would be pretty awesome, don't you agree?

I just finished reading this for the second time last month and enjoyed it just as much as my first read. I have "Speaker for the Dead" but have not started it yet.

LuckyLeprechaun

Life of Pi because to me, it is all about the power of positive thinking. I have probably read it 3 times and it doesn't get old. I can't wait to take my daughter to the movie on Wednesday.

Can you,or anyone, tell me.........is there any bad thing that happens to the tiger? I haven't read it, many people have recommended it, but I am afraid it's going to be "Me and Marley" all over again (where everyone tells me it's great and then the dog dies). I am very sensitive to anything relating to harm coming to animals....I had a VERY hard time with Water for Elephants, as a book, and didn't watch it.

Reassurance? Or should I just stay away from this book/movie?

bcattoes

I always say 'The Hobbit' is my very favorite, though honestly it's so very hard to choose.

'Where the Red Fern Grows' is still an all time favorite too. And I love just about anything by John Steinbeck, Charles ****ens, Thomas Hardy, Ann Tyler, Ruth Rendell or Stephen King.

The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Red Badge of Courage, In Cold Blood, Ghost Story, and Lord of the Rings are some other favorites that come to mind.

And I am eagerly awaiting the next Sookie Stackhouse book.

SammyLou28

@SammyLou28. I was about to start my sentence with Hands down! lol I changed it before I posted, but made me smile anyway :P

That's funny, because at first I wrote it without the "Hands down", but then threw it in before I posted. LOL.

jenluvsushi

I love Wally Lamb too...I Know This Much Is True was great as well. It's hard to believe a man wrote She's Come Undone!

traceyleighgirl

I know! I felt he really got what goes through a woman's head sometimes. I wish he wrote more. Apparently he has horrible writer's blocks. Ugh! I loved his books!