Reading 1001 discussion

I have just finished and this is a 4 star read from me as well.

Dree my ending made sense so I guess I don't have the type you do lol.

I really enjoyed the backward and forward style of the narrative, I liked the way the present mirrored the past and the way that eventually Walter and Dipe ended up paying for the sins of the fathers although I think Dipe got off rather lightly.

I agree with Kristel that Walter was an unlikeable character and what he did to his wife was unforgivable I would also say in terms of the narrative that whole scene was unnecessary he had already treated her badly enough to be on a par with his father without adding that to the mix.

This was my second Boyle, and while I think he is a wonderful writer, this book was a miss for me. I think it was well written and I liked the the way it went from past to present but I didn't connect with any of the characters. I really didn't care what happened to them. I think Walter got what he deserved for his treatment of Jessica, Hesh and Lola. I found the historical parts interesting. I didn't know anything about the Dutch in New York at that time. I think it deserves a place on the list because it is beautifully written and highlights some social issues relevant to that time period.

I just finished this book and I give it 4.5 stars (4 on Goodreads) because it is still swirling around in my brain. The generational swings from the distant past to the near past to the present make for an intoxicating mixture of history, folklore, tales of revenge, families, tragedies. I did not like Wouter or Walter, but Walter was definitely worse and he brought everything on himself and his end was rather pitiful. Maybe it was just desserts for the things that he did to the people in his life, especially Jessica. Boyle is a master of this genre.

I finished this book on November 30th, and found it very depressing. The first half or so was a solid 4 star read, interesting use of magical realism or hallucinations, nicely interwoven past and present. The writing held up to the end, but the way the tragedies piled up without any happy endings anywhere was a bit much for me. 3 stars.

Kelly wrote: "I have a dumb question -- but somehow I missed it. What does the term "jellyfish eater" refer to? It seems like a racist comment, but how?"

The man called jellyfish eater had survived a shipwreck or something similar by eating jellyfish (or so the rumors said), so it's not racist, just derogatory towards that particular person. Most people wouldn't want to eat jellyfishf I guess.

Paula wrote: "Kelly wrote: "I have a dumb question -- but somehow I missed it. What does the term "jellyfish eater" refer to? It seems like a racist comment, but how?"

The man called jellyfish eater had survive..."

Thanks Paula! I knew I had to have missed it.

So I'm not sure this will work, but I am TRYING to add the photo I took of the typo (or not) at the end of this book that I want to discuss.

Sorry it's so big. I have zero clue how to make it smaller or if it's even possible. See my next comment for discussion!

OK, so this is Depeyster Van Wart meeting his "son" (his wife's son by Jeremy Mohonk.

So why does the nurse say "right there in front. Van Brunt." And Depeyster thinks "there he was--his son". Because his son is a Van WART not a Van BRUNT. Though actually, this baby is more Van Brunt than Van Wart, since he is actually a Mohonk descendant, and is thus an Xxgreatgrandson of the original Van Brunt family through their daughter.

But Depeyster and the nurse don't know this. So does your copy say Van Brunt? Or Van Wart? I am not sure if this is on purpose to create discussion, if I missed something in the book, or if it is a typo.

Dree wrote: "OK, so this is Depeyster Van Wart meeting his "son" (his wife's son by Jeremy Mohonk.

So why does the nurse say "right there in front. Van Brunt." And Depeyster thinks "there he was--his son". Bec..."

Interesting. My Penguin Books edition says Van Wart.

I read it in translation and my book says Van Wart.

My copy is Penguin American Contemporary Fiction and says “Van Wart”

Looks like yours is a editor/publisher error

My edition was (it is back at the library) World's End. Viking Press 1987. Per wikipedia, this is the first edition.

I have so much less to discuss.

That is a glaring mistake, though. I can see why you were confused.

That is quite an error! My Kindle version is correct too.

I don’t know. But I read a library copy that has seen better days. It also has a nice thick library cover rather than the original one.