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.