My aunt gave me this book when I was younger and I have never read it. Is it worthy my time?
It would have been worth your time back then, yes.
>implying your time is worth anything
You could probably read that book in a few hours that you would have spent shitposting and looking at pornography anyway
>>7974055
Yeah, Richard Adams is a great writer of naturalistic prose, his books are wonderful irrespective of age, though Watership Down is probably best enjoyed young.
It's surprisingly hardcore for a book about rabbits, there's a lot of death and hierarchical brutality.
Shardik is another Richard Adams book, i't's aimed at a more mature audience, I read it semi-recently and loved it do death.
I read it about two years ago. I liked it. :)
>>7974728
Jack London or Kipling tier naturalist writing?
It's pretty good the only problem is that you really need to be familiar with Kant and the Upanishads before you can really enjoy it.
>>7974878
More London than Kipling, but not quite the same.
Adams has his own essence, his descriptions are alive with noise and colour.
>>7974972
London as in characterised?
I always saw London as taking on nature and defining it as a character. Kipling seemed more of an observationist.
I'm not American, so I just very recently discovered it, not as a child, but it's absolutely charming.
>>7974972
And I would say in regards to the world building and the social commentary it's more Kipling-esque, but more than anything it has a unique atmosphere.
If you like the whole beginnings of a civilization, cultural heroes mythology package like me, then I would strongly recommend reading it.
>>7975166
In that he details the worlds of his animal protagonists in a way that never makes us feel like we're reading a book about people pretending to be rabbits.
He gets right in there and gives natural forces personification as seen through the eyes of his characters, though his narrator's voice is often impartial from my recollection..
