During the first half I was interested and then it kind of flopped. The person who wrote the introduction in my edition mentioned that the narrative lacks development, the dialogue is sometimes weak, and most of the people are two-dimensional, existing only to explain a political point. Funny, because those things explain why I didn't like it as much as I would've wanted. Interesting and groundbreaking ideas don't yet make a good novel. Orwell's was more like a ham-fisted effort to shout political grievances. Flat and uninspired.

Beautifully written gothic and feminist stories based on famous fairytales. They're like more developed and flowery versions of the originals, a world I'd love to be sucked into. On a closer look you notice they all study womanhood, taking the opening short story away from the "handsome prince rescues the helpless girl" - scenario.

Ok. At first I actually quite liked it. When Connie arrives to the house etc. Then after the first love scene with Mellors I thought: there's something weird about this... Everything turned out even more ridiculous towards the end. The characters were uninteresting in every single meaning of that word and some parts were downright laughable. Irksome and not sure if I would recommend it to anyone, even if it's in the banned books list.

I didn't think I would finish these so quickly but once I got inside the castle the walls started to close me in. I smelled the dust on the floor and saw the deep colour of Fuchsia's dress and everything real disappeared. Not for readers who only care about the plot. Be prepared for vivid characters within a touching distance.

Oh how I feel ashamed for not liking this as much as I thought. But let me say this first : at some level I felt related to the protagonist during the New York days. Some chapters ringed so true in my mind that it was scary. The problem really was the vagueness of the writing. Although I'm a fan of huge descriptions and such I can enjoy some delicate word using, too. In this it just didn't work, don't know why. As I said, the New York part was wonderful. Also, I'm looking forward to reading Plath's diary and poem collections but didn't see the masterpiece material in The Bell Jar which left me a bit hollow and indifferent.

Capote's first novel could have needed a little polishing and further development, but I have to agree with Alan U. Schwartz after reading his afterword , that publishing this was a good decision. Sure, Capote might have shoved the script among the trash, but there wasn't a definite proof of his not wanting to ever putting this to daylight. Apparently, according to Schwartz he had even mentioned the novel in his later letters to friends, suggesting that publishing it wasn't entirely out of the question.

It's been a while since I've read A Breakfast at Tiffany's, and when I stumbled upon this novel I didn't think I would consider it as anything special either. Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps it would have needed something more, but it still has this certain charm to it. The kind of charm that only novels between maybe 1930s and 1960s can have. I especially enjoyed the beginning, I really felt I was there in the scorching summer heat of New York. Sometimes everything doesn't need to be perfect, the feeling you get is all that matters. I'm sensing the same thing will happen with Capote as did with Colette. At first the private life of the author may overrun the interestingness of the actual writing, but eventually he subtly makes you like that too.

The plot was winding and the descriptions came suddenly from nowhere like to just fill in the space. There are many authors who are better in descriptive writing. It should give you an image to your head but this time everything was in fragments. Not necessarily waste of time but wasn't at all impressed. I hope other works by Bellow are different.

I liked it but overall I didn't think it was anything that special. It was a pleasant summer read that is probably forgotten afterwards.

Very interesting, would recommend this to everyone.