Draz74
2009-05-11, 12:47 AM
I just read Where the Red Fern Grows. Yes, I'm 25 and I've never read it before ... shut up. :smallwink:
I don't understand what the big deal is. Why the book is famous.
Sure, it was entertaining enough that I read it straight through. Sure, it's impressive that Rawls could write a book that good with such a poor educational background.
But the characters are flat and predictable, the dialogue is boring, there are no subplots worth mentioning, and the climax just honestly doesn't feel all that meaningful. Oh, and the titular Red Fern's appearance was totally non sequiter.
This shocks me, partly because the book is so famous in spite of its mediocrity, but mostly because Rawls' other book, Summer of the Monkeys, is less famous, but is an incredible piece of children's literature. It's like Rawls one day said, "Let's see, I think I'll re-write Red Fern. Only I'll give it some subtlety ... and some complex characters ... and some humor ... and some entertaining dialogue ... and a creative plot rather than an autobiography ... and some religious and familial insights ..." and suddenly he had the writing talents of Harper Lee distill upon him.
I mean, if J.K. Rowling's writing improves to the same degree, between Harry Potter and her next major work, as Rawls' writing did between his two books, she'll be hailed as the female incarnation of Shakespeare.
Anyone else had a similar reaction to these books? Or if anyone read Red Fern and assumed there was no worthy reason to continue perusing works by the same author, I'd definitely exhort you to give Monkeys a try.
I don't understand what the big deal is. Why the book is famous.
Sure, it was entertaining enough that I read it straight through. Sure, it's impressive that Rawls could write a book that good with such a poor educational background.
But the characters are flat and predictable, the dialogue is boring, there are no subplots worth mentioning, and the climax just honestly doesn't feel all that meaningful. Oh, and the titular Red Fern's appearance was totally non sequiter.
This shocks me, partly because the book is so famous in spite of its mediocrity, but mostly because Rawls' other book, Summer of the Monkeys, is less famous, but is an incredible piece of children's literature. It's like Rawls one day said, "Let's see, I think I'll re-write Red Fern. Only I'll give it some subtlety ... and some complex characters ... and some humor ... and some entertaining dialogue ... and a creative plot rather than an autobiography ... and some religious and familial insights ..." and suddenly he had the writing talents of Harper Lee distill upon him.
I mean, if J.K. Rowling's writing improves to the same degree, between Harry Potter and her next major work, as Rawls' writing did between his two books, she'll be hailed as the female incarnation of Shakespeare.
Anyone else had a similar reaction to these books? Or if anyone read Red Fern and assumed there was no worthy reason to continue perusing works by the same author, I'd definitely exhort you to give Monkeys a try.