glowauroraa

Well, it's my book. So I love it from the first page to the last :-)

Review of Dream's Sake on blog Between The Lines: http://betweentl.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/book-review-dreams-sake-by-jyoti-arora/

Review of Dream's Sake by blogger Deboshree: http://paneerandpulao.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/dreams-sake-book-review/

Review by Debolina Raja Gupta: http://debolinasbooks.blogspot.com/2011/07/review-dreams-sake-by-author-jyoti.html?showComment=1312221459812#c6892604798852424433

I liked the characters and their stories. The conflict of the heroine's mind came across as intense, yet very real. Only, I could not quite comprehend the conflicts of one of the other main characters. It felt quite far-fetched in its intensity. A person is caught between a desire to do right, and not knowing what is right. He is frustrated at his own inability to have a clear ideology. Fine enough. But can this conflict be so intense so as to make a happily married man and a father to think of killing himself?
One big minus point of this book is that it has too many discussions and descriptions. The politics, agriculture, hunting scene, social scene, morality etc. all dwelt in great details through discussions that generally run over two chapters.

Would definitely read much better abridged!

It's the weakest book of Jane Austen, I think, having almost a non-existent hero. Of course, there is a hero, but he remains absent most of the time. And even when he is present, he hardly speaks. Actually, that's the major fault of the book. Everything is narrated. The percentage of conversation is too small and everything gets reported by the author. The author (although always brilliant) is much too present in the book, at the cost of weakening the hero and heroine and diluting the gripping power of the story. The story seems to be written as if to prove a point, as if to present an example against the absurd romanticism of the times. Just doesn't get hold of you as Jane Austen's other books.

The book must have thrilled when it was published, but now, of course, it has become outdated. It is well written though. The whole story is narrated by way of letters, diary entries, newspaper clipping etc. It's an interesting technique, but I think it interfered with the thrill element of the story. For if the heroine is writing a diary, she must have survived from the all terrible vampire. And as everything is narrated in past tense, we never really see the terrible Dracula in action. Actually, he never appears terrible at all. Another thing that irked me was the long speeches by the old doctor.

On the whole, disappointing.

It's basically a character-driven book. Most of the action goes on within the characters' hearts. There's very little dialogue. And the few dialogues that there are sounded most unnatural to me, and that not just because of use of classical pronouns like 'thee' and 'thou.' The book presents interesting psychological studies of characters buried under a sense of guilt. But the sensibilities of the characters and their feelings and conflicts are far removed from the present day feelings and sympathies. So it is a bit hard to relate to them, more so because we hardly hear them speak. And the character of the child, and her words, sounded most unnatural of all.
The writer no doubt possess a great mastery over words. But his presence is too obvious all through the book. And he is too descriptive. I found myself flipping through several pages to reach the story.
The first chapter where the narrator describes how he came across the story is totally avoidable. It presents long characters sketches of people whom we never meet in the story.
Overall, the book has more literary value, I guess, than entertaining.

predictable, but very interesting. Loved the way the author brought out the characters and the events.

It's excellent literature. But it's too long.