......hands down.
AND this book may be unique in my experience: The movie based on the book was far, far superior to the book itself. I cannot think of a single other instance that this was true for me.
So, what was the offending book?
The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger.
Smock and I went to see the movie when it came out. It was a good enough movie. A fun afternoon chick flick, with what I consider a GREAT performance by Meryl Streep.
So, when I saw the book at the AAUW used book sale for 50 cents, I thought, "Oh, good. A nice guilty pleasure!"
Not. Probably the stupidest book I've read in the last ten years. By now, most of you know the outline of the story: Girl who wants to be a Writer ends up working for Miranda Priestly, editor in Chief of THE important fashion magazine. (The book is supposedly a wicked expose of Anna Wintour of Vogue.)
Miranda is a b****, and a selfish ogre. Fine. But how on earth did this naive girl think that she worked her way to the top in a competitive business like fashion without being that way? The author does nothing but sneer at fashion--what did she think working at a fashion magazine would be like? She talks about being exhausted after working numerous 12-14 hour days. Oh, poor baby. Talk to regular working joes who have to spend that amount of time at back-breaking labor every day for years on end.
In short, the author/narrator was a WHINER, and I cannot abide a whiner. Look, lady, you don't want the job? QUIT AND GET ANOTHER ONE!!!!
But the funniest part of the whole experience was this: the author/narrator supposedly wants to "write for the New Yorker", all the while penning a book that doesn't have the structure or plot or anything else to stand as evidence for skill in writing "higher level" things.
So, she's not only a whiner, she's a snob. And a fairly incompetent one at that.
Look, I'm no writer. But then, I don't hold myself out to be one, either.
Give this one a pass, unless fashion is your life. Otherwise, rent the video at Blockbuster, and have a fairly enjoyable 90 minutes.
The movie based on the book was far, far superior to the book itself. I cannot think of a single other instance that this was true for me.
I can think of several:
1. Doctor Zhivago
2. The Shining
3. The Manchurian Candidate (I only speak for the Sinatra one, as I did not bother with the remake)
4. 2001, A Space Odyssey
5. Naked Lunch (OK, Cronenberg really did not base the movie on the book, only three pages or so, drawing instead from Junkie and Exterminator, but the film was better than the book Naked Lunch).
In my opinion, you're wrong about The Shining. I HATED that movie, and I thought the book was scary. But it has been YEARS since I read it, so I can't be sure I haven't changed my mind. But I doubt it. I think Jack Nicholson was exactly WRONG for that part.
And I think 2001 is the emporer's new clothes of movies. Nothing's really there, but no one wants to admit it.
Never read the others!
mamaT i am gonna have to agree with mr. keilholtz on the shining and 2001 (which is an AWESOME movie), but i disagree about naked lunch, which i thought was an incredible, mind blowing, read.