"The Time Traveler's Wife"

[mommaduck]

there's a world of difference between 15 and 18, despite the mere 3 year gap (IMO).

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with that. In fact, I totally agree with that :001_smile:

[melissel]

Eh, spoilers don't bother me. If nothing else, ya'll have made me WANT to read the book. Sci-fi plus Romance...yep!

 

Heh, I feel the same way. I'm always finding out the endings to things. Then I can focus on the development of the book because I'm not dying to get to the end.

[Firefly]

I'm not disagreeing with that. In fact, I totally agree with that :001_smile:

 

:) And I'm glad I haven't turned you off the book... it WAS an intriguing read-- especially if you like Sci-Fi with a bit of romance!

 

It's hard to get past not liking a book in general :D

 

I know! And sometimes I can "enjoy the ride" so to speak, but still not like the book overall. How's that for weird?? :lol:

[mommaduck]

You know, literature can be a love-hate relationship. There are some "easy reads" out there, aka not "good literature", that will suck you in simply because we can get busy and need a "break". There are some that are extremely well written, interestingly put together, and yet we can absolutely hate the story, how it starts or ends, etc. The of course there are those that are just awful or wonderful all the way around.

[Laura Corin]

I thought the book was insubstantial and not very interesting. I'm also irritated that they haven't bothered to redo the title for the British edition of the film: 'Traveller' has two Ls in British English.

 

Laura

[mommaduck]

I thought the book was insubstantial and not very interesting. I'm also irritated that they haven't bothered to redo the title for the British edition of the film: 'Traveller' has two Ls in British English.

 

Laura

 

Well, I wouldn't expect the Brits to change their titles for us either. And I'm the type of person that spells many of the "or" words as "our".

[~FireFly~]

wasn't sure if i would enjoy any of it. sounds sad - can't do sad right now.

[Bright_Future]

I read the book when it first came out and even before they made it into a movie I would recommend it to people who had not read it.

 

I am not sure if I will see the movie, this is one of those that I think the book will definitely be better than the movie. I think it will be hard to really capture the essence and emotion in the book on film, but you never know. If anything I will wait for the DVD.

[mommaduck]

I'm reading it now ;) So far, so good.

[melissel]

I'm reading it now ;) So far, so good.

 

:lol: That was fast!

[ma23peas]

So you are in the camp that all non-Christian based writing is evil/a waste of time/not good literature/etc? I really hope you're avoiding Homer.

 

Actually, no, and we have covered Homer...probably covered the Odyssey more than many, I am a Latinist and cover many works from early writings..is Rudyard Kipling Christian based?? I think the Odyssey gives us a wonderful view into life in early Greek times...there are plenty of writers that have fallen by the wayside over 2 thousand years...I try to focus on those that have longevity....sorry, but TTW, Harry Potter and Twilight will not be discussed 100 years from now....except maybe as a point to show how sensationalistic our society has become....

 

Tara

[Word Nerd]

Actually, no, and we have covered Homer...probably covered the Odyssey more than many, I am a Latinist and cover many works from early writings..is Rudyard Kipling Christian based?? I think the Odyssey gives us a wonderful view into life in early Greek times...there are plenty of writers that have fallen by the wayside over 2 thousand years...I try to focus on those that have longevity....sorry, but TTW, Harry Potter and Twilight will not be discussed 100 years from now....except maybe as a point to show how sensationalistic our society has become....

 

Tara

 

What do you base your outlook for a book's longevity on, especially if you haven't read it? If you mean that you only read books that have already stood the test of time, then I understand. But you surely aren't saying that you know which contemporary books will still be around 100 years from now. (Then again, it's a pretty safe claim to make, since none of us will still be around to see if you're right!)

Edited August 29, 2009 by WordGirl

[mommaduck]

Actually, no, and we have covered Homer...probably covered the Odyssey more than many, I am a Latinist and cover many works from early writings..is Rudyard Kipling Christian based?? I think the Odyssey gives us a wonderful view into life in early Greek times...there are plenty of writers that have fallen by the wayside over 2 thousand years...I try to focus on those that have longevity....sorry, but TTW, Harry Potter and Twilight will not be discussed 100 years from now....except maybe as a point to show how sensationalistic our society has become....

 

Tara

Ah but we aren't discussing Twilight or Harry Potter. We are discussing another book and one that you have not even read. (I'm a third of the way through it at this moment, but am holding my opinions, negative and positive, to myself...I'm merely asking you about literature in general). What is your standard for reading? We all have them, so I'm not picking on you ;) But to say only "stand the test of time" or be "inspirational" is a bit simplistic and broad brushes. There are many books that have stood the test of time and 1) have absolutely no moral and little cultural value to them (some of Ben Franklin's writings come to mind) and, though we consider them to be wonderful, classical literature today, no conservative, deeply convicted Christian of yesteryear would have bothered with such novels and held them in disdain...or 2) are moral and "inspirational" but are total "fluff" (not that they are evil to read, just no more "pop reading" than this is other than it has a Christian base rather than a common cultural base...not everything that is non-Christian is humanistic, but rather simply the telling of a story).

 

 

PS I haven't read Twilight or Potter either. I have no interest.

 

PPS Austin and Alcott were both pretty sensationalistic. And we must not forget Poe, Shakespeare (full of mischief, gore, and lewdness). Hill has stood the test of modern era, but I consider her work to be almost insultingly fluffy. And I agree with you about reasons to reason Homer. For the same reasons, I read others. I still shift through things, both those things that have stood the test of time and those that have not had the opportune yet.

Edited August 29, 2009 by mommaduck

[KidsHappen]

Ok, this sounds interesting. Could someone PM me a quick synopsis including the big secret or spoiler so I can decide if I want to take the time to read it? Thanks.

[mommaduck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Traveler%27s_Wife

[cillakat]

I couldn't put it down so it felt like I liked it but when it was over I felt like I had been hit by a truck. It was just kind of strange.

 

I so agree. I felt like I loooved it while reading it. But it was an unhealthy, obsessed angsty kind of love;p And I was a mess when I was finished with it. Unsettled, angsty, irritable, weepy......I have to be so careful about what I read and watch.

 

Atonement messed me up *seriously*.

 

But yes, I am going to see it.....Monday.....:) with abbeyej and some others from our local homeschool community.

 

:)

K

[cillakat]

I have no intention of reading it...call me a rebel....books like these and Twilight even Harry Potter are to me i

 

LOL. TTTW isn't one of 'these' books. Not by a long shot. _Twighlight_ and _HP_ don't occupy the same plane of literary existence as TTTW does.

 

K

[hsmom3tn]

Atonement messed me up *seriously*.

 

 

I haven't read that book yet (Atonement), but the movie almost made my heart stop. I remember watching it the whole way through and thinking that is was okay, but not as big a deal as everyone said, then came the ending... :crying:

 

I seriously stopped breathing for a little while. I think I cried myself to sleep that night.

 

How different from the movie is the book?

[Heather in Neverland]

I haven't read that book yet (Atonement), but the movie almost made my heart stop. I remember watching it the whole way through and thinking that is was okay, but not as big a deal as everyone said, then came the ending... :crying:

 

I seriously stopped breathing for a little while. I think I cried myself to sleep that night.

 

How different from the movie is the book?

 

Great. Now the tiny masochist in me wants to read "Atonement".

[Laura Corin]

Well, I wouldn't expect the Brits to change their titles for us either. And I'm the type of person that spells many of the "or" words as "our".

 

Just as the Harry Potter edition for the US is different from the one for the UK - different spelling, etc. The first HP film and book even have a different title for the US market, so yes, changes are made.

 

Laura

Edited August 29, 2009 by Laura Corin

[Laura Corin]

Great. Now the tiny masochist in me wants to read "Atonement".

 

Wonderful book. I recommend the rest of Ian McEwan too - I've been reading everything he has written for about twenty years. The early books or short stories are quite sexually strange, but I recommend everything else. I haven't seen the film yet.

 

Laura

Edited August 29, 2009 by Laura Corin

[Mrs Mungo]

Atonement was seriously a hard read from an emotional standpoint.

 

LOL. TTTW isn't one of 'these' books. Not by a long shot. _Twighlight_ and _HP_ don't occupy the same plane of literary existence as TTTW does.

 

K

 

I don't think Twilight and Harry Potter really belong on the same plane. Harry Potter may be fluffy but Rowling is an excellent *storyteller* (not necessarily technical writer, that's different). Twilight was unreadable. The dialogue was horrid. It occupies the distinction of being one of about 5 books I've started in my life that I didn't finish.

[Melinda in VT]

Atonement was seriously a hard read from an emotional standpoint.

 

 

 

I don't think Twilight and Harry Potter really belong on the same plane. Harry Potter may be fluffy but Rowling is an excellent *storyteller* (not necessarily technical writer, that's different). Twilight was unreadable. The dialogue was horrid. It occupies the distinction of being one of about 5 books I've started in my life that I didn't finish.

 

:iagree:

 

I read all the Twilight books (in spite of their awfulness), but I do agree that they are not on the same plane as Harry Potter.

[Melinda in VT]

Just as the Harry Potter edition for the US is different from the one for the UK - different spelling, etc. The first HP film and book even have a different title for the US market, so yes, changes are made.

 

Laura

 

Well, yes, but some of us think it was silly that they changed the title for the US version.

[Murphy101]

Well, yes, but some of us think it was silly that they changed the title for the US version.

 

Count me in that camp too.

[mommaduck]

Read it...couldn't stop reading it! It was a very good book. Interesting and unique plot. However, it was full of TEA, other behaviour, and language. The TEA actually does play a roll in the plot, but should not have been necessary to add all the detail it did nor did the storyline really need to take a couple of turns it did. But given that it's a secular book, I don't expect the author to hold to the choices that I would make.

[iluvmy4blessings]

This book sucked me in completely at the time that I read it which was a good 5 years ago probably. However I felt it was written from a completely deterministic philosophy. Henry cannot control any of the events that happen to him. He may revisit them but nothing he can do will change their outcome. So his life is resigned to constantly revisit the tragedies of his life over and over again never being able to do anything about it. He knows the bad things that will befall himself, his friends, family but can do nothing at all about it. Even his wife is destined to be with him and has no free choice in the matter. It seems that in this book all is laid out as already planned for us and free will is not a part. I think this is a pretty depressing and hopeless way to view life. This results in a very emotional and heartwrenching tale that will rip at your emotions and leave you feeling mostly sad and depressed. That isn't exactly the way I prefer to feel after reading a book. Some books are sad but with a hopeful outlook or life lesson. This one is just plain sad with nothing hopeful about it at all. At least that is how I felt after reading it. That is just my personal opinion.

 

Having said all that I did think the author did an outstanding job of organizing this book. I really don't know how she did it. She managed to have us going back and forth in time but it all came together like a puzzle. I was absolutely engrossed in this book and read it in 3 days. I couldn't put it down but when I was finished with it I found myself unable to snap out of a depressive state for awhile !!

[mommaduck]

This book sucked me in completely at the time that I read it which was a good 5 years ago probably. However I felt it was written from a completely deterministic philosophy. Henry cannot control any of the events that happen to him. He may revisit them but nothing he can do will change their outcome. So his life is resigned to constantly revisit the tragedies of his life over and over again never being able to do anything about it. He knows the bad things that will befall himself, his friends, family but can do nothing at all about it. Even his wife is destined to be with him and has no free choice in the matter. It seems that in this book all is laid out as already planned for us and free will is not a part. I think this is a pretty depressing and hopeless way to view life. This results in a very emotional and heartwrenching tale that will rip at your emotions and leave you feeling mostly sad and depressed. That isn't exactly the way I prefer to feel after reading a book. Some books are sad but with a hopeful outlook or life lesson. This one is just plain sad with nothing hopeful about it at all. At least that is how I felt after reading it. That is just my personal opinion.

 

Having said all that I did think the author did an outstanding job of organizing this book. I really don't know how she did it. She managed to have us going back and forth in time but it all came together like a puzzle. I was absolutely engrossed in this book and read it in 3 days. I couldn't put it down but when I was finished with it I found myself unable to snap out of a depressive state for awhile !!

Very Calvinistic ;)

[Audrey]

Time Traveler's Wife is on my list of things everyone else likes, but I can't stand. I thought Henry was a controlling, manipulative jerk, and I was amazed that the reader seemed to be expected to think he was just terrific.

 

 

:iagree: And selfish. It was selfish to keep her hanging on like that.

[Guest janainaz]

I saw the movie and it did make me want to read the book. I liked the story, but the movie was a bit confusing and SAD.

[Mom-ninja.]

I couldn't put it down but when I was finished with it I found myself unable to snap out of a depressive state for awhile !!

 

I'm like that so I guess I will stay away from that book and movie.

[mommaduck]

:iagree: And selfish. It was selfish to keep her hanging on like that.

 

Funny, because Henry admitted to those things, I believe.

[sassenach]

Very Calvinistic ;)

 

That was my take!

[Earth Angel_79]

I'm not reading any of these posts, but just subscribing so that when I get this curriculum job sorted and done with I can come back to this thread!

[Mrs Mungo]

Funny, because Henry admitted to those things, I believe.

 

In fact, didn't he say at one point something like "I'm starting to become the man you knew?" Meaning, he knew he was a selfish jerk some of the time.

[kokotg]

In fact, didn't he say at one point something like "I'm starting to become the man you knew?" Meaning, he knew he was a selfish jerk some of the time.

 

I think it goes beyond selfish jerk, though. I felt like it was almost sadistic the way he controlled her entire life. From the time she was a little girl, feeding her the bits of information to keep her dependent on his visits. And then it just seemed plain cruel to me that he told her he'd be coming back at some point, knowing it wouldn't be until she was an old woman--like he needed or wanted to maintain that control after he died. It's been awhile since I read it, but I found the whole dynamic of their relationship really disturbing. I kept expecting there to be some kind of awareness of it or commentary on it in the text, but there never was. I remember writing somewhere when I first read it that I've never understood the appeal of men who need to be saved. And I think that's part of it. I think Niffenegger is sort of in love with Henry herself, and that maybe a sympathetic reading of the novel requires being a little in love with Henry. But I found him insufferable.

[The Governess]

I think it goes beyond selfish jerk, though. I felt like it was almost sadistic the way he controlled her entire life. From the time she was a little girl, feeding her the bits of information to keep her dependent on his visits. And then it just seemed plain cruel to me that he told her he'd be coming back at some point, knowing it wouldn't be until she was an old woman--like he needed or wanted to maintain that control after he died. It's been awhile since I read it, but I found the whole dynamic of their relationship really disturbing. I kept expecting there to be some kind of awareness of it or commentary on it in the text, but there never was. I remember writing somewhere when I first read it that I've never understood the appeal of men who need to be saved. And I think that's part of it. I think Niffenegger is sort of in love with Henry herself, and that maybe a sympathetic reading of the novel requires being a little in love with Henry. But I found him insufferable.

 

I'm wondering....if Henry hadn't told Claire that she would see him again, would she have still been waiting for him?

 

Could he have stopped their relationship if he had tried? Could he have walked away from her to save her from the pain he knew would come later?

 

I myself do have a soft spot in my heart for Henry. His mother died when he was young, he has had to relive the most agonizing moments in his life over and over again. He has so little control over things. Claire is the one constant in his life. She is his harbor. I thought it was natural that he clinged to her.

[Heather in Neverland]

Can someone explain why the author felt the need to put in the whole foot amputation thing? I don't feel like it added anything to the story.

[Melinda TX]

On the foot amputation, one quote I remember from the book (long before Henry loses his feet....) he says,

"If anything happens to my feet, you might as well shoot me."

Ugh.

[melissel]

Could he have stopped their relationship if he had tried? Could he have walked away from her to save her from the pain he knew would come later?

 

He makes the point a few times that he can't change anything that happens, no matter what he does. I can't recall what the incident was, but at some point he tries to intervene in some kind of event, and it ends up happening anyway. IIRC, the same thing happens with Ingrid. So according to that theory of the book, no, he couldn't have saved her the pain, although I guess he might have not told her she would see him again. But then, she might have suspected or hoped for that anyway, and things would have turned out the same.

 

And I disliked him at first, but he grew on me. I had a sense of him as a broken, imperfect man, both weak and strong at different times. I think he gave in to the inevitability. You could make an argument that that makes him a jerk, but I think it just makes him human. I guess I kind of took him as I found him. Lots of things could have been different, but...that's just who he was.

[hsmom3tn]

Can someone explain why the author felt the need to put in the whole foot amputation thing? I don't feel like it added anything to the story.

 

He had to be able to run in order to survive. Since he wouldn't be able to run anymore, he was getting closer to his death.

 

This is one of the things that they did differently in the movie. They don't amputate his foot in the movie, just say that he'll have to be in a wheelchair for a while. I don't understand why they didn't just go all the way with that in the movie.

[iluvmy4blessings]

I read this book when I first came out in 2004 I believe. When I went to find something else written by the author, the only other book was some illustrated book called "The Three Incestous Sisters". This confirmed to me that this author is a bit out there for me! lol...I did not read it nor did I have a desire to so I don't know what it's about. It just made me think to myself...yep she's different!