I laughed til hiccups. Twice. Possibly the last person alive to read this but I'm caught up now. I'm so glad I listened to the AB for this one — that I laughed til hiccups. Twice. Possibly the last person alive to read this but I'm caught up now. I'm so glad I listened to the AB for this one — that definitely took it to the next level....more
The Shoemaker's Wife held the potential for noteworthiness at the beginning. Adriana Trigiani is great at PLACE — her vivid descriptions adeptly enablThe Shoemaker's Wife held the potential for noteworthiness at the beginning. Adriana Trigiani is great at PLACE — her vivid descriptions adeptly enabled me to picture, hear, smell, even taste the scene I was reading. I saw early glimmers of conflict and it seemed like the coming story would be robust.
It tried to be? I'm sure the initial book outline promised an epic tale, spanning decades and continents, generations and travails. But the execution was lacking. It leaned on description and sacrificed characterization. The portrayal was overly sentimental, everyone cared about each other the absolute most, the peoples and places were exquisitely beautiful, etc. I became increasingly exasperated and couldn't wait for it to be over. (Had I not been reading as audiobook during my commute, it would have been a dnf midway through.) Plot points that could have been — should have been — emotional didn't land for me at all. Too much "this Bad Thing happened" but surrounded by trite, prettified narrative sucking out any lifeblood and grit.
Maybe there are times that third person omniscient works really well. This wasn't one of them — the more the author relied on that POV to tell me things she hadn't made me feel, the more annoyed I got.
Also. Also! I don't think kids said "what's the skinny" in 1930?? I'm not a stickler for zero anachronisms, but that one was like a bucket of cold water. [From my cursory etymological search, it seems likely to have come along not too long after that, so it's older than I assumed. But still.] To be fair, at this point I wasn't happy with anything that was unfolding, writing-wise.
45% and it's time to admit I'm never going to finish this one. It's not poorly written but it's just not holding my interest, even during captive audi45% and it's time to admit I'm never going to finish this one. It's not poorly written but it's just not holding my interest, even during captive audience traffic times. ...more
This just didn't hold my interest for some reason. I'm not entirely sure if it was the writing or just my mood/distractedness, so I'm not going to ratThis just didn't hold my interest for some reason. I'm not entirely sure if it was the writing or just my mood/distractedness, so I'm not going to rate. It's possible it was a timing thing. Dnf a bit past 50%....more
This synopsis might be rough, but I'm feeling pretty rough about the book as a whole, so that tracks. From around the midpoint, I almost DNFed many tiThis synopsis might be rough, but I'm feeling pretty rough about the book as a whole, so that tracks. From around the midpoint, I almost DNFed many times. Quite strong for me at first, it started going off the rails for reasons unrelated to prose quality of his ghostwriter.
I didn't have any particular feelings about Agassi before this book. I enjoyed watching him play back in the day, as I do any talented tennis player. I'm a super casual fan of the sport — I like watching but usually don't have any certain player I'm rooting hard for. So I had no bias towards him one way or the other and only picked this up because I'd heard it was a great memoir.
Initially, it was a compelling story. I felt a lot of compassion for him for a variety of reasons, especially his abbreviated childhood as he was pushed unwillingly into tennis by an overbearing father. There was a whole lot of match recapping, and I was surprised to not be bored by this... for a while. Eventually that commentating got really old, and the events began to run together.
But ultimately I got tired of it. I started not to like him, largely because of what he chose to include in this book, and how. So much subtweeting, trying to prove himself, and revisionist history.
He had shitty things to say about almost every player he faced, and I don't understand the point of all of this without balance or context or to show growth — it was just petty. One example was when he called out a longstanding rival for being a terrible tipper, based on the report of a valet who'd served him. If true, it was awful indeed, but what did this have to do with Agassi's own story, other than to force the opinion on readers that he was a better person than his rival?
And then there was his couplehood with Brooke Shields, which felt exceedingly like he was trying to prove in retrospect that nothing about it felt right, laying the groundwork for how everything about Steffi was going to feel perfect. He didn't accept any responsibility for the relationship — that he chose it, he leveled it up, he played an equal role in its dissolution. He painted her as shallow and unsympathetic, one dimensional, and I didn't buy it. I don't believe that there was nothing in it for him at the time, emotionally. He stated outright that he didn't have any takeaways from it in terms of what he could have done better, when even based on his own description of the events, I could have given him a dozen things. I'm not saying they should have stayed together, but the way he narrated this whole relationship was childish.
He also told about charitable things that he did in everyday life in a way that felt emotionally immature. Instead of acting quietly and for the purpose of helping other people, it felt he was trying to show how benevolent he was.
Anyway, I got more and more annoyed and stopped caring how/if he evolved in his career and personal life — things that I had started out completely here for. I do think he was very fortunate and smart in terms of many of the people he surrounded himself with... but I ended up not getting what THEY saw in HIM....more
Loading...
