Scan barcode
nikolka's review against another edition
emotional
informative
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
horaklukas's review against another edition
3.0
Tenká knížka, kraťoučký příběh. Romantické "zamyšlení" nad generací jenž hledá svoje místo v životě během války. Příjemná oddychovka, takové čtení na uvolnění a dodání optimismu v nelehkých dobách, jinak ale na mě trochu moc přeromantizované (jsem už asi dospělý cynik).
achilles_de_angelo's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
bochnicek's review against another edition
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
kelmeckiss's review against another edition
ještě jednou přečtu, jak chtěla lucie petra mateřsky obejmout a volám freudovi
antonia_delarose's review against another edition
dark
emotional
inspiring
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
roonielupin79's review against another edition
hopeful
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
3.0
Why are things so beautiful? And we so so poor, so mediocre, so ugly! (unless it be you, my love, unless it be you!)
Basically it is just another teenager love story set in same tradition like 'Romeo and Juliet', Eric Segal's 'love Story' and "Titanic' - and don't even start me about Bollywood movies. The idea is at least one of the lovers have to die. That is supposed to be really romantic for some reason beyond my understanding. I ran out of little hormone in me that was supposed to produce romantic feeling the first time I saw Jennifer Annisten. This one also comes from that another tradition where one of lovers is rich and another poor (Must. Avoid. Talking. About. Bollywood. Movies.) However in this case they neither commit suicide nor it is their family which kills them.
She did not answer but when the tram was in motion she made a "yes" with her eyelids and he read on her lips with out her having spoken: "Yes, Pierre."
The Nobel laureate sets the story in times of World war one, and it is too simple - two innocent hearts choosing to die rather than be taken to be a part of a violent war. They do not want to murder or work in weapon factories and would rather die while still innocent in heart:
"We are none too well equiped for this world where people know how to sing nothing else but 'Marseillaise'."
"Good enough it they know how to sing that!"
With war in background, their little love story reads like a little flower standing alone on a battle field waiting to be crushed (Life, its just paying.) - and even the flower itself can see its destiny. And yet it is not afraid of dreaming:
They tasted exquisite small joys of the hearth of the future ... They knew that nothing of the sort would occur- Pierre through presentiment of his native pessimism - Luce through the clairvoyance of love which understood the practical impossibility of the marriage .... That is why they hasted to enjoy it in their dream. And each concealed from other the certainty that it could not be anything else but a dream. Each believe that this secret was personal and watched, deeply touched, over the other's illusion.
I wouldn't have liked another version of children playing lovers but its prose read so much like poetry - except for a single paragraph (we shall save it for end), there is not a single word out of place. Instead simple things are formed into beautiful phrases. Compared to Romeo and Juliet, characters and their love are so much more developed and their love is believable for most part. I'm actually surprised as tow why it is not more popular.
They hid their heads in their beds under the bedclothes as a child during a thunderstorm - not at all from fear (they were positive that nothing could happen to them) but in order to dream.
What spoiled it for me was a paragraph, just one stupid little paragraph, that could be easily read as carrying prejudice against Jews and which made me keep one star from the story. Why Rolland had to spoil it? Why couldn't he let it be simple as it was so far:
You are just Luce and I am Pierre.
"The other night both of us were afraid."
"yes," said he, "how good it was."
Basically it is just another teenager love story set in same tradition like 'Romeo and Juliet', Eric Segal's 'love Story' and "Titanic' - and don't even start me about Bollywood movies. The idea is at least one of the lovers have to die. That is supposed to be really romantic for some reason beyond my understanding. I ran out of little hormone in me that was supposed to produce romantic feeling the first time I saw Jennifer Annisten. This one also comes from that another tradition where one of lovers is rich and another poor (Must. Avoid. Talking. About. Bollywood. Movies.) However in this case they neither commit suicide nor it is their family which kills them.
She did not answer but when the tram was in motion she made a "yes" with her eyelids and he read on her lips with out her having spoken: "Yes, Pierre."
The Nobel laureate sets the story in times of World war one, and it is too simple - two innocent hearts choosing to die rather than be taken to be a part of a violent war. They do not want to murder or work in weapon factories and would rather die while still innocent in heart:
"We are none too well equiped for this world where people know how to sing nothing else but 'Marseillaise'."
"Good enough it they know how to sing that!"
With war in background, their little love story reads like a little flower standing alone on a battle field waiting to be crushed (Life, its just paying.) - and even the flower itself can see its destiny. And yet it is not afraid of dreaming:
They tasted exquisite small joys of the hearth of the future ... They knew that nothing of the sort would occur- Pierre through presentiment of his native pessimism - Luce through the clairvoyance of love which understood the practical impossibility of the marriage .... That is why they hasted to enjoy it in their dream. And each concealed from other the certainty that it could not be anything else but a dream. Each believe that this secret was personal and watched, deeply touched, over the other's illusion.
I wouldn't have liked another version of children playing lovers but its prose read so much like poetry - except for a single paragraph (we shall save it for end), there is not a single word out of place. Instead simple things are formed into beautiful phrases. Compared to Romeo and Juliet, characters and their love are so much more developed and their love is believable for most part. I'm actually surprised as tow why it is not more popular.
They hid their heads in their beds under the bedclothes as a child during a thunderstorm - not at all from fear (they were positive that nothing could happen to them) but in order to dream.
What spoiled it for me was a paragraph, just one stupid little paragraph, that could be easily read as carrying prejudice against Jews and which made me keep one star from the story. Why Rolland had to spoil it? Why couldn't he let it be simple as it was so far:
You are just Luce and I am Pierre.
"The other night both of us were afraid."
"yes," said he, "how good it was."