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.