42 replies to this topic

[Solex Agitator]

This is a terrific thread! Spirited to say the very least. Thanks, Loomis!

[DAN LIGHTER]

Engleby

I will put it in spoliers just in case. Dont spoil it for yourself if you plan to read it. Loomis is right it really is very good!

Spoiler

When I started it I could see where K1bond007 formed his opinion. You could compare it to Forest Gump in the first few pages in a way. But there is something that kept me wanting to read. I just could tell there was something special about Mike Engleby. I didn't like him or hate him, but sometimes I felt sorry for him. Faulks writing is amazing. The whole construction of the story is brilliant. When you get to the end and go back over the story you realize what was missing. It struck me as odd at the time the bits Mike left out. I thought it was dew to him smoking hash. Anyway, it all sums up to the fact that Engelby is a masterpiece. You are kept thinking did he didn't he? Is he mad, yes no doubt he is mad. You go on this ride with him. And even at the end I am still asking, did he? I dont think he did. Maybe he was just seeking help? At the end of the day it's left up to us the reader to decide, or is it? I didn't expect the story to pan out as it did, which made it all the better. I didn't even read the dust jacket bumph. Its a murder mystery mad mad mad book and bloody brilliant!.

Interesting to note Faulks asked the publisher if he should release it under a different name. He wasn't sure if readers would get it. Thats what I admire in him, prepared to experiment.

Loomis, do you think he (Engleby) was interviewed for the Today paper? That brought back memories!

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 05 September 2009 - 10:03 AM.

[[dark]]

I was actually flipping through A Fool's Alphabet in Dymocks today. Very tempted to pick it up - sounds like a great read - but Charlie Higson's newie and the next Dan Brown (yes, I love his page-turners) will keep me busy for the next little while.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I know what you mean Dark. So much to read in such little time!

[Loomis]

Interesting to note Faulks asked the publisher if he should release it under a different name. He wasn't sure if readers would get it.

Really? Didn't know that.

One thing I love about ENGLEBY is that it's funny. Pantwettingly, sidesplittingly funny. Don't get me wrong: this book is not a comedy. It's as dark and disturbing as books get. In fact, it's truly chilling. But it often strikes me as a bit like The Smiths - you've often got Morrissey singing about the blackest, bleakest, most sobering subjects (suicide and so on), but his turn of phrase can be absolutely hilarious, and his command of the English language is stunning. Were it not for his wholesale rejection of all music after the 1970s (he is horrified by the pop stars of the 1980s, whom he amusingly describes as "gutless hairdressers with a toy kazoo"), it's easy to imagine old Toilet Engleby becoming a fan of Morrissey's lyrics and Johnny Marr's virtuoso guitar work.

Loomis, do you think he (Engleby) was interviewed for the Today paper? That brought back memories!

I got the impression that it was The Independent, although I may be wrong.

[DAN LIGHTER]

He was very funny in places and had me smiling.

From Faulks website Loomis:-

"Faulks asked whether Random House, his publisher, would prefer him to publish Engleby under a nom de plume, so as not to confuse readers who expected something more like his previous books. They were adamant that it should be under his own name".

Que comments about writing as Ian Fleming...........

[DAN LIGHTER]

Me? I'm right here. Talk away.

Am currently halfway through A WEEK IN DECEMBER. Not sure I love it as much as ENGLEBY or A FOOL'S ALPHABET - it's a multicharacter affair, meaning that there isn't the deep baring of one man's soul that I love so much about those books. Moreover, Faulks' chief aim seems to be the taking of a scathing satirical scalpel to modern British society (girl groups, greedy bankers, Islamic terrorism, moronic reality TV shows, etc.), which seems to depersonalise things further. In some ways it's like an issue of Private Eye in the form of a novel. Which is hardly a bad thing.

Still, it's very well-written and amusing, and certainly several leagues better than DEVIL MAY CARE.

I am about quarter of the way in with A Week in December and I agree with where Loomis is coming from. I get a bit lost or bored with John Veals the Hedge-Fund man. But over all I am enjoying it. I like his take on modern life. All in all very good so far. I hate that reality TV crap, so it's good to see someone else hates it. (I do like Come Dine With Me but thats it)

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 15 September 2009 - 06:49 PM.

[Loomis]

Having finished A WEEK IN DECEMBER I still wouldn't rank it alongside the best of Faulks, but it's certainly worth reading. I don't feel I was gypped out of a tenner, but then again I won't be returning to this book again and again as I will with ENGLEBY.

Funnily enough, I see A WEEK IN DECEMBER as an intellectual, literary version of LOVE ACTUALLY. Since I like LOVE ACTUALLY, I don't see this as a bad thing.

Must now get round to BIRDSONG.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I can only echo what you say about A Week in December Loomis. As someone who is becoming a grumpy old man, A Week in December suited me quite well, and it won’t be far off before we have the type of gameshows as mentioned in the book etc. Who knows, Maybe we already have. Maybe that was his point? I have read Faulks is more comfy writing in the earlier periods than the present. Maybe this book is just a reflection as to why? All in all I recommend it, but only after one has read his earlier books, Birdsong etc etc

Loomis, Faulks signed and quoted my copy with “Jenni shook her head in silence……” I was very much looking forward to reading that line but can’t recall reading it. Any ideas?

[Loomis]

Nope. Sorry.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I will have a flick again at some point. It was a tall order.

[Goodnight]

I have his book 'A Week in December' which is very good .

[emmapeel]

Very disappointed by "A Week in December". Too many characters who did or said nothing interesting (only the literary critic) and an ending that falls flat. Was promoted as some sort of 21st century Dickensian slice of life piece, but it ain't nothing of the kind.