Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion

I've heard, from a few people that they did not "get into " reading until after they left school.

I myself, however, have been a avid readiner since first grade. I suspect my case mirrors many of the people on Goodreads.

When old enough to go alone, I walked a mile to the library every Saturday, took out six books (that was the limit on a child's library card), and have them read by Tuesday or Wednesday. Then I'd have to wait until Saturday to pick out six more. I loved it when school was not in session--then I could go twice a week!

What are your early memories of books and reading?

I was an only child living on a farm with the closest neighbor 1/2 mile away. TV wasn't much back in the 60's (3 channels sometimes, B&W) plus Mom didn't like it. My father had several hundred books with very garish & cool covers - SF & Fantasy. Mom didn't think they were appropriate, but... I never followed rules real well. Like you, I'd finish what I got out of the library & then I'd sneak one of his. I think I'd read "The Hobbit" 4 or 5 times before the class read it in 6th grade, but Conan was my favorite.

When I was a kid, the bookmobile used to come around regularly. It parked near my elementary school which was less than a block from my house. On the side of the truck, outside it, there was a large shelf which opened out, down near the sidewalk, so that little kids could reach it. The books were skinny picture books and were in a jumbled pile so that we could look through them quickly. I remember liking to look through those books. But they had to have pictures, or no go. :)

However, for a long time, I never went inside the bookmobile truck because the books inside were thick books which seemed quite daunting to me... much too long. And no pictures!

When I was around 13, living in a different neighborhood, I found a book lying around the house. It was Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper. (Either that or Little Lord Fauntleroy by Frances Hodgson Burnett. I can never be quite sure.) Anyway, it was the reading of that book which showed me how compelling a book could be and that I too could read thick books. :)

I always regret that I got such a late start reading for pleasure. I was always a good student and much of my time and energy was usually spent doing homework.

Our junior high school had a separate room which was a small library. We were allowed to take out books and one of our regular classes was "library" where we could read freely. So that was another place which gave me the opportunity to read books for pleasure. Strange, but I don't remember our high school having a separate library.

I guess it was after I graduated from college that I found time to read more for pleasure. However, it wasn't until I was home as a full-time homemaker that I found more time to relax with a good book. When I was teaching, my energies were all poured into my job as a teacher. I used to borrow 50 books a month from our public library to keep in my 4th grade classroom for my students to read. That elementary school did have a small library for the students and they did have a "library" period each week.

Thanks very much, Mary JL, for starting this thread. I'm going to save my message in my computer's "Memories" file.

JOY: I have not read LIttle Lord Fauntleroy yet, but I have read Twain's The Prince and the Pauper and it is excellent! I also enjoyed Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court!

Mary JL wrote: "JOY: I have not read LIttle Lord Fauntleroy yet, but I have read Twain's The Prince and the Pauper and it is excellent! I also enjoyed Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court!"

I have never read Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court .
I see that Netflix has a few versions of the film:
http://www.netflix.com/Search?oq=&...

PS-Ah, time-travel! LOL

I'd highly suggest reading 'Yankee', not watching the movie. Twain wraps up an amazing amount of social commentary into that book - too much for a movie.

No , Jim do both---the pleasure in the movie is watching Bing Crosby, even if it does follow the book entirely.

Jim wrote: "I'd highly suggest reading 'Yankee', not watching the movie. Twain wraps up an amazing amount of social commentary into that book - too much for a movie."

Jim, perhaps I should listen to an audio version of Twain's book (CT Yankee). That way, the social commentary won't seem to bog me down... which it tends to do at times. Or perhaps the social commentary would be fun to savor slowly from the page itself. I dunno. These days I find myself getting impatient when a plot doesn't move along fast enough. (I'm really getting annoyed with Wally Lamb's digressions in _I Know This Much Is True_!)

Audio or book, either would be fine, I would think. As I recall (it's been some years) the book was pretty quick & to the point. The social commentary was more through the situations, not just boring text. Like when King Arthur & Hank go out into the countryside. Their ignorance is much better in the book, really gets the point across, than in the movie, which tends to gloss it over, if I recall correctly. It's been even longer since I saw the movie with Bing Crosby, although I recall liking it.

Thanks, Jim. I've put in a request for the audio CD of "CT Yankee" at our library. I have so many books on my back burner that this is the fastest way to find out what it's like.

Absolutely an avid reader for as long as I remember.
My father used to say, "Katherine, get your nose out of that book for a while and go out to get some fresh air". I would take my book, go out on the front porch or up in my favorite tree and continue reading.

The summer between 8th and 9th grades, we had a reading project. We would get books from the library and do a short report on each. That was the summer I read "Forever Amber", "Gone with the Wind" "Leave Her to Heaven" and other books that would not have been recommended for a 13 year old in those days. It wasn't until many years later that I reread "Forever Amber" and understood what I was reading. Ah..the innocence of youth and the 1950's.

My mother and grandmother both read some, respected and encouraged reading, and had accumulated a fair number of books in their homes by the time I was born. (And in my preteen/early teen years, we took in a boarder, a retired writer who had even more books, and let me read them.) I was six when I officially learned to read by myself --though I'd had an eager apprenticeship leading up to it-- and got my library card at our branch library up in the north end of my home town; I still remember that day! Reading opened up whole new worlds to me, of learning and entertainment and new experience; I fell in love with it from the get-go, and as a kid would read pretty much anything. (In fact, I'd even read in the encyclopedia sets we had at home, for pleasure. :-))

Katherine wrote: "Absolutely an avid reader for as long as I remember.
My father used to say, "Katherine, get your nose out of that book for a while and go out to get some fresh air". I would take my book, go out on..."

Katherine, your mention of "Forever Amber" reminded me of a reading experience I had in my teens. Somehow, I had gotten hold of the book The Postman Always Rings Twice by James M. Cain. When I got to the x-rated pages, I was so shocked that I ripped the book up and threw it in the garbage. After all, I had a good Catholic upbringing. I didn't want to have to tell a priest in the confessional about any sins like THAT! :) That came under the category of "impure thoughts". As you said: "Ah..the innocence of youth and the 1950's."

Werner wrote: "My mother and grandmother both read some, respected and encouraged reading, and had accumulated a fair number of books in their homes by the time I was born. (And in my preteen/early teen years, w..."

Werner, you were lucky (like Jim) to have a good stock of books in your own home. I don't remember our home having many books around for pleasure reading. We did have a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica which I sometimes used for school research. But that 1939 edition had such small print and the information was so detailed and dense that it was no pleasure at all to read. The best part of the set was Volume 24. It contained excellent detailed maps which I referred to quite often while I was growing up.

We did have some showy book sets on certain shelves, but they seemed to be only for show. I can't even remember what was in them, certainly not any novels which might have interested me.

Another memory just popped up in my brain. I couldn't have been older than 13 years old at the time, perhaps younger. The local newspaper ran a series of Christmas stories on its front page around the holidays. I remember looking forward each day to the next story or episode. I have always remembered the pleasurable feeling I got from those tales.

That reminds me of the fact that I always enjoyed reading fairy tales as a kid. So we must have had a collection of them in the house.

I just remembered... I used to read the funny papers on Sundays. (Otherwise, I never looked at the daily newspapers as a kid, even though it was in the house.) I remember spreading out the comic section on the living room rug and lying down on my stomach to read the comics.

I also read comic books as a kid. I probably bought them at the local candy store. "Wonder Woman" and "Captain Marvel" were favorites. Also some "Archie" and "Nancy" comics.

When I was about nine, I became obsessed with reading whatever my mom was reading, which, I now recognize, was usually extremely trashy novels. She tried to distract me by giving me Gone With the Wind, hoping the length would keep me busy for a long time. About a week later she caught me back in the paperback stash. Mom asked me what happened to GWTW. She didn't know whether to be mad at me or proud of me when I told her I'd already finished it.

That's a big book for a 9 year old. Actually, I think it's big now.

Bickety wrote: "When I was about nine, I became obsessed with reading whatever my mom was reading, which, I now recognize, was usually extremely trashy novels. She tried to distract me by giving me Gone With the W..."

Hi Bickety. Glad to see you here. You're way ahead of me. I haven't read GWTW to this day. :)

I think that GWTW is a must-read, Joy. As good as the movie was, you just HAVE to read it. It does read quickly, as I recall. The writing flows well, but it is nigh on impossible to put down.

Jim wrote: "I think that GWTW is a must-read, Joy. As good as the movie was, you just HAVE to read it. It does read quickly, as I recall. The writing flows well, but it is nigh on impossible to put down."

Well, Jim, when you put it that way... :) I'll just HAVE to add it to my To-Read shelf. :) Thank you!

Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

PS - Oooops! It's already there! :)

I'll add my voice to the must read GWTW clamor! I read it for the first time when I was about 11 or 12 and have reread it many times. The way one views it, I'd have to say, depends on what decade one is in. As a kid I loved it for the romance, in my 20's both the romance and the adventure, in my 40's I began to more appreciate the terrible hardships she faced, and by now I think I've finally gotten to the meat of the story.
I know I viewed it with a far more practical eye than my first few readings.

The film was wonderful, but only skimmed the top so to speak. The casting could not have been better, and even to this day, IMO there is NO ONE else that could play the roles that true to the spirit of the book.

One thing this does show, Katherine, is many people do not read a book because they say "I've seen the movie". Not just GWTW but other novels made into books.

But especially with long books, you cannot get everything into the movie. A good book can give you a different perspective than a movie. Sure, seeing a movie based on a book is icing on the cake--but the BOOK is the cake! Books forever!

Katherine M wrote: "I'll add my voice to the must read GWTW clamor! I read it for the first time when I was about 11 or 12 and have reread it many times. The way one views it, I'd have to say, depends on what decade..."

Thanks for those observations, KM. Very insightful. I'll keep them in mind when I read the book.

Mary JL wrote: "One thing this does show, Katherine, is many people do not read a book because they say "I've seen the movie". Not just GWTW but other novels made into books. But especially with long books, yo..."

Movie versions of any book can hardly ever do justice to the book. The book is almost always better, on many levels.

However, there are times when I will watch a movie of a classic (which I haven't read) just to get an idea of the plot. I feel that it gives me at least a small step-up in my background knowledge. It sort of takes away the mystery of what that particular classic is about. Some examples of movies I've seen, (but haven't read the classic book) are:
Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
Captains Courageous (1897) by Rudyard Kipling
Anne of Green Gables (1908) by Lucy Maud Montgomery
Mrs. Dalloway (1925) by Virginia Woolf
The Canterville Ghost by Oscar Wilde
The Turn of the Screw by Henry James
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence

I realize that seeing the movie is NOTHING compared to reading the book, but it satisfies me to at least get an idea of what the book is about.

Joy, I understand your philosophy on this point, and share it; I often like to see movie versions of classics to get an idea of what it's about (and it can be fun later to compare them to the book!), and I often enjoy them in their own right. One caveat, though: while some movie and TV imprints (Masterpiece Theater, for one) pride themselves on very faithful adaptations, not all of them do; so what you see on the screen may or may not reflect the book very accurately. The movie version of Captains Courageous that stars Robert Urich, for instance, changes the ending very significantly. And in the B & W version of The House of the Seven Gables, starring Vincent Price, Clifford and Hephzibah are boyfriend and girlfriend --not brother and sister! :-)

"A Clockwork Orange" was very faithful to the book, all the way to the end. They left out just the last bit & changed the whole tone, so I know where you're coming from. It's amazing how even a little bit can change a lot.

Jim, that's absolutely correct! Of course, in that case, to be fair to Kubrick, he was following the mutilated first American edition, which left out the last chapter; he hadn't read the British original and discovered that there was a difference until he had his project already underway. So the biggest culprits were the American book editors. But still, you don't really know a book for sure until you've read it, not just watched it! :-)

I'd forgotten that was a publishing horror that caused that, Werner. Kuberick was fantastic. That & with 2001. He really captured the essence.

Werner wrote: "... One caveat, though: while some movie and TV imprints (Masterpiece Theater, for one) pride themselves on very faithful adaptations, not all of them do; so what you see on the screen may or may not reflect the book very accurately. ..."

Werner, yes, I do try to keep that in mind when I watch a film adaptation of a book. As for "Captains Courageous", I watched both versions, the one with Spencer Tracey (1937) and the one with Robert Urich (1996). I liked the 1937 version much more. Little Freddie Bartholomew was adorable in that movie!

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Werner wrote: "... One caveat, though: while some movie and TV imprints (Masterpiece Theater, for one) pride themselves on very faithful adaptations, not all of them do; so what you see on the scre..."This is about books and movies; I first saw Dr. Zhivago(sp?) on the screen several times before tackling the book. I liked them both equally well which surprised me.I thought the movie quite faithful to the book. Did any of you have that experience with that particular movie and book? nina

Nina, I haven't read Doctor Zhivago (1957) (by Boris Pasternak) nor have I seen the movie. I've seen parts of the movie, but not enough to understand the whole plot.

I remember years ago trying to get into the book, but didn't get very far. The many characters with strange Russian names were a deterrent to my progress.

It is very true that some books that I have not yet read I have seen the movie instead. It certainly does help, and it gives me a hint about what the story involves, and may inspire me to read the book.

In an ideal world, I would have enough time to read every book I want and see every worthwhile movie--but I doubt that's ever going to happen---because there's always JUST ONE MORE book or movie that I've not gotten around to yet, and it sounds so good.....

Mary JL wrote: "... In an ideal world, I would have enough time to read every book I want and see every worthwhile movie--but I doubt that's ever going to happen---because there's always JUST ONE MORE book or movie that I've not gotten around to yet, and it sounds so good."

Amen! And now, with the ease of acquiring DVDs from Netflix and also the ease of acquiring books by using the Internet to reserve titles at the library (via their online catalog), our choices have widened immensely. In fact, it's almost like a race to keep up with it all! But I'm not complaining. :)

"By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward." -Mikhail Bakunin

If I could just quit sleeping, I might be able to trim down my TBR pile. If I retired on top of that, I still wouldn't be able to read every book I wanted to. Well, it is nice to have something to look forward to. I bought & started a new book by L.E. Modesitt Jr., Arms-Commander, another in a long line of the saga of Recluse.

I wasn't sure when I started reading the series or how many books were in it, so I looked it up on Fantastic Fiction. Here they are, by published date.
Recluce
1. The Magic of Recluce (1991)
2. The Towers of Sunset (1992)
3. The Magic Engineer (1994)
4. The Order War (1995)
5. The Death of Chaos (1995)
6. Fall of Angels (1996)
7. The Chaos Balance (1997)
8. The White Order (1998)
9. Colors of Chaos (1997)
10. Magi'I of Cyador (2000)
11. Scion of Cyador (2000)
12. Wellspring of Chaos (2004)
13. Ordermaster (2005)
14. Natural Ordermage (2007)
15. Mage-Guard of Hamor (2008)
16. Arms-Commander (2010)

In chronological order within the series, they read differently. This link has the order plus a brief synopsis of each book:
http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/rec...

I've read them in the order they were published since the very first & re-read them in chronological order. Marg loves them too, but the kids never have gotten into them for some reason.

The first book of Modesitt's that I read was "The Fires of Paratime" back in the early 80's, which was later republished by Tor as The Timegod in the early 90's. I liked it a lot & kept my eyes out for anything new by him. I think I have all his books now, except the last two in his "Imager" series. I have the first one & have been meaning to get around to buying them, though.

Jim, that's incredible!
I wonder if the The Saga of Recluce is the longest series in literature. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Jim, that's incredible!
I wonder if the The Saga of Recluce is the longest series in literature. :)"

No where close. I have over 100 of the Destroyer series, myself. They're written by Warren Murphy & Richard Sapir. They were a spoof on Kung Fu & such, but Sapir, a political columnist, always spoofed the curren politics as well. After he died, the series went down hill - about book 70 or so.

Jim wrote: "... I have over 100 of the Destroyer series, myself. They're written by Warren Murphy & Richard Sapir. ..."

Wow! Jim, that's quite a series. Wiki says: "Along with Don Pendleton's The Executioner series, The Destroyer is one of the original and longest lasting men's adventure series."
Wiki lists all 145 books in the series and there's a "New Destroyer" series listed with 4 more books!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dest...

I found your review of Created, the Destroyer (The Destroyer 1) at:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

The author links look like this:
Warren Murphy
Richard Ben Sapir

There's also the following link: Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy
It's the first time I've seen GR put two authors together in a link. However, the page doesn't give any info. The individual author links do show their books.

How is the writing style? Is it consistently good?

I don't think it would be to your taste, Joy, but no, it wasn't consistent, either. Some books still give me a chuckle, others were dumb to start with - especially the later ones. Actually, they were all dumb, but some were fun. They're quick reads, so try one & if you don't like it, you're only out a couple of hours at most.

I'm fairly sure all the Destroyer books were written by these two authors - never ghost written, although sometimes the style makes me wonder. Other series, like Doc Savage & such were written by house authors. One author's name was on the cover, but that wasn't a real person, just a made up name.

Jim wrote: "I don't think it would be to your taste, Joy, but no, it wasn't consistent, either. Some books still give me a chuckle, others were dumb to start with - especially the later ones. Actually, they ..."

Jim, I agree. I doubt if I would be interested in the Destroyerseries. Besides, Wiki calls it a "men's adventure series". :)

This is the first time I've ever heard the term "house" authors. Exactly what are they?

Werner could give you a better explanation, but Victor Appleton, who wrote the Tom Swift novels, is a famous example. I don't recall all the authors that wrote the books, but one pair was Debra Doyle & James D. MacDonald, who also wrote a SF series of books I like a lot. Another was Robert E. Vardeman, who wrote a lot of quick, enjoyable fantasy novels.

These authors would be given background material on the series thus far, style sheets & a contract to write a book, often with stipulations on things to avoid or points to make. Sometimes I think they were even given outlines by the publisher. They would then write the book from there & it would be published under the house author name.

I believe, the same publisher of the Tom Swift novels also created the Hardy Boys & Nancy Drew. I'm fairly sure both of those were house authors, as well. I can't swear to that, though.

Kenneth Robeson was the house author name for the Doc Savage books. There are a lot of other examples, especially among long running series.

Jim wrote: "Werner could give you a better explanation, but Victor Appleton, who wrote the Tom Swift novels, is a famous example. I don't recall all the authors that wrote the books, but one p..."

Thank you, Jim. I wasn't aware that this type of thing was well-known. I've often suspected that it does take place, especially when one author is credited for writing so many books. I've often wondered about it. I've also wondered how we would know if a popular author was really doing all of his/her own writing, or if he really existed at all.

At the Wiki page for Tom Swift, the article says: "His adventures have been written by a number of different ghostwriters over the years. Most of the books are published under the collective pseudonym Victor Appleton."
"The character was created by Edward Stratemeyer, the founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, a book-packaging firm".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swift

From the above quote, I assume that "house authors" are also known as "ghostwriters". [NOTE: THIS IS NOT CORRECT. See WERNER'S MESSAGE #43 BELOW.] I had thought that "ghostwriters" were usually people who helped celebrities write their autobiographies. But now I see that the term "ghostwriter" can be used in many ways.

The following Wiki page gives more info on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateme...
It says: "The Stratemeyer Syndicate was the producer of a number of mystery series for children, including Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, the various Tom Swift series, the Bobbsey Twins, the Rover Boys, and others."

From what I can make of it, Edward Statemeyer at first did his own writing, using different pseudonyms for each series, but then "...Stratemeyer realized that he could no longer juggle multiple volumes of multiple series, and he began hiring ghostwriters, such as Howard Garis. Stratemeyer continued to write some books, while writing plot outlines for others."

The article mentions: "... The Hardy Boys, which first appeared in 1927, ghostwritten by Leslie McFarlane and others, and Nancy Drew, which first appeared in 1930, ghostwritten by Mildred Wirt Benson and others."

A list of writing guidelines is given, one of them being:
"The books would be written under a pseudonym. This would provide for seeming continuity of authorship, even when an author died, and would disguise the fact that series were written by multiple ghostwriters and plot-outliners."

Who knew! :)

PS-I looked at a couple of old Hardy Boys (1966) books we have on the shelf. The author is given as Franklin W. Dixon.

The Wiki page on Franklin W. Dixon says:
"Franklin W. Dixon is the pen name used by a variety of different authors (Leslie McFarlane, a Canadian author being the first) who wrote The Hardy Boys novels for the Stratemeyer Syndicate (now owned by Simon & Schuster)."

Aha! :) Things are becoming clearer and clearer. :)

Yes, Joy, you've got the idea! Strictly speaking, I've always understood the term "house author" to refer to the fictitious "author" (for instance, Appleton, Dixon, and Keene) created by the publishing house as the name to impute a given series to, no matter who (or how many people) were contracted to do the actual writing. (A "ghost writer," on the other hand, is a real person, who's paid to anonymously write something to be published under another name --so "house authors" aren't themselves ghost writers, but everything they "write" was really written by a ghost writer. :-))

Werner wrote: "Yes, Joy, you've got the idea! Strictly speaking, I've always understood the term "house author" to refer to the fictitious "author" (for instance, Appleton, Dixon, and Keene) created by publishing house... ... (A "ghost writer," on the other hand, is a real person, who's paid to anonymously write something to be published under another name... "

Thank you, Werner, for clarifying things for me. I'm going to edit my Message #41 to indicate where I had misunderstood the terms "house authors" as opposed to "ghostwriters". As you have explained so well, they definitely are not the same thing.

Would you say that house names could be considered pseudonyms? I suppose that strictly speaking there is a difference because we usually think of a pseudonym as another name for one author whereas a house name can be another name for many authors who act as ghostwriters. Or perhaps a pseudonym can be said to represent one author or many authors.
NOTE: SEE MY MESSAGE #44 BELOW.

Confusing, isn't it, or at least it's hard to explain. :)

PS-I just found something at Wiki which may clarify the word "pseudonym" as I discussed it in Message #44 above:

"A collective name or collective pseudonym is one shared by two or more persons. This is sometimes used by the co-authors of a work, such as Ellery Queen, or Bourbaki."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym

Mary JL, please pardon the thread drift. :)

Joy: Sometimes the thread drift is also very interesting! I am nterested in just about anything, so let's let the threads drift where they will!

Mary JL wrote: "Joy: Sometimes the thread drift is also very interesting! I am nterested in just about anything, so let's let the threads drift where they will!"

I feel the same way, Mary! :)

Yes, I read every night as a child and still do. I had trouble sleeping so reading started out as a way to make my eyes tired enough that the body would follow. But it wasn't long before I found a whole new world between the pages of books and found my passion for reading.

I read the usual round of children and young adult novels but I also read adult books. I have to thank my parents for never limiting what I was allowed to read. My father was a big reader too and it felt great to be able to talk to him as an equal, not a child, about a book we both read. Now that I think about it, it was probably the foundation for our close and unusually candid relationship.

Jackie wrote: "... My father was a big reader too and it felt great to be able to talk to him as an equal, not a child, about a book we both read. Now that I think about it, it was probably the foundation for our close and unusually candid relationship."

Jackie, that is SO great!