Page 2 of 3

Re: WREAK

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:16 pm
by Slava
Please, PH and PL, don't trust spell check. The author's name is Michener, not Mitchner or Michenor! Grr!

Re: WREAK

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:20 pm
by LukeJavan8
I agree with the comments about Michener.
I really do not need to begin withe primordial slime.
But I do believe THE SOURCE to be his best book and
a magnificent companion book to any to be read along
with the Bible.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:49 am
by Philip Hudson
I read "The Source" back when it was written. The only thing I remember was that they dug tunnels under Jerusalem with the help of a mirror to keep them straight. I guess I should review it. I can't find where I misspelled Michener in my previous post. But then I can't find my glasses when I get up in the morning either. I just don't want Michener to badmouth peoples like he so often does. Michener's last book, "Recessional", was a new format for him and I liked it better. I remember the disdain I had for "Hawaii" which is the first of his books I read.

Edward Rutherfurd, hailed as the new Michener, actually out micheners Michener. I have read all his books. They are all great, but "Sarum" is the best and "Russka" is the weakest. Perhaps no one could ever do justice to an epic about Russia.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:43 am
by LukeJavan8
I've not read "Sarum", perhaps I should.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:38 am
by Philip Hudson
If you like epic, historical novels, you can't go wrong with Rutherfurd.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:14 pm
by LukeJavan8
I'll check it out.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:22 am
by bamaboy56
I've read Michener's Alaska, Texas and Mexico. Frankly, I've enjoyed them all. Thanks for the tip on The Source. I've got to find a copy of it.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:36 am
by Philip Hudson
If Michener appeals to you, then by all means read him. I have always thought him an insufferable prig and a confirmed misanthropist. When there are writers from Dostoevsky to Steinbeck to read, why waste time on the real jerks. I had rather read Ferber's "Giant" (even though it is full of errors and the movie version is even worse) than Michener's "Texas". If you want gripping fiction try "The Prince of Tides" (but again, skip the movie). If your taste runs to mystery, try Sandra Brown, Tom Cruise, or a raft of others. If you haven’t read Dickens, you may have several months of reading ahead of you. Dickers is as current as today’s newspaper. For the freshest approach to the epic novel, you can't go wrong with Rutherfurd.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:17 am
by bamaboy56
You mentioned some good authors. I haven't read any Dickens since I read A Tale of Two Cities years ago. Being born and raised in Texas, I agree that Michener's Texas is not totally accurate, however I don't read Michener for historical accuracy as much as I do for just plain good reading. Just my humble opinion.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:14 pm
by Perry Lassiter
Backing up to someone's comment that wreak is a homophone for wreck, may I assume he applies that loosely? To me wreak is a homophone for rake. Though I can see how in rapid conversation someone unfamiliar with wreak could think wreck.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:56 am
by Philip Hudson
I may have non-homophonic ears. I do not see rake or wreck as a homophone to wreak. Reek, however, is a homophone to wreak.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:50 pm
by Perry Lassiter
Just went back to the top and found Dr B does indeed pronounce the word as reek, a total surprise to me. Always pronounced and heard it as rake.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:05 pm
by bamaboy56
Agree with Phillip H. I've always heard and pronounced the word like "reek". I remember years ago I was working in the stock room of a business where I was employed. After I finished the assignment I was given, a coworker asked me what I had been doing. I responded I had been "wreaking havoc" in the back room. The comment went completely over his head. I still remember that.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:00 pm
by LukeJavan8
I don't think it is a different word is it? I just yesterday heard
someone refer to skunk smell as 'wreaking". We live near
a creak and some woods.

Re: WREAK

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:46 pm
by misterdoe
I don't think it is a different word is it? I just yesterday heard someone refer to skunk smell as 'wreaking". We live near a creak and some woods.
That's "reeking," which means stinking.