Rating: 
Summary: Such a tedius read
Review: I'm very disappointed in this book. I was looking for action and high drama, and instead, got plodding dullness and monotony. The book could have been boiled down to fifty interesting pages by a decent editor. If you want to see how this type of topic can soar, I would highly recommend the vastly more exciting and rivetting novel, THE LAST DAY by Glen Kleier. LAST DAY is the epitome of an end-times thriller that captures all the insanity, action, suspense and poignancy that GATE lacks. I've read LAST DAY three times and will read it again for its amazing depth and power. Also interesting in this genre is Stephen King's THE STAND, which is a bit light weight compared to LAST DAY, but at least entertaining. which GATE wasn't.
Rating: 
Summary: Glad I'm not the only one who didn't like it...
Review: I logged on to see if I was the only reader who did not like this book, or wondered why it was nominated for a National Book Award. I'm glad to see most readers share my two-star views. While I was impressed by Stone's vast knowledge, I found the book clunkily written and difficult to get through. My biggest problem was that I simply did not believe in the characters at all (particularly Sonia and Raz). Does anyone use that kind of hipster lingo anymore? Like Don Delillo, Stone is a demanding writer; unlike Delillo he does not reward with the same level of beauty in his prose.
Rating:
Summary: A test of patience that didn't pay off
Review: When I read the summary of Damascus Gate by Robert Stone on the rear cover of thebook I expected a thrilling journey through modern day Israel. After completing the novel I didn't feel my expectations were met. The book follows a reporter, Christopher Lucas, who is investigating a cult in Israel for a news story and ends up involving himself in a plot to explode a bomb. The book begins with background information on Lucas, members of the cult, and people that Lucas parades around Israel with during his investigation. I was dismayed with the beginning section of the book because the characterization and lack of intensity in the story was difficult to wade through. Stone gives many land descriptions of Israel in the course of the book and this might have made a greater impression on someone who is or has been to Israel in recent memory. Without proper knowledge of Israel and its vicinities I felt lost in a mysterious world and unable to visualize where all the locations were and how the corresponded to each other. After the first hundred or so pages the story picks up a little bit of steam when there are a few action packed scenes and ues folk even death. The action is necessary in making the West Bank scene seem so veritable and dangerous. Stone seems at his best in moments like these with his vivid descriptions of violence and with suspense that builds up even before any action occurs. There are too many sub-plots throughout the story following: the cult who attempts to rig the bomb, a character who gathers a following in a belief that he is the incarnation of the messiah, and a love affair between Lucas and Sonia who is another main character. There are some interesting scenes at a night club called Stanley's where back room deals go down and characters like Sonia have the opportunity to make a living. Damascus Gate is a believable story given the confrontations that have gone on due to land interests and religious beliefs in Israel as of late. The reality makes the book somewhat monotonous at times though because the book follows even the uneventful aspects of Lucas' investigation. Towards the end of the book I was anticipating a bomb to explode and some Armageddon related plot to unfold. The book seemed to drag for a little in the last hundred pages but the question of whether a bomb would or wouldn't explode kept me glued to the book. I have to say the ending was unfortunately a let down, not because a bomb did or didn't explode but because the build of of intensity throughout the story did not seem at any way met with a fulfilling end.
Rating:
Summary: An agonizing read up until the last hundred pages.
Review: Having never read any of Stone's books, I had no idea what to expect from Damascus Gate. I found the book extremely difficult to get into and agonizing to read for the majority of the time. Stone appears to have a vast knowledge of Israel, but the main character, Lucas, a weak and impressionable American journalist, simply repeats the same message over and over again. He emphasizes how Israel, is a melting pot of religious turmoil. He gives specific instances of violence in the Gaza Strip and in the Old City of Jerusaleum (The only action scenes) but fills the pages in between with meaningless, boring jargon. Although I found the descriptions of religious fanaticism (The House Of Gailean), lead by the infamous Adam DeKuff, to be interesting, the story had too many branches to follow. He attempted to include a significant love story, a secret plot to blow up the Temple Mount, and a complicated explanation of a religious cult and its immoral and illegal activities. Stone may have intentionally written the novel in this chaotic way, in order to mimic the instability of the subject matter, but I suspect, he became overwhelmed with the number of characters he had introduced and saw that the only way to accomodate, and explain these characters, was to go off on numerous tangents. I felt a connection with Lucas, but little identity with any other charcter because they were not well developed. It appears that every time Stone began introducing a new person it became an opportunity to add something new about the political and religious situation within Israel. Not until the last hundred pages did the tempo begin to pick up. Once we see Sonia, (Lucas's love interest) running through pitch black, ancient caves and the bomb plot to blow up the Temple Mount, the novel takes a positive turn, but this only lasts for a short period. We are entertained by an exciting climax and then the book ends. It would be easy to look at Damascus Gate as a fine literary composition. The vocabulary is sophisticated and descriptions are long and complex. However, after carefully examining the polished exterior, I have a difficult time recommending this novel.
Rating:
Summary: a review, written ala Robert Stone
Review: "I thought it was pretty bad," he said airly. "How could you?" she asked drily. "I don't know. Maybe the novel had too much 'schmeiihuqie,'" he said, referring to the Babylonian god of pretentiousness. "Didn't you read the reviews? All those smart people couldn't be schlemiels," she said. "Perhaps it was trahison des clercs," he said, realizing he was in love with her. "I think I need a Prozac."
Rating:
Summary: A real disappointment
Review: I bought this book with high hopes, looking for fiction that was substantial, only to be extremely let down. The book takes forever before any of the plot starts to develop (more than 200 pages). The characters seem like cardboard. Moreover, it seems like everyone in Jerusalem is a latent sociopath. Although I am not an expert on Sufism, what I know of it does not remotely resemble what the author expounds through his characters. The author devotes a lot of time to nonsense mumbo jumbo, through his characters, that is supposed to be Sufism. Instead, it sounds more like New Age diatribe. Also, the author uses a lot of words that, presumably, are local dialect (both Arabic and Hebrew). The problem is that there is no dictionary in the back to translate, and the writing is so poor that context will not help you decipher the meaning of the word. I don't know who elects winners for the National Book Award, but the judges are clearly impressed by some other measure other than good prose, a good story, and good character development. As a side note, I read Corelli's Mandolin right after this, and remembered what wonderful story telling is all about. Read that instead.
Rating:
Summary: very disappointed
Review: Having read and enjoyed three of Mr. Stone's other novels, I recommended this to our book club, which meets tonight to discuss it. It will be easier to put the "cross" of this book behind me than the stigma my next recommendation to the group will likely carry. Coupling religious themes to the Jerusalem geography--the concept drew me to the book, given first-hand experience with both. unfortunately the author simply failed to execute his grand conception. As interesting as I found the numerous references to world religions, cults, sects, concepts, etc, I found the characters and the plot to be flat and uninspired. Having gritted my teeth to get up to page 300 expecting a "revelation", instead I found myself reading a stale politico-thriller which largely dismissed all that preceded it in favor of "the plot". Well, anyone who essays to create art runs the risk of failure; there is no shame in this. And I did enjoy his other books for their exploration of individuals' souls (especially "Dog Soldiers"--incidentally, a very fine movie was made of this). That said, I would like to speak with any of the notable authors who provided "blurbs" for the book and ask for an explanation. IMHO, it certainly did not meet any of them.
Rating: 
Summary: one of my favorite books of all time
Review: I am absolutely shocked that people could have despised this book as much as they did. This is a stunning masterpiece, not his worst book, but his BEST book. I believe that Robert Stone's depiction of Jerusalem is immaculate, and if you Yerushalmis disagree then realize that Stone describes it through the eyes of an outsider. So it is pure. I have seen Israel as both an outsider and a resident, and the vision that Stone lends to it all is a beautiful but disturbing one. BUY THIS BOOK!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: gosh, i'd love to rant and rave with the rest of you about how much this book sucks, but i'm afraid to say that i really did enjoy it. the hordes of naysaying reviewers on this site were clearly not as fascinated by the subtleties of the book as i was. Or who knows, maybe i'm a literary simpleton too stupid to know when characters are poorly developed and plot lines painfully contrived. sorry you didn't like it guys - i hear john grisham knows how to write *real* action.
Rating:
Summary: Stone is too enamoured with his vast vocabulary...
Review: Just because you know how to "use it in a sentence" doesn't always mean that you should... especially if the use of all the grand words one knows interfers with the telling of the story. Stone is too enamoured with his vast vocabulary and thus, alas, the story just does not flow as it might if he wrote as if he were telling us a story rather than composing one. It is too "literary" and trying to impress with his "writing ability" rather than "storytelling ability".
|
