Sign in with Facebook
Elizabeth's Reviews > 11/22/63
11/22/63
by
by
** spoiler alert **
When I started this, I fully planned to give it 3 stars. But about half-way through and after the umpteenth time of reading "The past is obdurate", it really started to grate. Granted, I've always had problems with time-travel books. But this one seemed like it was going to work.
Spoiler starts here: I really liked that the people travelling back in time continued to age. I really liked that everything was reset whenever the traveller returned to his own time and then stepped back again. And I particularly liked that they couldn't choose the time they were going back, that they HAD to go back to a specific time in 1958.
But what bothered me intensely was that they weren't at all concerned about the consequences of changing the past, or their own futures. They seemed entirely unconcerned that they would suddenly be the wrong age when they got back to their own time. The characters didn't seem to take into account what might be wrong with going back in time and prematurely aging even if they DIDN'T make any drastic changes.
The detailed section (if one can call chapters and chapters and chapters a section) on Oswald was far too long. And the detailed description of the violent nightmares were why I generally avoid reading Stephen King.
I loathed the yellow/orange/black/green card men and I particularly loathed the effect that stopping JFK's murder caused. Earthquakes? Mayhem? Oh please.
Still, I'd say it's worthwhile reading the first half of the book and then when the story starts to plod, simply closing the book and looking up the end.
Spoiler starts here: I really liked that the people travelling back in time continued to age. I really liked that everything was reset whenever the traveller returned to his own time and then stepped back again. And I particularly liked that they couldn't choose the time they were going back, that they HAD to go back to a specific time in 1958.
But what bothered me intensely was that they weren't at all concerned about the consequences of changing the past, or their own futures. They seemed entirely unconcerned that they would suddenly be the wrong age when they got back to their own time. The characters didn't seem to take into account what might be wrong with going back in time and prematurely aging even if they DIDN'T make any drastic changes.
The detailed section (if one can call chapters and chapters and chapters a section) on Oswald was far too long. And the detailed description of the violent nightmares were why I generally avoid reading Stephen King.
I loathed the yellow/orange/black/green card men and I particularly loathed the effect that stopping JFK's murder caused. Earthquakes? Mayhem? Oh please.
Still, I'd say it's worthwhile reading the first half of the book and then when the story starts to plod, simply closing the book and looking up the end.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
11/22/63.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 12, 2012
–
Started Reading
June 12, 2012
– Shelved
June 28, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tanna
(new)
Jul 05, 2012 07:24AM
That is too funny! When I was younger I could never have gotten it half read and then skipped to the end ... I can do that now. I gotten very good at starting a book and just closing it.
reply
|
flag
I'm much better than I used to be at aborting a book. I used to feel an obligation to the author - that it would be rude to just stop - a bit too much like suddenly walking out of the room while someone is in mid-sentence of a conversation with me.But with this book, I was oddly compelled to finish. I think it's because I believed the heartfelt "it's really good" from the librarian when I got the book out. She SEEMED trustworthy.
