Bryson - A Walk in the Woods review

[eljimberino]

Hi All,

Thought I would post a link to my review of Bryson's A Walk in the Woods.

https://jpquinton.com/2016/02/13/a-walk-in-the-woods-by-bill-bryson-review/

Cheers

[Elaikases]

" The majority of A Walk in the Woods is Bryson relaying information from other books,"

"This is symptomatic of the manner in which Bryson presents his lectures. His information is to serve an agenda and his research concludes at the point where the agenda has been satisfied. The agenda appears to be primarily to provoke people to keep reading."

Interesting.

[rafe]

A little late for a review, eh? The book was published nineteen years ago. No offense, but I found the review rather pretentious.

"It is somewhat troubling that a writer takes on a major project lasting a period of years to finally say to his readers, ‘don’t bother, my book is all you need’."

Seriously? Where the heck did Bryson ever say or suggest such a thing?

[4eyedbuzzard]

Here's the acid test regarding writing. I read and finished all 397 pages of Bryson's book. I never made it through your review.

[Ethesis]

I finished the review. It gave me something new to think about.

[rickb]

Here's the acid test regarding writing. I read and finished all 397 pages of Bryson's book. I never made it through your review.

I read until I reached the word "phenomenology", at which point Google took me in an entirely different direction.

[orthofingers]

I guess ya didn't care for the book. Huh?

[hobby]

I would love to read your review of "Deliverance"!

[egilbe]

Lol. Ted Moseby in the flesh.

[colorado_rob]

Though I do disagree with a lot of your conclusions, thanks for the thoughtful review. Not sure why others are bad-mouthing your review though, seems like a lot of the same WB crew loves to pick on anything that actually has some intelligence and thought behind it.

Have you read "A sunburnt country" (might be different title down there)? Probably my favorite BB book, though "A brief history of everything" comes close.

[FreeGoldRush]

It looks more like an attack on Bryson than a book review.

Here is my review of the book: It's very entertaining. Don't expect to learn much from it about hiking the trail. Bryson's description of his attempted thru hike is much different than thru hikers I have talked to on the trail or watched on YouTube. But he is very funny.

[rafe]

Though I do disagree with a lot of your conclusions, thanks for the thoughtful review. Not sure why others are bad-mouthing your review though, seems like a lot of the same WB crew loves to pick on anything that actually has some intelligence and thought behind it.

Have you read "A sunburnt country" (might be different title down there)? Probably my favorite BB book, though "A brief history of everything" comes close.

I'd say the OP's review is ripe for a dressing down by the likes of Roy Edroso (Alicublog) or The Rude Pundit. Or Sadly, No! Or TBogg, if he were still around. (Hey, I had to look up Ted Moseby, that reference was lost on me.)

I could do a point by point rebuttal... very tempting, could even have some fun with it, but seriously, why bother?

[rickb]

Can anyone explain what the last line in the review means?

"Overall however, Bryson’s work is an intellectual, rather than phenomenological one."

Even with the help of the internet to inform the limits of my vocabulary, I sincerely have no idea what the heck that means -- unless, I reject the definition of the word "phenomenological" and make up my own to fill the void of my "pre-google" ignorance.

[MuddyWaters]

I assumed it was April Fools joke

If not, it should be

Didnt bother to click..

If only I could have been forewarned 19 yrs ago

Anyone know where someone has recently reviewed "All Quiet on the Western Front" ?
I read it about 40 years ago, was thinking about reading it again, but not real sure I should. Looking for new opinions.

[colorado_rob]

I'd say the OP's review is ripe for a dressing down by the likes of Roy Edroso (Alicublog) or The Rude Pundit. Or Sadly, No! Or TBogg, if he were still around. (Hey, I had to look up Ted Moseby, that reference was lost on me.)

I could do a point by point rebuttal... very tempting, could even have some fun with it, but seriously, why bother? I don't disagree, but it's a person's thought out opinion. As to "why bother" I would say the OP made the post to open up discussions with those that care. Those that DON'T care, such as most of the subsequent posters, indeed why bother? Because those that have responded are many of those on WB who are just looking to always express their opinion on, in this case, "not bothering" to express their opinion. Yes, I am many times in this same category.

So yea, if you're not interested in expressing counterpoints to the OP arguments, what the heck are you doing responding at all?????? Just to vent hot air. Like me.

[egilbe]

Bored, looking to be entertained by all the verbal flatulance

[rafe]

So yea, if you're not interested in expressing counterpoints to the OP arguments, what the heck are you doing responding at all?????? Just to vent hot air. Like me.

Maybe because it's been hashed over thousands of times already? Not just on Whiteblaze but pretty much every other trail forum there ever was?

Reminds me of watching movies with my late father in law, who was a lifelong artist and even taught cinematography for a while. He'd always be critiquing the film as if he were Luis Bunuel or DW Griffith.

The OP's review makes a comparison to Cervantes (Don Quixote.) That's interesting, but I'm not sure how far you can go with that. Interesting to speculate whether it was a conscious literary ploy on Bryson's part. Katz is (was) real, and AWITW was not the first book featuring Bryson and Katz, nor the last. In comedy, straight man vs. foil is a common ploy. Katz gets some of the best lines, both in the book and in the movie.

Like rickb, I looked up "phenomenological" in an effort to understand the final line in the review. I might guess at what the OP might be saying, but not impressed at the big words hauled in to say it.

OP's review cites other reviews and criticisms, but curiously, does not cite interviews with Bryson. Here's one that's worth the read: http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/news/a3694/bill-bryson-interview/

If one is to speak of a "right of passage" -- well, I think the proper word in that context is "rite", not "right." Just sayin'. ;)

Here's a bit of Bryson, from that interview I linked to, above:


I'm very pleased with it in the sense that it was so hard. The thing about walking is that it's not eventful. It doesn't generate material. A long walk, a really long walk, is an exceedingly repetitious experience. I can't keep saying, "I walked all day, and I was really tired when I finished." Coming up with fresh material all the time is a real challenge.

All the time I was doing it, I remember thinking, "I don't know how I'm going to get a book out of this," because whether we'd had a good or a bad day, it was pretty much like every other day. At the time it felt like nothing much is happening. When I finally got a book out of it, I was kind of astounded.

[colorado_rob]

Maybe because it's been hashed over thousands of times already? Not just on Whiteblaze but pretty much every other trail forum there ever was?

Reminds me of watching movies with my late father in law, who was a lifelong artist and even taught cinematography for a while. He'd always be critiquing the film as if he were Luis Bunuel or DW Griffith.

The OP's review makes a comparison to Cervantes (Don Quixote.) That's interesting, but I'm not sure how far you can go with that. Interesting to speculate whether it was a conscious literary ploy on Bryson's part. Katz is (was) real, and AWITW was not the first book featuring Bryson and Katz, nor the last. In comedy, straight man vs. foil is a common ploy. Katz gets some of the best lines, both in the book and in the movie.

Like rickb, I looked up "phenomenological" in an effort to understand the final line in the review. I might guess at what the OP might be saying, but not impressed at the big words hauled in to say it.

OP's review cites other reviews and criticisms, but curiously, does not cite interviews with Bryson. Here's one that's worth the read: http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/news/a3694/bill-bryson-interview/

If one is to speak of a "right of passage" -- well, I think the proper word in that context is "rite", not "right." Just sayin'. ;)

Here's a bit of Bryson, from that interview I linked to, above:


I'm very pleased with it in the sense that it was so hard. The thing about walking is that it's not eventful. It doesn't generate material. A long walk, a really long walk, is an exceedingly repetitious experience. I can't keep saying, "I walked all day, and I was really tired when I finished." Coming up with fresh material all the time is a real challenge.

All the time I was doing it, I remember thinking, "I don't know how I'm going to get a book out of this," because whether we'd had a good or a bad day, it was pretty much like every other day. At the time it felt like nothing much is happening. When I finally got a book out of it, I was kind of astounded. Now THERE ya go, actual discussion of the OP's topic!

Just as a side point: What topic HASN'T been discussed ad-nauseum on WB? I do agree, the AWITW topic does get old... but this OP was a bit different as his was at least in depth. Also FWIW, I am a huge BB fan, I've read almost all of his books (with AWITW being in the lower half of enjoyment), and yeah, I do disagree with the BB bashing in the OP's review, I think he basically doesn't "get" Bryson. I'm so much of a fan that we almost paid $100 (for two of us) to see him last fall in Denver. We had a conflict or we would have gone.

[TJ aka Teej]

It's funny the most-selling AT book was written by the least-miles author.

[rafe]

It's funny the most-selling AT book was written by the least-miles author.

Maybe because it was a funny, honest account by someone who actually had some cred at writing for the general public.

[la.lindsey]

It felt like more of a brief literary criticism than a book review to me. Or, more likely, something in between the two.

I *think* (and I'm googling here too, because I never came across this as a school of criticism in my English major days, so I could be completely off-base here) the last line means something like, "this book is more about a factual approach to the trail, rather than examining Bryson's personal experience and how it may have been similar or different to anyone else's experience with the trail." Less introspective, less self-examination, more talking about objective facts.

I don't think, personally, that that's a particularly valid criticism. There's nothing about the genre that says you must be introspective; of course, maybe he is being contradictory by saying he just wasn't changed by the trail. Not everyone will become a thru-hiker, and the fact of the matter is that more people will identify with Bryson (being unchanged and unwilling to continue, I guess) than with some huge mountaintop moment and pushing through to finish the trail (going by statistics).

But I couldn't really say. I've never read the book. Then again, I didn't read most of the books I wrote papers about for my English degree ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4eyedbuzzard]

Okay, I lied. I actually read the review. But here's the thing. Reviews of books, movies, etc., are very subjective. But some of the OP's criticisms are just pointless. Like
His information is to serve an agenda and his research concludes at the point where the agenda has been satisfied. The agenda appears to be primarily to provoke people to keep reading. Uh, duh. In writing a good story, the most important thing is to capture and hold the reader's interest. Get them to turn the page. Background info is relevant only in so much as it advances the story. The best review for any book? "It's a page turner."

All good stories contain similar elements. The hook, the conflict, the obstacle(s), the (suspenseful) acts, etc. Bryson follows the standard form. Just as has virtually every successful author in history dating back to the Greeks.

Other criticisms seem to written more as an exercise in applying verbiage. Why confuse intent/meaning by using "phenomenology" when "popularity" would suffice. Uncommon words don't impress readers, they simply confuse them.

Bryson writes popular entertainment. That's his audience. Yes, you'll likely learn a few things from some of his books (not AWITW necessarily). But they aren't textbooks. And AWITW was written purely as a witty entertainment piece. In that, it succeeds.

Borrowing a bit from Robert McKee: The merits of serious works can be debated ad nauseum. But ultimately comedy/humor is either funny, or it's not. That's the only critique. You and I can come to markedly differently opinions on Citizen Kane, and respect each others long winded opinions. But if you don't find "The Pink Panther" or "A Fish Called Wanda" funny, all I can do is pity you.

[tarpon]

It's just another review that did not move me one way or the other. I am a fan of Walk in the Woods and have enjoyed the novel multiple times. I have listened the the Audible edition a couple times after initially reading the book. I like the book so much I am afraid to watch the movie even though they cast it with some great actors.

I look forward to the next Bryson book.

[Grampie]

It appears that Mr. Quinton is a "day late and a dollar short," when it comes to his review of Bryson's book. All of us in the AT community have hashed the pro and cons of his book from the day it was published and again when the movie came out. Most agree that the author was in it for the $$$ and not to give a true depiction of thru-hiking the AT. That said, Bill Bryson has done more, because of "A Walk In The Woods", to popularize hiking on the AT in the last 20 years than any one.
I have met Bill and discussed the book with him. Writing it was a venture to preform his lively hood as a writer in which he has been successful. Spending the time he spent on the AT was enjoyed by him, but he said that he could not see himself spending 6 months too thru-hike.
I have many friends, along with myself, that have thru-hiked. Some hate his book, but many enjoyed it.

[RockenR]

I like the book so much I am afraid to watch the movie even though they cast it with some great actors.

I didn't read the book but saw the movie and thought it was hilarious.
I didn't get any agenda or remember any research in it.
I cant comment on the editing or cinematography because I did what I usually do when I watch a movie. And that's just simply watch a movie.

Great movie though.

[rafe]

It's just another review that did not move me one way or the other. I am a fan of Walk in the Woods and have enjoyed the novel multiple times. I have listened the the Audible edition a couple times after initially reading the book. I like the book so much I am afraid to watch the movie even though they cast it with some great actors.

I look forward to the next Bryson book.

Both were enjoyable, in different ways.

[Stone1984]

I didn't read the book but saw the movie and thought it was hilarious.
I didn't get any agenda or remember any research in it.
I cant comment on the editing or cinematography because I did what I usually do when I watch a movie. And that's just simply watch a movie.

Great movie though.


The phone call pre hike about the bears had me rolling.

[FreeGoldRush]

It's funny the most-selling AT book was written by the least-miles author.

This was also true of the PCT. 98% of people want a good story and not reality. I believe the Whiteblaze crowd is a little different since hiking the trail requires facing reality at times.

[gpburdelljr]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and could care less about anybody's review of it.

[Traillium]

I *think* (and I'm googling here too, because I never came across this as a school of criticism in my English major days, so I could be completely off-base here) the last line means something like, "this book is more about a factual approach to the trail, rather than examining Bryson's personal experience and how it may have been similar or different to anyone else's experience with the trail." Less introspective, less self-examination, more talking about objective facts.


Phenomenal explanation — thanks!

(I liked the book for the way Bryson set the trail in the social and historical contexts as he passed through the living landscape. I learned nothing about hiking, other than the obvious how-nots …)

[Elaikases]

I didn't read the book but saw the movie and thought it was hilarious.
I didn't get any agenda or remember any research in it.
I cant comment on the editing or cinematography because I did what I usually do when I watch a movie. And that's just simply watch a movie.

Great movie though.

I watched the movie during the rain while on a section hike with my wife. Enjoyed it. Haven't quite read the book yet.

Bought a copy. Not sure where it is.

[Traveler]

Some people prefer Mad Magazine, others prefer a bit more substance. Thats why there's chocolate and vanilla. I have always found Bryson to be informative and rather entertaining overall and tends not to use words that only .01% of the population can understand.

[togo]

I Like Bryson.
He is a different read. I thought his rendition of his hike adventure humorous. He is not a purist hiker. Especially for the AT. Me, I see the Trail from his point of view but my wife I want to hike the entire trail. But probably in sections though.
I guess just enjoy the man's interpretation of his attempt.

[earlyriser26]

I didn't read the book but saw the movie and thought it was hilarious.
I didn't get any agenda or remember any research in it.
I cant comment on the editing or cinematography because I did what I usually do when I watch a movie. And that's just simply watch a movie.

Great movie though.

I read the book and thought the first half was funny and interesting. The second half where he was all over the place was bad. How anyone could say the movie was great is beyond me. The one scene they actually filmed on the AT they showed in the wrong location. The bear scene was stupid and no those bears are not found in the eastern united states. My favorite scene is where they fall 40 feet off a cliff and just get up and brush themselves off. Superhuman?

[RockenR]

How anyone could say the movie was great is beyond me. The one scene they actually filmed on the AT they showed in the wrong location. The bear scene was stupid and no those bears are not found in the eastern united states. My favorite scene is where they fall 40 feet off a cliff and just get up and brush themselves off. Superhuman?

Its found under Comedy, not Documentaries.