Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

Ready, set, discuss!

Just started. I'm really enjoying the language so far and it doesn't seem like a book that will take much to get through.

I was a bit apprehensive when I read the blurb, thought it might be one of these books that never really go anywhere, but I'm pleasantly surprised to find it's not so. To begin with, it has a wonderful sense of humour, and the narrative voice immediately drew me in. But there are also passages of great emotional depth and descriptive beauty. I really liked it.

Really enjoyed this quote:

"Hegel says that Truth is a great word and the thing is greater still. With Dave we never seemed to get past the word [...:]" pg 25

Brian wrote: "Really enjoyed this quote:

"Hegel says that Truth is a great word and the thing is greater still. With Dave we never seemed to get past the word [...:]" pg 25"

I read that the title "Under the net" refers to the net of language, and alludes to the characters' impossibility to penetrate the barrier of language and access things themselves. So your quote is very accurate and relevant.

Are there any particular rules for these readalongs? Do we need to hit certain benchmarks by certain dates?

Are there any particular rules for these readalongs? Do we need to hit certain benchmarks by certain dates?

Typically, it is helpful to have the book finished before discussions begin on the 15th of each month since the discussion threads are NOT spoiler-free zones. Other than that, you are free to read at your own pace and join in on the discussion whenever you see fit. :)

The scene with the dog was one of the funniest scenes I have read in a long time. I laughed out loud on the train! Overall I enjoyed the language and characters but thought the plot was a bit circular and pointless in the end.

i'm still in the very beginning and so far i'm not sure i'm gonna enjoy it. it seems strange and kinda boring. there are parts i know i'll find interesting. the voice is wonderful. i really love it.

I think perhaps Under the Net is more for people who enjoy the journey more than the destination. Murdoch doesn't make any grand conclusions, but I was more than happy with the quality of her writing and the subtle humour of the ridiculous events that unfolded.

I was curious as to what people thought of Murdoch's continuous theme of 'the falsehood of words'. The other day I coincidentally came across Magritte's The Treachery of Images which had me thinking. It is prominently the key topic Hugo and Jake discuss in their early days, inspires Jake to write his book 'The Silencer' and at least two of three times I can think of at the moment Jake decides to dismiss or disbelieve information given to him.

I wasn't sure if perhaps Murdoch wanted to remind us that this was a fiction or perhaps she was just playing with the concept for its own sake, but then Murdoch turns everything on its head and Jake finds out that his assumptions are incorrect and he was told the truth in the first place. Is this Murdoch trying to disprove the theory by showing us that words can be truth too?

I am about halfway through the book. Was not sure at first that I would get the whole meaning of the story. I am starting to love the character of Jake. He acts from the heart and seems to have no inhibitions.

I'm about 1/4 of the way through this book. I am liking it more than I expected to, but it is a bit slow for me. I am trying to 'enjoy the journey more than the destination', as Amanda said, because I knew it was going to be that kind of book. I don't have my book on me right now, but I'll come back and list a couple quotes and passages that I really liked.

I just loved the part where Jake chases Ana through Paris. So cinematographic! Actually, it seems odd that no one should have made this book into a film.

I am not really sure what was it in this novel that I felt almost nothing while reading it.

When Iris Murdoch tried to be funny, I felt no humor whatsoever. I saw her try to develop some complicated twists and turns, but I was never at the edge of my seat about anything. Her philosophical musings made me sleepy. Her attempt to put some romance into this made me yawn.

My copy of this book has an introduction by Kiernan Ryan who calls it a bold and brilliant debut by Murdoch. Mr. Ryan sees in the novel things I don't see (even if he points them out). It feels like we are looking at a painting and he sees bold, masterful strokes while I see nothing but smudges of paint. So am I saying I'm better than Mr. Ryan? No. But all I can say here is that he most probably received payment for writing that introduction, while I earn nothing from writing this short commentary.

I gave this novel one star, and would have given it that rating even if goodreads makes a rating of zero possible, because I do find something a little interesting in it.

In Murdoch's other novel, "The Bell", my copy has an introduction by A.S.Byatt who wrote there that Murdoch runs a philosophical debate here, in "Under the Net," with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Nausea." In Sartre's novel, the principal character Roquentin finds no meaning in anything. He views his own existence with horror. He says life is meaningless, existence is a contingency without any explanation, without any aim, without any reason and is foisted upon the living without their consent.

Recalling "Nausea," therefore, Murdoch was able to make me light up a little with playful digs like these:

"Everywhere west of Earls Court is contingent, except for a few places along the river. I hate contingency. I want everything in my life to have a sufficient reason." (p.26)

"The Bounty Belfounder studio is situated in a suburb of Southern London where contingency reaches the point of nausea." (p.156)

When I read "Nausea," where Sartre seemed to have mastered the logic of meaninglessness, at the back of my mind was the question, always, of whether these perorations thru his character Roquentin were what Sartre really believed and felt, or whether they were just words. Here, thru her own character Hugo, Murdoch says:

"There's something fishy about describing people's feelings....All these descriptions are so dramatic...things are falsified from the start."

Later, Hugo's raw ideas are developed by another character, Jake, in a book he wrote called "The Silencer." He wrote here:

"The movement away from theory and generality is the movement toward truth. All theorising is flight. We must be ruled by the situation itself and this is unutterably particular."

So, Sartre's babbling about the meaninglessness of existence was stopped and he was silenced by Jake. Existence is not something which should be generalized and discussed through words. It is experienced individually and lived.

i'm not far in but i'm actually enjoying it so far.

Thanks for these points Joselito - very interesting. Unfortunately the edition I was reading had no introduction and having never read any Satre either, I couldn't work out what Murdoch was trying to say. I knew Murdoch was a philosopher, but the fact that this book was a reply to Nausea never became apparent to me. Perhaps I should have read Satre first, then I could have got more from Under the Net - not that I didn't enjoy it in its own right, I just felt like there was something I was missing.

I just finished the novel and I did not enjoy it. After reading it, I sat back and asked myself what was that supposed to be about? Where Murdoch was trying to be comical, I din't even laugh. This book gave me no emotion- I didn't hate it, I didn't laugh at it, I felt nothing for this book. I was glad when it was over though :).

Oh wow, so much negativity here about this book which I really feel to be a discovery - I really adore the characters, especially Jake, who is so Oscar Wildish in his voice sometimes, but on the other hand much too naive and idealistic for this old cynic. I still haven't finished the complete book, but I'm really enjoying the journey so far, especially the parts about how Jake and Hugo met at the cold cure clinic and the journey to Paris - I find Murdoch's style brilliant, her sense of humour very British and her approaches on philosophy very easy to swallow. I didn't know about the relation with Sartre - thanks, Joselito, for pointing this out.
The most important "philosophic" part I was taken an interest in was the fate of the human race to depend mostly on words for describing our feelings and the inadequacy of language. I'm fascinated by these ideas, and I think we all know the feeling pretty well to be looking for the right words and one just can't find them, or one thinks to have found them, while everyone else around interprets these words in a completely different way. Sometimes there are words which can't be translated from one language to another, just because there is no exact counterpart - the art of translation (with which Jake is earning his scarce living) is the perfect example for the inexpressability of some things in the language of words.
I'm looking forward to finishing this tonight, and see how it all turns out in the end.
Anyway, interesting how tastes can differ - I've already decided to read more Murdoch while others - very justified too - don't care for this novel at all......A hail to diversity!!!

oh, sigh, crash and burn.

I generally feel compelled to finish a book once I've started it, but I just didn't care enough to persevere on this one. the writing was snappy and engaging, but 20% or so into it, I just don't care at all about our mooch here.

I definitely see what you guys like in the book - her wordplay is fun, and she paints Jake so vividly - but I guess I need a bit more "destination" to go with my journey?

I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand it's fun to read and the characters are interesting, but on the other I'm not sure if there's even a point to the whole story. It's like reading about nothing, but I'm determined to finish it just to see if there was some plot underneath it all in the end.

I enjoyed this story - it held my interest and the scene with the dog was pretty much the highlight for me.

I'm glad it was as short as it is though... I don't know that I could have read 400 pages of the slow meandering that it did.

I really enjoyed this novel. At times, it was slow and meandered for pages, I really enjoyed the journey that Murdoch took me on. As someone stated earlier, the novel isn't about the destination but the journey. The scene where Finn and Jake "dognap" Mars was one of my favorite scenes, with the cab driver stealing the show at the end.

Many people here seem to have mixed feelings or overall dislike the novel, but I truly enjoyed it. Murdoch did an excellent job with relaying Jake's thoughts, sort of like a stream of consciousness thought at times it was overdone, for example when Jake was trying to figure out how to break into the hospital, I was slightly aggravated and wanted Murdoch to get to the point.

I thought it was fantastic that Murdoch did not give the book a bow-tied happy ending/finish to it. As is life, it goes on and it doesn't end the way we expect it or want it to, just as Jake found out when he met Hugo, he didn't know what to expect from meeting Hugo again and it wasn't exactly how he thought it would be when they finally did. The novel also came into a full circle, though with better hopes for Jake when he says that he ended up with 60pounds, which is what he had to his name when we first met him in the beginning of the novel and he was homeless once again.

Karina wrote: "As is life, it goes on and it doesn't end the way we expect it or want it to."

Well put Karina - It is like life, an incomplete story. You know, there is a popular genre in Japan often called 'Slice of Life' in which there is no over all plot or ending to speak of, just lots of in depth character development in mundane situations and they are usually rather humourous. Under the Net was a little more eventful, but it reminds me of those stories now.

Before I post my opinion of the book, I was wondering what people thought about the tea shop, the woman who ran it, and all the cats. Any thoughts?

I didn't really like the book. I don't feel qualified to rate it on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, because it really was not my cup of tea. I don't think I have liked any book written as a monologue. I spend too much time second guessing the narrator and wondering what really happened and what does it really mean. It just makes it much harder for me to follow the story and get the points the author is trying to make.

Second, I had a hard time identifying with Jake. I couldn't understand why he was such a mooch, took for granted so many people, and had such utter disdain for everything other than Hugo, Anna, and the dog.

Jake's arrogance and laziness put me off completely and made it hard for me to focus on Murdoch's points surrounding language, the way language and our own assumptions make it virtually impossible to understand anyone, truly, and how ineffectively people communicate. The fact that Hugo equates the spoken word with lying is interesting. Ironically, it was my compulsion to second guess Jake's monologue and what he was not saying that made it so hard for me to enjoy the book and get what Murdoch was trying to say.

As with many things, I didn't get all the humor the first time through. I have to watch certain types of comedies more than once, too. But I did not like the book enough to plow through again.

I did, however, love ALL the scenes involving the dog. The kidnapping scene was hilarious, and the fact that the taxi driver just reached in, pressed a button and the whole contraption just fell open was icing on the comedy cake. Also, I loved the fact that the dog was so intelligent and obedient, that it helped him escape from the cops.

Jake's undying loyalty to the dog and his willingness to lose his job to help Hugo did endear him to me just a little bit in the end. I almost feel that if I re-read the book, now that I have a more sympathetic feel for Jake, perhaps I would enjoy it more, but I can't bring myself to pick it up again.

I really enjoyed "Under the Net" and didn't feel that the slow meandering pace was a drawback. Maybe that was because I was reading a couple other books at the same time. As others said, I really enjoyed the scenes with the dog, but what really struck me was that there were some passages I enjoyed so much that I marked them so I could find them again later. I have nearly never done that to any book I wasn't reading for a class. The description of judo and swimming, in particular, struck me... the efficiency of movement. The description is incredible, and the idea that to be really good at either, you have to be willing to let your body be in positions that aren't natural (head no longer "up"). That's such a good description of how Jake lives his life, too: being willing to be in positions that others would consider awkward.