Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
in 1978?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 10 Feb 2024 15:44:21 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:

>Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
>in 1978?

Surely we need more details.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <pgafsi9jt3fvh33ovsis4kppbja26gklfc@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 10 Feb 2024 15:44:21 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>wrote:
>
>>Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
>>in 1978?
>
>Surely we need more details.

Wait eight days :)
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <uq85kl$mu6$1@panix2.panix.com>,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:

> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
> in 1978?

I have quite a few mass market paperbacks that I bought in 1978 (my book
list includes 178 that were published that year). If I have a title (and
publisher), I could check to see if I have a copy and check it for the
page in question.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>In article <uq85kl$mu6$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
>> in 1978?
>
>I have quite a few mass market paperbacks that I bought in 1978 (my book
>list includes 178 that were published that year). If I have a title (and
>publisher), I could check to see if I have a copy and check it for the
>page in question.

Perhaps if you have some paperbacks whose pages have fallen out and Mr. Nicoll
has some paperbacks whose pages have fallen out you could get together and mix
and match to create some more complete paperbacks?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/10/2024 9:44 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
> in 1978?

Welcome to the club ! I have had many pages fall out of several MMPBs
over the decades. Never on a hardback or a trade paperback though, if
my memory is any good (which it is not).

Lynn

On 11/02/24 04:44, James Nicoll wrote:
> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
> in 1978?

Because it wasn't a "well printed and well bound MMPB".

On 2/10/2024 3:12 PM, Titus G wrote:
> On 11/02/24 04:44, James Nicoll wrote:
>> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
>> in 1978?
>
> Because it wasn't a "well printed and well bound MMPB".

Thanks for getting it right !

Lynn

On 10/02/2024 18:51, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> In article <uq85kl$mu6$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>> jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
>>> in 1978?
>>
>> I have quite a few mass market paperbacks that I bought in 1978 (my book
>> list includes 178 that were published that year). If I have a title (and
>> publisher), I could check to see if I have a copy and check it for the
>> page in question.
>
> Perhaps if you have some paperbacks whose pages have fallen out and Mr. Nicoll
> has some paperbacks whose pages have fallen out you could get together and mix
> and match to create some more complete paperbacks?
> --scott

It's necessary to establish whether pages
are missing.

It's also necessary to establish whether
pages are numbered.

If a page falls out when you open the book,
you have a fair chance of putting the page
back, quite close to where it came from.
If it is just not there, perhaps it never
was there.

I think I've been hit a couple of times
by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
(16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
missing, but being the wrong pages.
But the right amount, usually. So you
get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
_Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
opaque enough that I didn't notice
something was wrong with my book until
it started repeating. Once I got a
correct copy, it was not much more
intelligible.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think I've been hit a couple of times
>by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
>(16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
>missing, but being the wrong pages.
>But the right amount, usually. So you
>get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
>then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
>_Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
>opaque enough that I didn't notice
>something was wrong with my book until
>it started repeating. Once I got a
>correct copy, it was not much more
>intelligible.

The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/11/24 06:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I've been hit a couple of times
>> by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
>> (16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
>> missing, but being the wrong pages.
>> But the right amount, usually. So you
>> get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
>> then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
>> _Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
>> opaque enough that I didn't notice
>> something was wrong with my book until
>> it started repeating. Once I got a
>> correct copy, it was not much more
>> intelligible.
>
> The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
> carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
> time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
> --scott
Try as I might, I could not finish Dahlgren. I actually didn't all that
far into it. It rode in the back window of my old Toyota Corolla for years.

--
----------------
Dave Scruggs
Senior Software Engineer - Lockheed Martin, et. al (mostly Retired)
Captain - Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 4:12:23 PM UTC-5, Titus G wrote:
> On 11/02/24 04:44, James Nicoll wrote:
> > Has a page fallen out of this mass market paperback, which I just purchased
> > in 1978?
> Because it wasn't a "well printed and well bound MMPB".

In a British edition of Eric Frank Russel's "Next of Kin" an entire
signature was replaced by a section from the then-popular
subgenre of rock-groupie novels.

Well printed but not well bound. I left my copy in a trash can
near Salisbury Cathedral, so I've no idea how durable it was.

Pity the poor groupie-readers. No badly written sex, no drugs,
no angst, for pages and pages!

William Hyde

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, BCFD 36 wrote:

> On 2/11/24 06:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think I've been hit a couple of times
>>> by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
>>> (16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
>>> missing, but being the wrong pages.
>>> But the right amount, usually. So you
>>> get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
>>> then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
>>> _Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
>>> opaque enough that I didn't notice
>>> something was wrong with my book until
>>> it started repeating. Once I got a
>>> correct copy, it was not much more
>>> intelligible.
>>
>> The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
>> carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
>> time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
>> --scott
> Try as I might, I could not finish Dahlgren. I actually didn't all that far
> into it. It rode in the back window of my old Toyota Corolla for years.

Thank you for sharing. I was also not able to get through Dhalgren.

Best regards,
Daniel

On Feb 11, 2024, D wrote
(in article<691efa70-7dc4-e146-b4d1-b86d838a3a73@example.net>):

>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, BCFD 36 wrote:
>
> > On 2/11/24 06:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > Robert Carnegie<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I think I've been hit a couple of times
> > > > by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
> > > > (16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
> > > > missing, but being the wrong pages.
> > > > But the right amount, usually. So you
> > > > get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
> > > > then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
> > > > _Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
> > > > opaque enough that I didn't notice
> > > > something was wrong with my book until
> > > > it started repeating. Once I got a
> > > > correct copy, it was not much more
> > > > intelligible.
> > >
> > > The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
> > > carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
> > > time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
> > > --scott
> > Try as I might, I could not finish Dahlgren. I actually didn't all that far
> > into it. It rode in the back window of my old Toyota Corolla for years.
>
> Thank you for sharing. I was also not able to get through Dhalgren.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel

Dhalgren is one of those books like Joyce’s Ulysses or Pynchon’s
Gravity’s Rainbow which many have tried but few have actually read. I got
all the way to the shit-eating while travelling down the Rhine on a barge
scene in Rainbow before bouncing it off a wall. (You think that I’m joking?
Get a copy. It’s about two thirds of the way in, and is described in
glowing, loving, detail. Off the wall and into the trash you go.) My memories
of Ulysses is dimmer, mostly because it was such an excellent sleep aide.
Dhalgren was much better. I still never finished it.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, WolfFan wrote:

> On Feb 11, 2024, D wrote
> (in article<691efa70-7dc4-e146-b4d1-b86d838a3a73@example.net>):
>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, BCFD 36 wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/24 06:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Robert Carnegie<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I think I've been hit a couple of times
>>>>> by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
>>>>> (16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
>>>>> missing, but being the wrong pages.
>>>>> But the right amount, usually. So you
>>>>> get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
>>>>> then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
>>>>> _Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
>>>>> opaque enough that I didn't notice
>>>>> something was wrong with my book until
>>>>> it started repeating. Once I got a
>>>>> correct copy, it was not much more
>>>>> intelligible.
>>>>
>>>> The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
>>>> carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
>>>> time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
>>>> --scott
>>> Try as I might, I could not finish Dahlgren. I actually didn't all that far
>>> into it. It rode in the back window of my old Toyota Corolla for years.
>>
>> Thank you for sharing. I was also not able to get through Dhalgren.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>
> Dhalgren is one of those books like Joyce’s Ulysses or Pynchon’s
> Gravity’s Rainbow which many have tried but few have actually read. I got
> all the way to the shit-eating while travelling down the Rhine on a barge
> scene in Rainbow before bouncing it off a wall. (You think that I’m joking?
> Get a copy. It’s about two thirds of the way in, and is described in
> glowing, loving, detail. Off the wall and into the trash you go.) My memories
> of Ulysses is dimmer, mostly because it was such an excellent sleep aide.
> Dhalgren was much better. I still never finished it.

I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like them?
Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not yet
achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the book
in 10 years and love it?

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like them?=
>Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not yet=20
>achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the book=20
>in 10 years and love it?

I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.

My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and approach
the book differently in the future.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2024-02-11, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> Dhalgren is one of those books like Joyce’s Ulysses or Pynchon’s
> Gravity’s Rainbow which many have tried but few have actually read.

ah, "Ulysses" is just the prelude. *real* Joyce people actually finish
"Finnegans Wake"

> My memories
> of Ulysses is dimmer, mostly because it was such an excellent sleep aide.
> Dhalgren was much better. I still never finished it.
>

Likewise, for both.

--
dgold <news@dgold.eu>

On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like them?=
>> Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not yet=20
>> achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the book=20
>> in 10 years and love it?
>
> I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
> about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.
>
> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and approach
> the book differently in the future.
> --scott

I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is
enough. But I loved The Hobbit.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
>> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
>> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
>> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and approach
>> the book differently in the future.
>> --scott

I had that doubling experience of reading Patrick White's _Voss_, which
is the Nobel prize winning realist novel about a 19th century explorer
who just happens to a develop a telepathic link to his love. The first time
was impenetrable, the second (a year later) was so easy, and "this is
actually kind of SFnal". In the music sphere, I can still remember
the sensation of how jangly and horrible the Beatles were on first
hearing as a kid.

>
> I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is
> enough. But I loved The Hobbit.

As I've previously commented in this context, I first read LotR starting in
volume 2 (Book 3, isn't it?) - the perfect place before continual action.
Then any longeurs in volume 1's become a peaceful lead up. However, I think
when I said this last time, you (Lynn) had tried that without any luck.

Cheers, David.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like them?=
>>> Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not yet=20
>>> achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the
>>> book=20
>>> in 10 years and love it?
>>
>> I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
>> about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.
>>
>> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
>> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
>> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
>> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and approach
>> the book differently in the future.
>> --scott
>
> I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is enough.
> But I loved The Hobbit.
>
> Lynn

Interesting! I like both Dune and Lord of the rings, so interesting to
hear that those two represent "problem books" for others.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:12:10 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like them?>>>> Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not yet=20
>>>> achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the
>>>> book=20
>>>> in 10 years and love it?
>>>
>>> I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
>>> about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.
>>>
>>> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
>>> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
>>> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
>>> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and approach
>>> the book differently in the future.
>>> --scott
>>
>> I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is enough.
>> But I loved The Hobbit.
>>
>> Lynn
>
>Interesting! I like both Dune and Lord of the rings, so interesting to
>hear that those two represent "problem books" for others.
>

I bounced from LOTR the first time, but the second time I persisted
unitl the silliness abated and we left Bree. From that point it
worked.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:18:48 -0000 (UTC), dgold <d@gold.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2024-02-11, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dhalgren is one of those books like Joyce’s Ulysses or Pynchon’s
>> Gravity’s Rainbow which many have tried but few have actually read.
>
>ah, "Ulysses" is just the prelude. *real* Joyce people actually finish
>"Finnegans Wake"

I know I used to own a copy, and I think I read it all the way
through, but I have no doubt at all that I understood none of it.

/Gravity's Rainbow/ and /Terra Nostra/, OTOH, I found both
comprehensible and entertaining.

>> My memories
>> of Ulysses is dimmer, mostly because it was such an excellent sleep aide.
>> Dhalgren was much better. I still never finished it.
>>
>
>Likewise, for both.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <uf5nsi5ph9oohvd9dva176pgm6douovajo@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:12:10 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> >>>> I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like
> >>>> them?=
> >>>> Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not
> >>>> yet=20
> >>>> achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the
> >>>> book=20
> >>>> in 10 years and love it?
> >>>
> >>> I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
> >>> about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.
> >>>
> >>> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
> >>> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
> >>> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
> >>> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and
> >>> approach
> >>> the book differently in the future.
> >>> --scott
> >>
> >> I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is enough.
> >> But I loved The Hobbit.
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >
> >Interesting! I like both Dune and Lord of the rings, so interesting to
> >hear that those two represent "problem books" for others.
> >
>
> I bounced from LOTR the first time, but the second time I persisted
> unitl the silliness abated and we left Bree. From that point it
> worked.

I bounced from _LOTR_ the first time as well (I think it was the Council
of Elrond where I lost interest - a committee scene - I might had been
15 at the time).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2024, D wrote
> (in article<691efa70-7dc4-e146...@example.net>):
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, BCFD 36 wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/11/24 06:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > > Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I think I've been hit a couple of times
> > > > > by a "signature", a binary bunch of pages
> > > > > (16 or 32 or so), not strictly being
> > > > > missing, but being the wrong pages.
> > > > > But the right amount, usually. So you
> > > > > get pages 1-16, say, then 33-48,
> > > > > then 33-48 again. In Roger Zelazny's
> > > > > _Today We Choose Faces_, the text was
> > > > > opaque enough that I didn't notice
> > > > > something was wrong with my book until
> > > > > it started repeating. Once I got a
> > > > > correct copy, it was not much more
> > > > > intelligible.
> > > >
> > > > The first time I read Dhalgren I thought this had happened and I
> > > > carefully went and checked all the pages. Then I reread it a second
> > > > time. On the third reading I figured out what was going on, though.
> > > > --scott
> > > Try as I might, I could not finish Dahlgren. I actually didn't all that far
> > > into it. It rode in the back window of my old Toyota Corolla for years.
> >
> > Thank you for sharing. I was also not able to get through Dhalgren.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> Dhalgren is one of those books like Joyce’s Ulysses or Pynchon’s
> Gravity’s Rainbow which many have tried but few have actually read. I got
> all the way to the shit-eating while travelling down the Rhine on a barge
> scene in Rainbow before bouncing it off a wall.

Exactly where I stopped.

Ulysses is a lot easier to read when you realize that it is a comedy. Also
if you have the version Joyce actually wrote, minus the thousand or so
misprints induced by early censorship (some of those nonsensical
utterances are actually nonsensical).

I read Dhalgren three times. I am not sure I could read it today. I've tried
the much slimmer Triton twice and not finished it.

My copy of Finnegan's wake has vanished. But I never seriously
attempted to read it.

William Hyde

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:54:58 -0800, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <uf5nsi5ph9oohvd9dva176pgm6douovajo@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:12:10 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/12/2024 3:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> >>>> I find these types of books very fascinating! Can you learn to like
>> >>>> them?>> >>>> Is the reason that you and I did not finish them, that we have not
>> >>>> yet=20
>> >>>> achieved the pinnacle of aesthetic development? Will we pick up the
>> >>>> book=20
>> >>>> in 10 years and love it?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think so, but as I said, I had to read Dhalgren several times and think
>> >>> about it a lot in order to figure out how the narrative actually worked.
>> >>>
>> >>> My friend in 6th grade was a huge fan of Dune, and I started to read Dune
>> >>> and couldn't get into it. Years later (when I was out of grad school and
>> >>> finally had time to think about something else again) I tried reading it
>> >>> again and I thought it was wonderful. So yes, we might change and
>> >>> approach
>> >>> the book differently in the future.
>> >>> --scott
>> >>
>> >> I am not going to try The Lord Of The Rings again. Two bounces is enough.
>> >> But I loved The Hobbit.
>> >>
>> >> Lynn
>> >
>> >Interesting! I like both Dune and Lord of the rings, so interesting to
>> >hear that those two represent "problem books" for others.
>> >
>>
>> I bounced from LOTR the first time, but the second time I persisted
>> unitl the silliness abated and we left Bree. From that point it
>> worked.
>
>I bounced from _LOTR_ the first time as well (I think it was the Council
>of Elrond where I lost interest - a committee scene - I might had been
>15 at the time).

It does have an /awful/ lot of exposition.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"