Chris Walsh (chris_walsh) wrote,
Chris Walsh

I do it fast, I do it slow. (Read, you sickos.)

Man, Charles Dickens was good.

Man, Agatha Christie was good.

Man, Dickens takes a really long time to read.

Man, it helps that Christie can be read quick quick quick.

Two books right now: I'm working through Dickens's Little Dorrit and breezing through Christie's And Then There Were None. Nice to get reminded why this stuff's classic; also nice to have quicker reads alongside the big read. (And I mean big: I think Little Dorritt is longer than A Tale of Two Cities.) I have to remind myself that it very originally took a year-plus to read a Dickens book, in installments, so I shouldn't feel neurotic about the time it's taking now.

Meanwhile, their storytelling power is still so obvious. There's satire in Little Dorrit, some of it still laugh-out-loud funny nearly 150 years after Dickens wrote it. And Christie is so efficient and so seemingly breezy about it, though she herself said the book was a bear to plan and to write. All hail a good plot machine, which you hope to have in a good, quick mystery.

Don't tell me whodunit! In either book! (I already know that Little Dorritt [redacted for spoilers].

P.S. I'll also admit, I only first read Agatha Christie recently, and got in the mood to read more; but I was also inclined to read And Then There Were None because of that pretty good Family Guy murder-mystery "And Then There Were Fewer."
Tags: books

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.