UKH

I have read both her highly acclaimed novels - conversations etc and normal people and thought both massively overated. Nothing much happens and the characters aren't believable. Connel's transformation from sporting star to literary genius is implausible. The tv series is bizarrely cast with connell the same age as his mum and i couldn't be @rsed to watch past episode 2. Am i missing something?

We're on episode 7 of Normal People. I honestly couldn't tell you why we like it so much, but I think its really good. Not read either book, but don't think I would want to...a slow burning TV series I can just about get on board with, but if a book ahsnt interested me in the first 50pages it's not getting finished...ever...! 

But yeah, casting is odd...I thought his mum was his sister for a while...

I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, Daisy Edgar Jones is pleasing to the eye, could be that.

I like to watch teenagers shagging as much as the next man (if the next man is jimmy / rolf etc) and what i saw of the tv series was well filmed. It was more that i was expecting more from the actual book.

Agreed about the Mum being too young! 

I enjoyed it too. 

I can honestly say that I think it is the best thing I have ever watched. Never have I been so deeply affected by a TV show or film. I watched it in two sittings and it might have been one if I hadn't started after midnight on a Sunday night. I've watched most of it three times. I've not read the book, and , having heard too many people say they thought the screen version was better, I don't think I will. I thought the casting of the support characters was almost universally superb, with the portrayal of the mother/son relationship outstanding - she didn't seem too young to me; perfectly credible mid-thirties.

I agree. It reminded me of Poliakoff, in the way that without terribly much actually happening, it is all very... truthful. 

Several times, mostly in the first two episodes, I found myself saying 'oh sh1t. Yes, it was like that, wasn't it?'

Never been so bored in my life, started out a good TV show, but got very repetitive and dire, breaking up over silly reasons and back together, how many times do people need to break up to realise they are not meant for each other, rubbish show, maybe four episodes would have been acceptable. But basically a repeat of the same story over ten episodes is not for me.

It certainly seems to polarise opinion and I've read similar comments. I suspect it depends on buying into the idea that two people can have such an extraordinary connection that it endures and transcends all else. If not, it presumably comes across as a bit silly, but, if so, it is just an amazingly beautiful and heartbreaking depiction of that connection. I watched episode ten again on TV last night; probably the best episode of the best thing I've ever watched - the skype scene..........

I enjoyed the book, while thinking that a) not much happened and b) Marianne’s transformation to being uber-cool didn’t quite ring true. It was a moving and pleasant read though. 

When I read threads like this I always wonder whether people post threads about climbing on literary forums.

That is a fair point, but it does become apparent how damaged she still is under the cool exterior.

The think the difference is that reading books is a pretty mainstream activity whereas climbing is not; most people who climb will also read books, but most people who read books do not also climb. UKC has forums for various non-climbing categories, either mainstream like culture or outdoors related like skiing and photography.

Yes, you're right, but nine times out of ten the threads seem to be started by people complaining because they didn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Yes, but this is a climbing community who use the forum for discussions about life. If we all went to the pub after a great day's climbing we wouldn't just talk about climbing.

Maybe climbing threads in literary forums always start with something like: "I put War And Peace down for a few hours on Tuesday evening to nip out and climb A Dream of White Horses. I found it completely underwhelming. Can anyone explain to me what all the fuss is about?"

It has nothing very technically memorable, much of the climbing is a bit same-y. Some of the positions are quite nice I suppose. 

Or, given the number of pedantic grammatical threads here, maybe they say, 'I was walking past Right Unconquerable at the weekend and I saw a leader pull on a cam for aid then rest on another runner before working out how to climb the last move. Disgraceful! I returned home and immersed myself in Proust for solace.'.

That is actually a pretty good summary. What actually IS all the fuss about?

I'll take your nine times out of ten with a very large pinch of salt.

My goodreads.com thread on v grades v font grades never really took off.