Diary of a Wimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney

This children's novel is really cute. I think that for it's purpose, to entertain and give small life lessons in a comical and unconventional way, it's very well suited. The idea of having mini cartoons and what not worked really well and the plot moved along really well.

This book was an incredibly easy read and would be a good book to recommend to friends who don't like to read because there are lots of pictures and even though the novel is geared for a younger crowd, it still has connections and what not that make it relate-able to all ages.

As for its academic value (themes and what not) again, they do seem somewhat juvenile but I think that for a book to teach, it would be fun for a younger group of kids. This one is apparently a NY Times Bestseller but it seems like every other book is and it seems that some books are simply "bestsellers" because they're good for a one time read through, but that's about it. *shrug* Perhaps I'm being too judgmental.

The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger

I really liked this book. The back cover boasts that it is an atypical romance novel and it really is. The way that the plot unfolds and the way Niffenegger goes back and forth between Clare and Henry really adds to the story. Honestly, sometimes I would get confused between who was talking because I read through this novel really quickly but I mean for the most part it was pretty apparent who was who and what not.

Niffenegger also did a good job of explaining time traveling or at least resolving issues that usually arise when time traveling is part of the plot. It didn't turn into a science fiction novel or anything complicated which makes it accessible to a lot of readers.

When I initially picked up the novel, I actually thought it was going to be a spinoff of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, but I was completely off.

I think that academically this book has a pretty decent amount of value in terms of themes and symbolism. There's obviously the themes of love and waiting and fate but there's also really strong Christian symbolism in terms of Henry being a sort of prophet figure and transcending the boundaries of time while Clare also can be representative of Christians as a whole. I'm not sure if this was necessarily Niffenegger's intent, but the relationship is pretty strong so I would imagine that there's some kind of significance to such parallelism.

At any rate, I thought it was a good read both though honestly, some of the sex scenes were really graphic... I feel like this too contributed to the book rather than took away. Sometimes with books and movies, too many sex/action scenes just take away from the main plot. However, with this book, I think that it really showed just how deep the relationship between Henry and Clare was.

I also thought that the moment when Clare and Gomez kind of connect and have this "what if" moment was brilliant because it makes you think, if not for Henry, how different would Clare be? At the same time, playing on the idea of soulmates and fate, the fact that Henry and Clare end up together I feel is inevitable because from the start Clare and Henry knew each other and met.

This is one of those books that I think would be a lot of fun to do as a book club because the themes are pretty accessible and there's a lot to discuss beyond the academic. It's also an easy read and the language is really straightforward. Overall, I can see this book going a long way in terms of popularity and what not.

The Girl Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson

This is the sequel to The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo and I was very excited to read this novel because I thought that Lisbeth Salander was a really compelling character. In this novel, she's slowly but surely becoming a more active member of society and I'm not quite sure I necessarily like that. Because you get a lot more of what her life was like, the mystery behind who she is and why she acts the way she does is somewhat dispelled. In terms of comparing the two, this novel had a lot more action and plot movement and it doesn't have a lot of the seemingly unnecessary details that the first novel had but I feel like the first novel had more depth and the characters were more three-dimensional and engaging. There were several new characters that were introduced but I feel like there wasn't any other new dimensions to Salander and Blomkvist, which made them a little less interesting. I also feel like there were some character discrepancies with Salander at least because she's more talkative in this novel and by nature she doesn't talk much. I could be wrong though because she was such a mystery in the first novel.

I still feel like there was still a certain amount of unnecessary detail but I may just have been missing some of the underlying motifs that Larsson put into the novel. I may have mentioned this before, but Swedish people seem to drink a lot of coffee and eat a lot of sandwiches. And there's a lot of people who smoke.

I also got the feeling after I put the novel down that perhaps there may have been some discrepancies with the overall unraveling of the murders because of what the Millenium people had access to but I could be wrong.

Oh yes, and I'm envious of Salander's brilliance. Although she's on the socially inept side, she's so smart that I feel like it makes up for it.

Overall, like the first book, although this novel contains little academic quality, it is simply good to read for fun. Because this book was a murder mystery, I thought that the way the action played out was really well done and I can easily see this book becoming a movie.

[edit]

I also wanted to mention that there (interestingly) is also another theme about the abuse of women. Here it has more to do with organized crime, but I think it's interesting that both of these novels have underlying messages about treating women well and about women's rights. I think Larsson is a guy so the fact that he is saying something about the way women are treated I think has implications of what Swedish society is like right now. I could be wrong though since I know absolutely nothing about Swedish society.

A Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Marquez

This book won a nobel prize for literature so it's supposed to be really really good. Academically, I totally and completely agree because of the reoccurring themes of solitude and the idea of how everything has a cycle. There's also the element of the supernatural and the seemingly coincidental that Marquez works really well into the novel.

However, in terms of how engaging the text actually was, the text was pretty decent but it was honestly hard to keep track of all the Aurelianos and Arcadios. I mean it's clear that the repetition of the names had significance and perhaps I read the novel too sporadically to remember the differences between them, but I would have to say that that is what detracted from the novel for me.

The novel was also really really long (it just keeps going!) but given the title and what Marquez was trying to accomplish, I think that he kept the text engaging enough to keep the reader going. Sometimes these types of books eventually get really boring or bogged down by details but there was a constant storyline and the plot kept moving so that was good.

I think that the only reservations I have about this novel is that yes, it is a good read, but I guess it isn't completely my kind of novel, where the ideologies aren't as apparent and the plot isn't riveting (though I don't think that it needs to be for a novel to be good). I'd definitely want to read this novel again because I feel like a missed out on some important stuff but as for a recommendation to someone who doesn't really read, I wouldn't recommend this book.

Dinner with a Perfect Stranger by David Gregory

I also read the sequel to this novel, A Day with a Perfect Stranger and I think that although both are good reads, theologically, there are points that I don't agree with.

I liked how this book seems to unbiasedly portray the essence of Christianity rather than the typical books on evangelism with their hell and brimstone approaches. I can still see how non-Christians can be put off by this book because some of the answers I think aren't completely answered. It was a really good simple read. I finished the book in an hour or so I think.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera

I absolutely loved this book. I think that the way this narrative flowed and the ideas that the author so subtly and blatantly put in this novel are exactly the types of elements I look for in a novel. The circular narrative with the constant reoccurrence of various motifs, ideas, patterns of the way the characters thought just tied in so well together. The first chapter set up the entire novel and the idea of the unbearable lightness of being was so well played out in the novel. I liked how Kundera would slip in that certain situations were "unbearable" and then he spent a chapter on the idea of "being" and the idea of being "light" or "free" and what that meant for each character. He also had such interesting asides that really put into perspectives the actions of the characters. All in all I really didn't want the book to end and forced myself to put it down several times to savor the ideas and just really soak up the entire book. I could probably write an entire book analyzing all the different ideas Kundera brings up.

The only complaint that I can think of was that the book seemed to come to a sudden end. I can see why Kundera chose to end the novel where he did, especially because he already gives the "ending" earlier on but because there doesn't seem to be a solid resolution in the plot, I can see readers becoming dissatisfied with it. However, because his whole novel plays on the idealogical aspect of the various situations of the characters rather than the movement of the plot (with undertones of the war - which I thought was pretty cool), I think that the ending more or less was fitting. I actually thought that the book would end similarly to the beginning of the novel with something more idealogical rather than ending with the characters so in that sense I was a little dissatisfied, but again, I can see why he made that choice.

Also, I can see how people would complain that there wasn't a solid plot because almost all of the conflict that characters had was completely internal and there would just be all this miscommunication between characters. However, I think that that's exactly why the book was so interesting.

Overall, I would definitely recommend this book. There's just so much in this book that I definitely want to come back to it someday.

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

**WARNING** ~CONTAINS SPOILERS~

[preliminary review]

I just started this and I must say I got goosebumps. I knew where the story was going to lead up to but the way Zusak chose to narrate it just was so unique and he did such a good job leading the reader (me) to the beginning of Part 1 that I really can't wait to read the rest of the novel. The way Zusak led the colors to the Nazi flag was something that I didn't notice and thought was just brilliant. I also like the detached voice of Death that Zusak uses. Because the Holocaust has such obvious sides (the victims versus the oppressors) sometimes, I almost feel like Holocaust narratives end up taking the same tone of horror, a sense of loss and depression. I'm going to try and take it slow so as to savor it (besides I'm in the middle of like 4 other books) but I may just end up reading it all in one go.

Honestly, I'm a bit worried that this may be a typical Oh-no-the-tragedies-of-the-Holocaust-type of story. I'm not trying to discount the Holocaust and I definitely think that there are untold stories that must be told. There are many good and very necessary narratives that hopefully will carry out through history so that it is never repeated (though unfortunately there are still genocides out there in the world...). At any rate, my point is, if the writing is a piece of fiction, I feel like it's almost a cop-out to use the Holocaust because of the emotional nature of it. However, I think this novel is going to be GOOD. I hope my expectations are met.

[edit - full review]

I thought that this book was really really good. The imagery that Zusak uses are so unique yet they work so well with the novel. There were definitely some motifs that I think I missed but the idea of Death as the narrator was definitely a really unique one. I liked that he was portrayed as a 3-dimensional character and he was seen more as human. However, honestly, I don't think that it worked perfectly because there are obvious instances where there are lapses in the narrative because unless Death was there, he wouldn't be able to have made some of the statements that he did. I haven't verified this though because the way Zusak makes up for that gap is with Liesel's diary. Because the voice took on more of a third-person omniscient point of view, I'd have to say that with a close reading, there are probably going to be some lapses (but honestly, it wasn't noticeable when reading the novel..).

This book did end up being a Holocaust novel (I don't really think that you can get away from that if you're going to be talking about Nazi Germany in WWII) but at the same time, I think that it put Germans in a better light than just this evil force that went around killing everyone. I think that more than anything it was able to properly portray the horrors of war and the idea that in war, when it comes to individuals, no one really wins. The imagery was definitely pretty graphic for a younger audience but I think that this novel is labeled as a "teenager novel" which is a good age group given the things that they address. However, because the main character is younger, I can see teenagers brushing it off as a novel for younger children.

I really liked how Death would give the endings without leading up to any suspense. Even though you know that certain people are going to die, you still hope and wish that they won't. It's quite a conflicting feeling. It's like re-watching a sad romance movie where you know one of the lovers is going to die and even though you know the ending, you still watch it again to prolong the inevitable and in one way or another hope that he/she won't (but of course they still do...).

All in all, a good read though I wouldn't say it's absolutely fantastic. I feel like this novel is more about the plot than it is about any ideologies (aside from the apparent) so from an academic viewpoint I don't think there is as much to glean (which is perfectly fine). Also, the beginning was considerably stronger than the ending. I don't think that the novel ended badly and all the loose ends were tied up quite well, but I didn't get that "ah that was an excellent book" feel as I closed the book. I'm not sure if I'd pick this novel up again because it is somewhat depressing (especially the ending) but definitely something I would recommend to others.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

So I picked up this novel because of the whole idea of the Lolita complex. It seems that many people have heard of the novel but it's one of those things that people refer to but never exactly know what they are actually talking about. It's so widely acknowledged that I felt that I must read it and I'm glad I did.

However, the unfortunate downside to this novel is that I think I missed out on a good 75% of the references that were in French that I couldn't figure out from the context clues or that the narrator simply did not translate. The version of the novel that I had also did not have footnotes (I'm assuming there is a copy that does...) so every single time that Humbert made a reference to something in French, it was just one of those things where I just read it over, tried to figure out what some of the words kind of looked like and then with a sad shake of my head, had to move on. Because of this, there was probably much that I missed in the novel.

With that said, the book in and of itself was a good read. I ended up reading the preface and the author's note at the end and Nabokov is such a compelling writer - even when he's just writing an aside. I actually think his nonfiction (is that what it would be called?) writing is better because it's so much more intellectual... but I liked how the novel played out.

Sadly to say, I actually thought that Lolita was based on a true story. This is so completely untrue. It seems that the novel was incredibly pivotal at the time because no one thought to even write a novel like it and Nabokov complains in his authors note about how the seemingly more "liberal" America didn't want to publish his work. I thought it was really cool how his (in a way) justification for writing Lolita was simply for writing's sake and none other.

To get to the meat of the story, Humbert Humbert was to me a pathetic character with weak willpower. In a way, his character had a relatability that many good characters do because of his weakness to this one flaw. His obviously was socially unacceptable, but I think that what made him a pitiable character was that many people do recognize that they too have some kind of fatal weakness, whether or not they know of it, and whether or not they choose to act on it. With most people, it isn't something terrible and thus they can allow themselves to indulge in such "sinful pleasures" as is so tritely but aptly put. I think that in some ways, while I was reading the novel, I was trying to forgive him for doing what he did but in the end I wasn't able to, even if his character was so pathetic.

Overall, I think that the novel was a good read, but I would hesitate to recommend the novel because of its lewd nature. I can easily imagine a lot of people being put off by the fact that the narrator is essentially a child molester, regardless of whether or not the child was willing.

Waiting for Godot by Samual Beckett

This play would be interesting as a play but because I read it instead of watched, I really didn't like it. I feel like it was too blatant with too little action and space. The dialogue was overly simple and the repetitive action and stupidity of the characters was irritating. Basically this play was trying to make a statement against religion and the pointlessness of Christianity because sometimes seemingly obvious things become questionable because of the fact that they're waiting for God (or Godot in this case) and aren't sure of what they should be doing when it's plainly clear that such a simple act of helping someone shouldn't require so much deliberation. The two guys (I read this a couple months ago - I forget their names) represented Christians while Pozzo and Lucky represented non-Christians. This existentialist play really exemplified the pointlessness of what they were doing, but at the same time it seemed exactly that - pointless to read/watch. I suffered through it and overall I mean the idea itself was compelling but as a read, it was boring.

As a play (which is what it was meant to be), it would probably do considerably better since the actions that are read are acted out - if played by the right characters, I think the play would actually be pretty funny.

A Mercy by Toni Morrison

As with all of Toni Morrison books, I feel like if I were a high schooler trying to read this book, I would hate it unless I had a good English teacher to explain everything to me. Morrison is such a complex writer that in the initial reading of this book, I feel like there was a lot that I was missing, yet there was so much that I did get that I kept reading. In terms of whether or not this book is "better" or worse than her other books, I'd definitely have to read it again. I mean Beloved is so fantastic that I wonder if there's anything that can compare. I feel like she does such a good job of capturing the emotion and confusion of owning oneself that it's really hard to compare to the ways she was able to weave all those different themes together in Beloved.

With A Mercy, she explores more of the roles of women in society of that time period and how one's identity is forged by their interactions with others so it addresses another issue. I don't think that it was as emotionally powerful but a good academic read. This would be a book that would be fun and compelling to discuss with others. It's also one of those books that you would read again because there's so many hints at deeper things that one wouldn't be able to get until the second or third reading.

All in all, I'd have to say that of all the books I've reviewed so far, this one has the most academic value (I mean I know The Crucible is pretty widely read in high schools, but this one has more meat in it). As for how much I liked it as a novel, I'd have to say its readability isn't as highly rated because there are so many themes and motifs interweaved throughout the novel that unless you were a little more well read, I don't think you'd be able to appreciate the book as much.

Blink by Malcom Gladwell

I read this a couple weeks back and was really excited about what it was going to cover. However, I feel like the premise of what the book was supposed to be about and what the book was actually about greatly differed. I didn't like that.

I thought the book was going to be about how we can use our 2 second perceptions to make certain judgments but the books wasn't really about the uses as much as it was about the importance of it and really just spending like 250+ pages trying to prove that. The arguments themselves were really compelling and I thought that it was a good read, but it wasn't what I had expected and I think that would be where the book failed.

I thought that the proof that Gladwell present was really good because it really helped illustrate his points but in the end, I don't think his conclusion at the end of the book was really satisfying. And I kept reading the book thinking, "when is he going to explain how to use it properly?" At the end of the book, when he didn't, that's when I got frustrated. But he is definitely an engaging writing which was the redeeming quality of the book.

Overall, I would and wouldn't recommend this book simply because of the ending - it is a good read and the things that he does mention about perception are really insightful but leaves the reader wanting more.

My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult

*Warning: contains really big spoilers*

I thought that overall this book was a good read. It was engaging and the narrative style was different from a conventional narrative where there's only one point of view. I think that by doing that, Picoult really drives home the point that with certain sensitive issues (especially the one that Picoult addresses), there is no right answer, nor is there a situation where everyone can be happy. I really liked that about this novel.

Now, this is where I start talking about my issues. I started to pick up on small motifs and themes throughout the novel that didn't translate to anything and didn't extend through the entire novel. I'm not sure why and perhaps I was overreading it but like in the beginning there's this theme or motif or whatever of newborn babies and it repeats itself a couple times but then it never comes up again. I think that what irritated me about that is that it really didn't seem to have any point. However, as I write it out, I can see why Picoult only chose to leave it in the beginning. I feel like there were other motifs that didn't translate all the way through but I can't think of any right now.

I really liked how different sections started out with a quote about fire and the motif and theme of fire was carried throughout the novel. I think one of the most important quotes to relate fire to the rest of the novel was when Brian gives advice to one of his employees on women - he says something along the lines of how women (or relationships, I forget which) are like fire - it's beautiful and alluring and when its under control, is very useful. However, when it's out of control, it destroys. I probably got something wrong there... at any rate, fire was used as an escape, as a way to get attention, and as a way to bond. Even the idea of astrology and with Anna's name I thought worked really well throughout the novel.

There are other things I could talk about as well, but the biggest issue that I wanted to talk about with this novel was the ending. (By the way, I'm going to be spoiling it so if there are any readers out there, I highly recommend reading the novel first before continuing... though now that I've said that, more people will probably just continue reading...)

Anyway, I have very mixed feelings about the ending because I felt like it was really contrive but I'm not sure if it was necessarily a bad thing. I liked the ending because it was different and honestly went against what was expected. However, I really felt like it was somewhat contrived and sudden. Within the last couple of pages, Anna is suddenly killed off in some kind of car accident that is caused by the heavy rain. There isn't any emotional trauma with Kate and we only get her narrative at the end. Although Anna dying was unexpected, Kate's point of view I feel was really two-dimensional as well because we never got how she felt throughout the entire novel - I'm not sure if the narrative would've worked with Kate's point of view so I suppose Picoult didn't have a choice there. I think that the idea of Kate doing ballet was also somewhat forced. Perhaps it's because I know that you can't just become any kind of ballerina teacher without having professional experience and for Kate to have become a professional ballerina at 16 or 17 after miraculously recovering from leukemia is highly unlikely. I felt like it was a fluffy ending to ease the shock of Anna's sudden death. I guess I had a feeling Picoult didn't want to drag the book out any longer and just tried to tie up all the loose ends and explain whatever else needed to be explained. I mean I think that the overall effect worked pretty well but again, it just seemed a little forced.

On the topic of being forced, I also felt that the whole idea of Anna dying and Kate surviving was also contrived. I could be being a little too harsh but I honestly felt like Picoult chose to have the other sister survive after Anna wins the case precisely because she felt like the reader would have expect the ending to be neat where Kate dies and the rest of the family copes with it but manage to become a "real" family and Anna grows to be this beautiful, successful hockey player or something. If anything, I would have to say that the undertone of this novel is ironic cynicism. Everything that goes wrong goes wrong - perhaps to evoke a sense of pity from the reader and I feel like it was believable until Anna died.

Now reflecting back on the rest of the events of the novel, it almost lowers the credibility of the other events (how they never really got to spend a Christmas together and it was always during holidays that Kate got sick, etc. etc)

I guess my final verdict on this novel is that it's a good read - not sad and depressing like I thought it would be, but definitely not something that is really academically strong and wouldn't be classified under a "must-have-and-tell-everyone-to-read" kind of book.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

It seems that this post gets hits for people searching for the meaning of "a syphilitic polecat."

To break down the phrase, syphilitic is the adjective form of syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease. In the later stages of this disease, symptoms include difficulty moving, paralysis, numbness, blindness, and dementia (mental disorder). I think this is the stage Larsson is referring to because the earlier stages of syphilis are quite mild.

A polecat is a weasel-like animal that kind of looks like a ferret.

So putting the phrase together in the context of "Martin was dafter than a syphilitic polecat - where do I get these metaphors from?" the phrase pretty much means that Martin was crazier than a very diseased weasel-like animal.)

Now, on to the book review!

*Warning: may contain spoilers

My first reaction to this book was one of mild interest. I found the introductory section to be long but interesting enough to keep me reading. One of the ways I judge books is by how easy it is to put down and how much time I spend thinking about the book analytically, both when I'm reading it and when I've put the book down.

Overall the book is a decent read. Because I'm not really used to reading "Scandinavian crime fiction" (as is stated on the front cover), I know I missed out on a lot of the subtle cultural references that I think a lot of other Europeans (or anyone who knows anything about Scandinavia/particularly Sweden) wouldn't have missed. I think that this was probably a contributing factor my mediocre response to the novel.

I think that when talking about durability in terms of rereading this book - because it is a murder mystery (more or less), once the murderer (or murderers) is discovered, the book no longer is really all that compelling to read. At least for me. However, this book definitely has elements that makes the reader want to reread the novel. I was so intent on trying to pinpoint the murderer or the culprit that I didn't really catch any of the larger overarching themes in the book while reading it. In retrospect, I think the most apparent one is awareness of the widespread physical, sexual, and other types of abuse of women worldwide. It definitely makes a statement about how women need to give voice to their rights as well as give a warning to rapists, molesters and murderers alike. The other theme is probably one of child abuse or at least of the aftermath of a troubled childhood. This one I thought was interesting because the book goes through multiple cases of unfortunate childhoods and the different ways that the individuals involved dealt with their situations.

I really liked Salander - her character was so compelling and enigmatic that I wanted to just keep reading about her. Even after finding out about her background, I still thought that she made for a fascinating character. And, in a moment of lame nerdiness, I thought that her photographic memory was so completely cool! Though honestly, some of the pieces of the puzzle (like the way she filled in certain gaps about sadists through her interaction with the new guidance counselor guy and the fact that she even had a photographic memory) seemed somewhat contrived. However, I think that Larsson did a really good job of fitting everything in pretty seamlessly and there was really only one point where I felt there was any kind of character discrepancy in the whole novel. It was really only one line but I felt like it was so uncharacteristic that I actually stopped reading and had to read over the line again to make sure I read it correctly:

"Martin was dafter than a syphilitic polecat - where do I get these metaphors from?" I feel like Larsson really liked that phrase and put it in and then to kind of make up for that discrepancy, added "where do I get these metaphors from?" Perhaps it's some kind of joke that I'm missing. At any rate, that was probably the oddest little bit in the book, especially because Blomkvist never mentions any of those metaphors in any other dialogue. Other than that, I felt like all the characters were believable and three-dimensional and the plot flowed very well.

To point out one of the motifs that I picked up, I thought the whole idea of drinking coffee was interesting. I'm not sure it really meant anything at all except for the fact that when the characters were drinking coffee, they were usually making some kind of progress towards something (usually the Harriet case).

The last thing I wanted to mention for this novel was its readability. I honestly felt like some of the details in the novel could've been left out. This could be because I'm used to more straightforward and concise literature, but all the details about what Salander and Blomkvist ate seemed to have no bearing at all to the plot. This could be because I'm also missing some of the cultural references as well. I also felt like some of the more descriptive parts of the novel were overly detailed but again, probably due to the fact that those descriptions really meant nothing to me (describing a random city in Sweden or the reference to the main highway in Sweden have no bearing on me whatsoever).

In the end this novel succeeded in making me want to visit Sweden, which I shall hopefully do some day. As for recommending the book to others, I think I'd recommend it to most readers. It's a best-seller and it has interesting enough components to engage most readers. I think it'd be a fun book to talk about with others too because the characters are so three-dimensional.

The Crucible by Arthur Miller

*Warning: Contains spoilers*

I had read this play in high school but I never really appreciated it like I do now. I remember back then I felt really annoyed at all the characters and frustrated at all the injustices. I also didn't like the ending because even though Abigail didn't necessarily "win," John Proctor didn't live happily ever after with his wife. At least that was how I felt in high school.

Reading it now, I really like the ending and the way the whole situation played out. Not only is there a sense of realism, it really helps Miller get his point across about the whole McCarthy era and the Red Scare. I vaguely remember there being a connection to it, but because I was forced to read it for work again and given its social context, the play is very fitting for the socio-cultural message that he is trying to get across. Basically he makes the point that people in America are making a bigger deal out of something that shouldn't be based on very little evidence. Honest people are suffering because everyone is blinded by fear - both of being convicted and of "real witches" that may attack them. Miller chose such an appropriate setting - Salem in the late 1600s (or was it later?) because the fact that the people are somewhat ignorant and uninformed makes sense and conveys a sense of realism. Even the lie that Goody Proctor makes at the end of the play conveys so much.

I thought that the last scene was so powerful where John Proctor was struggling over whether he should "confess" of being a witch or whether he should just hang. The emotional effect of the dialogue and the sequence of events was so moving - both in the sense that you wanted to smack Parris in the face and have him hang instead and in the sense that there is that final reconciliation with John and Elizabeth that makes the characters so 3-dimensional.

I found the dynamics between John and Elizabeth to be really interesting because of the honesty between them, yet all the emotions that they weren't able to convey because of what they did say. I felt like even though Elizabeth was angry at John for cheating on her, she still loved him. And I felt really bad for John - even though he cheated on his wife, Miller makes him such a respectable character that it's hard to hate him.

Going back to Parris, even with him, one couldn't truly hate him. I mean honestly, he was an ass with a hidden agenda, but given his sensitivity and his repentance at the end of the play, one could almost forgive him. Also, as an antagonist, compared to Abigail's deliberate manipulation of those around her, Parris just seems to be a petty little boy trying to gain control of an institution he clearly doesn't understand. Him having been a merchant at Barbados also exonerates him in a way.

At any rate, looking again at The Crucible, I can see how multifaceted this play is - on the surface level, the play evokes the right kind of emotion and has the reader see the ridiculousness of the Salem witch trials and make that parallel to the Red Scare. On a deeper level, there are also underlying ideas about marriage, the dichotomy of good and evil, and other themes (that I can't remember) that make this play a good read even after one puts the actual book down.

I always feel like at the end of a good book (especially one that I had to read in high school), I always have raving good reviews about it. I'll have to do One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest because that one I actually did some background research on so it isn't as superficial of a review as this one. I don't know as much about the McCarthy era or the Red Scare besides how bad it was to align oneself to the Communist but even looking at it backwards based on the powerful political statement that Miller makes, it's easy to see that the paranoia of the time was just as uncalled for as the Salem witch trials.

One last note: the above writing has virtually no editing. Although I'm mainly writing for myself, I do realize that there is an online audience. However, when it comes down to it, I'd rather move onto new books than spend hours poring through what I just wrote and fix all my grammatical and ideological inconsistencies (as well as my poor writing - I'm sure there are some sentences that could use some reworking... I suppose if I ever feel like it, I'll take this note out and fix it, but I doubt that's going to happen). For any glaringly nasty mistakes, reader, I apologize in advance.