The Last of the Mohicans was terrible. If that was the way all American authors wrote at the time I'm not really interested in this period of American literature. Boring, unenlightening prose; paper thin heroic characters that are always escaping from impossible situations in ridiculously implausible ways. Then half of them die in the end. What, did their stupidly insane luck just run out? Whatever, fuck you Fenimore Cooper, you suck. Consistency? It works well as a fantasy novel, rather than historical fiction, but that doesn't change the fact that it's boring as fuck.
Also I remembered the movie being great from childhood but watching it again yesterday it kind of sucks. Beautifully shot; it just grabs a bunch of random scenes from the book, distorts and skims over them leaving you with nothing much resembling a coherent plot, or any depth to speak of. I think Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe are brilliant in it, but it falls back on every hollywood cliche in the book and totally character assassinates Duncan and Munro.
Anyway, bought a Louis De Bernieres novel today not realising it was the second in a trilogy so have ordered the others off the internet and will have to await for their arrival to tackle the series.
So, also grabbed an Umberto Eco novel, The Name of the Rose and have started it. Great so far and I love the premise. Some guy finds a one in existence historical manuscript detailing life of a Benedectine monk, makes a bunch of translation notes, then loses the book breaking up with his girlfriend. Haha and he's too pansy to ask for it back:
"By now the Vallet novel volume itself could not be recovered (or at least I didn't dare go ask for it back from the person who had taken it from me)."
So he decides to take liberties and publish it from his memory and notes.
If it's anything like the other Eco books I've read I'm sure it's going to twist my brain into knots when I try to read it late at night or hungover. Which is a good thing, he writes amazingly.
