I haven't thought about it, though I figure I should have started at the beginning instead of the end...abcinyvr wrote:Franz Ferdinand wrote:Pat Barker - The Ghost Road
Are you planning to read Regeneration and The Eye In The Door as well?
Book recommendations, please
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
To be fair, I only finished Tolstoy and Friedman during that time, I started Karenina maybe a year ago and never got around to finishing it. Voila, broken leg and I read tons. Now with school, I can't do anything but read, even stuff not on the curriculum (like the Booker winners and in time Pamuk's work).
I'm not a fan of speed reading myself, but like Okri said, even a mediocre reading will highlight books you want to revisit and ones you don't. It's a sort of quick intro to the book: if it grabbed you, you'll put it aside and enjoy it better later. If not, at least you didn't spend much time with it. Besides, when you have to read so many books, you have little choice but to fall behind. Speaking of which, I just finished Anne Michaels' Fugitive Pieces for school, and although it took three-four hours, it was a great read, very lyrical. I'd recommend that in keeping with the post topic.
I'm not a fan of speed reading myself, but like Okri said, even a mediocre reading will highlight books you want to revisit and ones you don't. It's a sort of quick intro to the book: if it grabbed you, you'll put it aside and enjoy it better later. If not, at least you didn't spend much time with it. Besides, when you have to read so many books, you have little choice but to fall behind. Speaking of which, I just finished Anne Michaels' Fugitive Pieces for school, and although it took three-four hours, it was a great read, very lyrical. I'd recommend that in keeping with the post topic.
Sonic Youth wrote:Sonic, I was an American Literature major at Middlebury and sometimes had to read three books a week (and I wasn't skimming, either) so, yeah, it's possible.
Yes, but can you enjoy them? Can you fully process them? I can't. I hated reading for school because I had to speed read, and I loathe speed-reading. I'm a deliberate reader, and I prefer going at an unhurried pace. Otherwise, I'll miss the impact of certain passages, and the narrative doesn't build the way it was intended. For me, reading a book should be like... watching a movie, y'know?
I guess I ought to answer this since it was addressed to me. Yes, I do believe I can process books at a fast rate but I've never indulged in "speed-reading". I started reading when I was less than 2 years old. It's always kinda been my "thing" so, juggling three or fours books in college and still getting something out of them was never a problem for me. And, like Okri stated, some books just deliciously beg to be read at a faster clip. You're right, though, Sonic. Occasionally there's a book I like to read sparingly just so I can savor every last bit of it and it's usually one I really don't want to end. I read Atonement in that manner.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
I'm not sure if there's a shift going on in the country, but three writers this year have been accused of insulting Turkishness and all three have had the charges dropped.
Does anyone else want to answer this? I recall Mister Tee once saying that he had to force himself to read Sometimes a Great Notion (the other Ken Kesey novel) slowly so he could savor it, and I've had books like that. But sometimes there are books that just demand to be read quickly (I'm thinking books like English Passengers, White Teeth, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and to a lesser extent, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay) - books where the plot momentum hurtles and crashes into unexpected corners, and a deliberate reading is... just less fun.
I know with reading for school, I missed a lot having to read three or four books a week, but even then, the ones I wanted to revisit were clear from even a mediocre reading (and the ones I didn't want to were also clear).
Yes, but can you enjoy them? Can you fully process them? I can't. I hated reading for school because I had to speed read, and I loathe speed-reading. I'm a deliberate reader, and I prefer going at an unhurried pace. Otherwise, I'll miss the impact of certain passages, and the narrative doesn't build the way it was intended. For me, reading a book should be like... watching a movie, y'know?
Does anyone else want to answer this? I recall Mister Tee once saying that he had to force himself to read Sometimes a Great Notion (the other Ken Kesey novel) slowly so he could savor it, and I've had books like that. But sometimes there are books that just demand to be read quickly (I'm thinking books like English Passengers, White Teeth, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and to a lesser extent, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay) - books where the plot momentum hurtles and crashes into unexpected corners, and a deliberate reading is... just less fun.
I know with reading for school, I missed a lot having to read three or four books a week, but even then, the ones I wanted to revisit were clear from even a mediocre reading (and the ones I didn't want to were also clear).
Turkey is a magnificent country, and I simply can't wait to go back and see more. But from my research, I got the impression that I didn't want to freely express any negative opinions about the nation or its past while I was there--obviously, not acknowledging the Armenian genocide is one (they need to, soon), and criticizing Ataturk is another (his picture is EVERYWHERE--but, amazingly, these displays of nationalistic pride are apparently voluntary, not mandated by the state).
Book revier John Tirman offers an explanation:
The axis of Ataturk's revolution, however, was the idea of a Turkish nation. The Ottoman Empire had been a classic dynasty based on the triumph of a clan--the family of Osman--and guided by religion. Within the Empire, the identity of a citizen was firstly that of a Muslim; "Turk" was used derisively to denote an uncultured peasant of Anatolia. Ataturk nurtured a fresh concept of Turkishness, built around a people--a Turkish nation or "race"--with its own glorious record of historical achievement. "Happy is he who calls himself a Turk," was his famous evocation of patriotism, and the state and political culture he forged over two decades aimed to reinforce that image.
Book revier John Tirman offers an explanation:
The axis of Ataturk's revolution, however, was the idea of a Turkish nation. The Ottoman Empire had been a classic dynasty based on the triumph of a clan--the family of Osman--and guided by religion. Within the Empire, the identity of a citizen was firstly that of a Muslim; "Turk" was used derisively to denote an uncultured peasant of Anatolia. Ataturk nurtured a fresh concept of Turkishness, built around a people--a Turkish nation or "race"--with its own glorious record of historical achievement. "Happy is he who calls himself a Turk," was his famous evocation of patriotism, and the state and political culture he forged over two decades aimed to reinforce that image.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I've been reading more about Pamuk's history recent run-in with the law, and it's a fascinating story. I guess he WAS chosen to make a political statement, although not the one I previously mentioned.
Ironically, on the same day he won, the French just passed a law making it illegal to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide ever happened. Maybe Pamuk should move.
"Turkishness" - have they been watching Stephen Colbert?
Ironically, on the same day he won, the French just passed a law making it illegal to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide ever happened. Maybe Pamuk should move.
"Turkishness" - have they been watching Stephen Colbert?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Too bad they didn't pick Murakami. How often does it happen that an author wins the Nobel Prize while you're reading one of his/her books? Imagine the scenario: on Monday, I tell my friends I'm reading a book from a Japanese author named Murakami; on Thursday, I tell them he's won the Nobel Prize in Literature. How cool would that be?
This is the one and only time of the year when I read the New York Post. I always look forward to their annual editorial furiously accusing the Nobel's Literature committee of left-wing, anti-American political pandering because the prize recipient said something bad about Bush or America somewhere. I don't know if that's the case with Pamuk. If not, then they'll probably not mention it at all.
And that's about all I can say about the winner, other than congratulations.
Yes, but can you enjoy them? Can you fully process them? I can't. I hated reading for school because I had to speed read, and I loathe speed-reading. I'm a deliberate reader, and I prefer going at an unhurried pace. Otherwise, I'll miss the impact of certain passages, and the narrative doesn't build the way it was intended. For me, reading a book should be like... watching a movie, y'know?
This is the one and only time of the year when I read the New York Post. I always look forward to their annual editorial furiously accusing the Nobel's Literature committee of left-wing, anti-American political pandering because the prize recipient said something bad about Bush or America somewhere. I don't know if that's the case with Pamuk. If not, then they'll probably not mention it at all.
And that's about all I can say about the winner, other than congratulations.
Sonic, I was an American Literature major at Middlebury and sometimes had to read three books a week (and I wasn't skimming, either) so, yeah, it's possible.
Yes, but can you enjoy them? Can you fully process them? I can't. I hated reading for school because I had to speed read, and I loathe speed-reading. I'm a deliberate reader, and I prefer going at an unhurried pace. Otherwise, I'll miss the impact of certain passages, and the narrative doesn't build the way it was intended. For me, reading a book should be like... watching a movie, y'know?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Turkey's Orhan Pamuk wins Nobel literature prize
By Matt Moore
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:35 a.m. October 12, 2006
STOCKHOLM, Sweden – Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, whose uncommon lyrical gifts and uncompromising politics have brought him acclaim worldwide and prosecution at home, won the Nobel literature prize Thursday for his works dealing with the symbols of clashing cultures.
The selection of Pamuk, whose recent trial for “insulting Turkishness” raised concerns about free speech in Turkey, continues a trend among Nobel judges of picking writers in conflict with their own governments. British playwright Harold Pinter, a strong opponent of his country's involvement in the Iraq war, won last year. Elfriede Jelinek, a longtime critic of Austria's conservative politicians and social class, was the 2004 winner.
Pamuk, currently a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he was overjoyed by the award, adding that remarks he made earlier this year referring to the Nobel literature prize as “nonsense” were a mistranslation.
He told AP that he accepted the prize as not “just a personal honor, but as an honor bestowed upon the Turkish literature and culture I represent.”
The author did have one complaint: The Swedish Academy announced the prize at 7 a.m., EDT.
“They called and woke me up, so I was a bit sleepy,” said Pamuk, adding that he had no immediate plans to celebrate, but looked forward to being with friends back in Turkey.
Pamuk, whose novels include “Snow” and “My Name is Red,” was charged last year for telling a Swiss newspaper in February 2005 that Turkey was unwilling to deal with two of the most painful episodes in recent Turkish history: the massacre of Armenians during World War I, which Turkey insists was not a planned genocide, and recent guerrilla fighting in Turkey's overwhelmingly Kurdish southeast.
“Thirty-thousand Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it,” he told the newspaper.
The controversy came at a particularly sensitive time for the overwhelmingly Muslim country. Turkey had recently begun membership talks with the European Union, which has harshly criticized the trial.
The charges against Pamuk were dropped in January, ending the high-profile trial that outraged Western observers.
The Swedish Academy said that the 54-year-old Istanbul-born Pamuk “in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures.”
In Turkey, fellow novelists, poets and publishers were among the first to congratulate Pamuk, but nationalists who regard the novelist as a traitor accused the Swedish Academy of rewarding the author because he had belittled Turks.
“The prize came as no surprise, we were expecting it,” said Kemal Kerincsiz, a nationalist lawyer who helped bring charges against Pamuk. “This prize was not given because of Pamuk's books, it was given because of his words, because of his Armenian genocide claims.”
Turkey's Foreign Ministry congratulated Pamuk, wishing him continued success and saying the prize would help give Turkish literature a wider audience abroad.
Prominent Armenian writers also hailed the decision to award a Nobel to Pamuk.
“This a lesson to those Turks who wanted to put him on trial. This is a victory for democracy in Turkey,” said Perch Zeituntsian, a leading Armenian writer and playwright, speaking in Yerevan, Armenia.
The head of Armenia's Union of Writers, David Muradian, said the decision to award Pamuk the Nobel prize sends a strong message. “This is a both a literature prize and about morality.”
The head of the PEN American Center, the U.S. chapter of the international writers-human rights organization, also praised Pamuk's selection.
“I think that Orhan Pamuk was a splendid choice for the Nobel Prize, not only for the evident literary merit of his work, but because of his courageous defiance of political pieties in Turkey,” said historian Ron Chernow, the chapter's president.
Academy head Horace Engdahl said Pamuk's political situation in Turkey had not affected the decision.
“It could, of course, lead to some political turbulence, but we are not interested in that,” Engdahl said. “He is a controversial person in his own country, but on the other hand, so are almost all of our prize winners.”
He said Pamuk was selected because he had “enlarged the roots of the contemporary novel” through his links to both Western and Eastern culture.
“This means that he has stolen the novel, one can say, from us Westerners and has transformed it to something different from what we have ever seen before,” Engdahl said.
Earlier Thursday, French lawmakers in the National Assembly in Paris approved a bill making it a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I amounted to genocide, a move that has infuriated Turkey.
Pamuk has spoken up for other writers in peril. He was the first Muslim writer to defend Salman Rushdie when Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned Rushdie to death because of “The Satanic Verses,” a satire of the Prophet Muhammad published in 1989. Pamuk has also been supportive of Kurdish rights.
Pamuk himself had little religious upbringing. Growing up in Istanbul, his extended family was wealthy and privileged – his grandfather was an industrialist and built trains for the new nation. Religion, Pamuk has said, was considered to be something for the poor and the provincial.
Instead, Pamuk was educated at the American school, Robert College, founded in the 1860s by secular Americans, where half the classes were taught in English. Among the Turkish graduates are prime ministers and corporate executives.
Pamuk has long been considered a contender for the Nobel prize and he figured high among pundits and bookmakers. His works, written in Turkish, have been translated into other languages, including English, French, Swedish and German.
Pamuk's prize marked the first time that a writer from a predominantly Muslim country has been honored for literature since 1988, when the award went to Egyptian Naguib Mahfouz, who died in August.
In its citation, the academy said that “Pamuk has said that growing up, he experienced a shift from a traditional Ottoman family environment to a more Western-oriented lifestyle. He wrote about this in his first published novel, a family chronicle ... which in the spirit of Thomas Mann follows the development of a family over three generations.”
“Pamuk's international breakthrough came with his third novel, 'The White Castle.' It is structured as an historical novel set in 17th-century Istanbul, but its content is primarily a story about how our ego builds on stories and fictions of different sorts. Personality is shown to be a variable construction,” the academy said.
In winning the prize, Pamuk will likely see new interest in his work, although there was little increase in sales for Jelinek and Pinter. Pamuk will also receive a $1.4 million check, a gold medal and diploma, and an invitation to a lavish banquet in Stockholm on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of prize founder Alfred Nobel.
By Matt Moore
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:35 a.m. October 12, 2006
STOCKHOLM, Sweden – Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, whose uncommon lyrical gifts and uncompromising politics have brought him acclaim worldwide and prosecution at home, won the Nobel literature prize Thursday for his works dealing with the symbols of clashing cultures.
The selection of Pamuk, whose recent trial for “insulting Turkishness” raised concerns about free speech in Turkey, continues a trend among Nobel judges of picking writers in conflict with their own governments. British playwright Harold Pinter, a strong opponent of his country's involvement in the Iraq war, won last year. Elfriede Jelinek, a longtime critic of Austria's conservative politicians and social class, was the 2004 winner.
Pamuk, currently a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he was overjoyed by the award, adding that remarks he made earlier this year referring to the Nobel literature prize as “nonsense” were a mistranslation.
He told AP that he accepted the prize as not “just a personal honor, but as an honor bestowed upon the Turkish literature and culture I represent.”
The author did have one complaint: The Swedish Academy announced the prize at 7 a.m., EDT.
“They called and woke me up, so I was a bit sleepy,” said Pamuk, adding that he had no immediate plans to celebrate, but looked forward to being with friends back in Turkey.
Pamuk, whose novels include “Snow” and “My Name is Red,” was charged last year for telling a Swiss newspaper in February 2005 that Turkey was unwilling to deal with two of the most painful episodes in recent Turkish history: the massacre of Armenians during World War I, which Turkey insists was not a planned genocide, and recent guerrilla fighting in Turkey's overwhelmingly Kurdish southeast.
“Thirty-thousand Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it,” he told the newspaper.
The controversy came at a particularly sensitive time for the overwhelmingly Muslim country. Turkey had recently begun membership talks with the European Union, which has harshly criticized the trial.
The charges against Pamuk were dropped in January, ending the high-profile trial that outraged Western observers.
The Swedish Academy said that the 54-year-old Istanbul-born Pamuk “in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures.”
In Turkey, fellow novelists, poets and publishers were among the first to congratulate Pamuk, but nationalists who regard the novelist as a traitor accused the Swedish Academy of rewarding the author because he had belittled Turks.
“The prize came as no surprise, we were expecting it,” said Kemal Kerincsiz, a nationalist lawyer who helped bring charges against Pamuk. “This prize was not given because of Pamuk's books, it was given because of his words, because of his Armenian genocide claims.”
Turkey's Foreign Ministry congratulated Pamuk, wishing him continued success and saying the prize would help give Turkish literature a wider audience abroad.
Prominent Armenian writers also hailed the decision to award a Nobel to Pamuk.
“This a lesson to those Turks who wanted to put him on trial. This is a victory for democracy in Turkey,” said Perch Zeituntsian, a leading Armenian writer and playwright, speaking in Yerevan, Armenia.
The head of Armenia's Union of Writers, David Muradian, said the decision to award Pamuk the Nobel prize sends a strong message. “This is a both a literature prize and about morality.”
The head of the PEN American Center, the U.S. chapter of the international writers-human rights organization, also praised Pamuk's selection.
“I think that Orhan Pamuk was a splendid choice for the Nobel Prize, not only for the evident literary merit of his work, but because of his courageous defiance of political pieties in Turkey,” said historian Ron Chernow, the chapter's president.
Academy head Horace Engdahl said Pamuk's political situation in Turkey had not affected the decision.
“It could, of course, lead to some political turbulence, but we are not interested in that,” Engdahl said. “He is a controversial person in his own country, but on the other hand, so are almost all of our prize winners.”
He said Pamuk was selected because he had “enlarged the roots of the contemporary novel” through his links to both Western and Eastern culture.
“This means that he has stolen the novel, one can say, from us Westerners and has transformed it to something different from what we have ever seen before,” Engdahl said.
Earlier Thursday, French lawmakers in the National Assembly in Paris approved a bill making it a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I amounted to genocide, a move that has infuriated Turkey.
Pamuk has spoken up for other writers in peril. He was the first Muslim writer to defend Salman Rushdie when Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned Rushdie to death because of “The Satanic Verses,” a satire of the Prophet Muhammad published in 1989. Pamuk has also been supportive of Kurdish rights.
Pamuk himself had little religious upbringing. Growing up in Istanbul, his extended family was wealthy and privileged – his grandfather was an industrialist and built trains for the new nation. Religion, Pamuk has said, was considered to be something for the poor and the provincial.
Instead, Pamuk was educated at the American school, Robert College, founded in the 1860s by secular Americans, where half the classes were taught in English. Among the Turkish graduates are prime ministers and corporate executives.
Pamuk has long been considered a contender for the Nobel prize and he figured high among pundits and bookmakers. His works, written in Turkish, have been translated into other languages, including English, French, Swedish and German.
Pamuk's prize marked the first time that a writer from a predominantly Muslim country has been honored for literature since 1988, when the award went to Egyptian Naguib Mahfouz, who died in August.
In its citation, the academy said that “Pamuk has said that growing up, he experienced a shift from a traditional Ottoman family environment to a more Western-oriented lifestyle. He wrote about this in his first published novel, a family chronicle ... which in the spirit of Thomas Mann follows the development of a family over three generations.”
“Pamuk's international breakthrough came with his third novel, 'The White Castle.' It is structured as an historical novel set in 17th-century Istanbul, but its content is primarily a story about how our ego builds on stories and fictions of different sorts. Personality is shown to be a variable construction,” the academy said.
In winning the prize, Pamuk will likely see new interest in his work, although there was little increase in sales for Jelinek and Pinter. Pamuk will also receive a $1.4 million check, a gold medal and diploma, and an invitation to a lavish banquet in Stockholm on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of prize founder Alfred Nobel.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Okri wrote:flipp, Murakami is one of the hotly tipped candidates to win the Nobel Prize this year, so I don't know if I'd call him underrated (along with Atwood, Pamuk, Adonis, Joyce Carol Oates, and a few others).
That’s good to know, Okri, however, I wouldn’t confuse a reputation within the literary community with an overall, large-scale appreciation. Murakami’s been consistently fantastic for years. The fact that he’s only being recognized now for such a big prize doesn’t make him any less underrated in the past.
I wasn't aware that Joyce Carol Oates was up for the Nobel. I love her work. Many find it too dark, but I think she creates such compellingly robust, fleshed-out characters, that her novels are some of the richest in detail out there today. I mean, even just the sheer bulk of her oeuvre ought to be rewarded (how many books has she written?) Also, I'd venture to say that Oates has come closest to writing the 'Great American Novel' than almost anyone in recent years with Blonde, an incredible quasi-fictional/quasi-factual tome on the life of Marilyn Monroe.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Sonic Youth wrote:Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood (in the middle of this one.)
Franz Ferdinand, you did NOT read Anna Karenina and fifteen other books in a few months. I refuse to bellieve it.
Sonic, I was an American Literature major at Middlebury and sometimes had to read three books a week (and I wasn't skimming, either) so, yeah, it's possible.
Norweigen Wood is fantastic. I think Murakami is one of the most underrated writers working today. Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Sputnik Sweetheart, and After the Quake are all also highly recommended. For other contemporary Japanese writers, I'd also check out Banana Yoshimoto (Goodbye, Tsegumi & Kitchen).
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
and books I have yet to:
Kiran Desai - The Inheritance of Loss
Ben Okri - The Famished Road
Iris Murdoch - The Sea, The Sea
Sarah Hall - The Electric Michelangelo
James Kelman - How late it was, how late
Two of my faves. Along with Last Orders, probably my favourite novels of the 90's (toss in The Things They Carried if you're gonna stretch and say fiction)
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I feel like a moron. I promised I'd read 15 novels by the end of the year and I've only read six.... four by writers name John!
Michael Chabon - The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
Jonathan Franzen - The Corrections
Jonathan Safran Foer - Everything is Illuminated
John Steinbeck - The Grapes of Wrath
John Updike - In the Beauty of the Lillies
Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood (in the middle of this one.)
Franz Ferdinand, you did NOT read Anna Karenina and fifteen other books in a few months. I refuse to bellieve it.
Michael Chabon - The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
Jonathan Franzen - The Corrections
Jonathan Safran Foer - Everything is Illuminated
John Steinbeck - The Grapes of Wrath
John Updike - In the Beauty of the Lillies
Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood (in the middle of this one.)
Franz Ferdinand, you did NOT read Anna Karenina and fifteen other books in a few months. I refuse to bellieve it.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler