To be honest, I didn't completely understand this play. The way it ended was odd. I mean yes, Prospero lays down his magic, balance is restored in the world and everyone is assumed to be happy and married or whatever, but I guess what confused me was the speed at which it ended. There's only one scene in act 5 and an epilogue. I'm probably missing something historical because I didn't read any notes on it, but yeah. That confused me.
Also, I felt like since in the end, Miranda and Ferdinand get married, it was supposed to be a comedy, I didn't really get the humor. Maybe I took the play too seriously. I'm not sure.
At any rate, I guess in comparison to Othello, it wasn't as deep (or at least I didn't catch that much) and perhaps because it was a comedy, it was much lighter in tone.
I didn't like this play as much as Othello (probably because of the seeming lack of depth).
In the end, Shakespeare is Shakespeare. There were some good nuggets that I took away and in the end I suppose that's all there really is to it.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Othello by Shakespeare
Very obviously a classic, very obvious why it's a classic. Shakespeare plays on all these twists and plot devices that are still used today.
Ideas (I'd have to do a closer reading to actually call them themes) of influence, love, deception, honesty, etc. There's very obviously a lot to it.
I mean Shakespeare is Shakespeare. He's good. I appreciate his writing and I would probably read him if I was in the mood (as is the case with any other author). I don't generally like depressing books so I didn't like this one as much since it doesn't end well. His monologues are magnificently written. The way the plot plays out is believable.
I read Othello before too so I suppose this re-reading of it wasn't too bad. I do want to read some of his other stuff that I never read before.
Ideas (I'd have to do a closer reading to actually call them themes) of influence, love, deception, honesty, etc. There's very obviously a lot to it.
I mean Shakespeare is Shakespeare. He's good. I appreciate his writing and I would probably read him if I was in the mood (as is the case with any other author). I don't generally like depressing books so I didn't like this one as much since it doesn't end well. His monologues are magnificently written. The way the plot plays out is believable.
I read Othello before too so I suppose this re-reading of it wasn't too bad. I do want to read some of his other stuff that I never read before.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Birth Order Book by Kevin Leman
This book is non-fiction, which I don't read very often. However, I found this book to be pretty engaging and insightful because it explains birth order in a way that I would never have imaged. I think that his claims are pretty sound and I think that it's helped me identify certain things about myself that I would never have realized (or admitted) otherwise.
He emphasizes that birth order does affect people (more than they think) but that it isn't a defining factor in people's behavior. I liked that he was realistic about his claims and was able to support his claims with many facts (both from his life, his clinical studies as well as other past studies).
I would honestly recommend this book to everyone because there's so much that can be learned from reading this. I don't want to give too much away but it was a really good read. The style of the book is very easy to read (I finished it in a couple days and some people could probably finish it in one sitting) and it's applicable to everyone.
He emphasizes that birth order does affect people (more than they think) but that it isn't a defining factor in people's behavior. I liked that he was realistic about his claims and was able to support his claims with many facts (both from his life, his clinical studies as well as other past studies).
I would honestly recommend this book to everyone because there's so much that can be learned from reading this. I don't want to give too much away but it was a really good read. The style of the book is very easy to read (I finished it in a couple days and some people could probably finish it in one sitting) and it's applicable to everyone.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami
I must say again that Murakami is my favorite author. I like his style of writing and the way he moves the plot along and how he always adds an element of the spiritual or surreal. It's so obviously a parallel to the main character's mind but because he turns the inner turmoil/conflict into reality, it makes his novels that much more compelling to read.
I really liked Kafka on the Shore. If you simply look at the overall plot and character development, in the end, it really isn't much else than a coming-of-age novel. However, Murakami always adds in the surreal and the metaphorical and that's what really made the novel. I generally don't like really obvious metaphors and obvious conclusions (which this book had both) but it really didn't detract away from the overall quality of the novel itself. I feel like this novel had more of a sense of "completeness" than some of his other novels in the sense that the change that Kafka Tamura goes under is very clear and there's a very definitive what's-going-to-happen-next after he works out his feelings and inner conflicts. Everything works toward an end and again, it really added to the overall quality of the reading.
I'm not sure if I would put this with my "favorite" novels simply because the plot by itself isn't all that interesting. In the end it was a good read and I like how Murakami always has this interesting characters (Oshima and Nakato) that affect the main character in some way or another. Even Hoshino was interesting, even if he was somewhat of a normal character. I liked him because he was rough but had a nice-guy attitude about him.
I would recommend this book to others but again, the plot is somewhat typical so I would simply warn against that. Otherwise, a good, interesting, light read. Not sure if I would ever pick this book up again unless I was bored.
[aside]
I re-read my review of Dance, Dance, Dance and I realize that this book overturns everything I complained about. The plot is different, the main character isn't dealing with depression, there's no death (until the end of the novel) and the movement and everything about the novel is pretty different. There's still that seclusion away from society (which I'm starting to see as Murakami's way of helping the character achieve some kind of realization) but I see the logic in that. There's again, the stylistic similarity but I suppose that's what makes his work uniquely his, right? Hm. In the end, I would like to see him do something different, both plot and character-wise. I feel like he's capable of it, it's just a matter of whether he'd do it or not.
On a completely different note, I would like to eventually get good enough at Japanese to read the original. I feel like there are some things that probably aren't translating (I'm sure the translations themselves are really good, it's just that many things get lost in translation from a cultural point of view...).
I really liked Kafka on the Shore. If you simply look at the overall plot and character development, in the end, it really isn't much else than a coming-of-age novel. However, Murakami always adds in the surreal and the metaphorical and that's what really made the novel. I generally don't like really obvious metaphors and obvious conclusions (which this book had both) but it really didn't detract away from the overall quality of the novel itself. I feel like this novel had more of a sense of "completeness" than some of his other novels in the sense that the change that Kafka Tamura goes under is very clear and there's a very definitive what's-going-to-happen-next after he works out his feelings and inner conflicts. Everything works toward an end and again, it really added to the overall quality of the reading.
I'm not sure if I would put this with my "favorite" novels simply because the plot by itself isn't all that interesting. In the end it was a good read and I like how Murakami always has this interesting characters (Oshima and Nakato) that affect the main character in some way or another. Even Hoshino was interesting, even if he was somewhat of a normal character. I liked him because he was rough but had a nice-guy attitude about him.
I would recommend this book to others but again, the plot is somewhat typical so I would simply warn against that. Otherwise, a good, interesting, light read. Not sure if I would ever pick this book up again unless I was bored.
[aside]
I re-read my review of Dance, Dance, Dance and I realize that this book overturns everything I complained about. The plot is different, the main character isn't dealing with depression, there's no death (until the end of the novel) and the movement and everything about the novel is pretty different. There's still that seclusion away from society (which I'm starting to see as Murakami's way of helping the character achieve some kind of realization) but I see the logic in that. There's again, the stylistic similarity but I suppose that's what makes his work uniquely his, right? Hm. In the end, I would like to see him do something different, both plot and character-wise. I feel like he's capable of it, it's just a matter of whether he'd do it or not.
On a completely different note, I would like to eventually get good enough at Japanese to read the original. I feel like there are some things that probably aren't translating (I'm sure the translations themselves are really good, it's just that many things get lost in translation from a cultural point of view...).
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Immortality by Milan Kundera
Can't say I liked the plot of this book or some of the ideologies but it gave me a lot to think about and I ended up marking a lot of the pages with quotes that I liked.
"Solitude: a sweet absence of looks."
Out of context it just seems like a pithy phrase full of more meaning than it actually has, but I just liked that sentence.
Like The Unbearable Lightness of Being, there was a lot of meat to the story but I couldn't help but to feel that Kundera had a personal agenda in this particular novel. It's unfortunate but the more I read him, but the more I feel like he has a really pompous self-serving attitude. Granted he seems to look over his work really carefully to properly capture the nuance of what he wants to say, he seems extremely affected (and it shows in his work). Eh. That doesn't change the fact that he has a lot of good nuggets in his novel.
I don't know if this book is accessible to all readers so I don't know how much I'd recommend it to others. Overall, I'd rate this book as "meh". Would I read it again? For analytical purposes, perhaps. For fun, probably not.
"Solitude: a sweet absence of looks."
Out of context it just seems like a pithy phrase full of more meaning than it actually has, but I just liked that sentence.
Like The Unbearable Lightness of Being, there was a lot of meat to the story but I couldn't help but to feel that Kundera had a personal agenda in this particular novel. It's unfortunate but the more I read him, but the more I feel like he has a really pompous self-serving attitude. Granted he seems to look over his work really carefully to properly capture the nuance of what he wants to say, he seems extremely affected (and it shows in his work). Eh. That doesn't change the fact that he has a lot of good nuggets in his novel.
I don't know if this book is accessible to all readers so I don't know how much I'd recommend it to others. Overall, I'd rate this book as "meh". Would I read it again? For analytical purposes, perhaps. For fun, probably not.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff
This book was as really easy read for a more "philosophical" or I suppose religious? text. I mean I don't think Taoists would consider their religion a religion (much like a lot of Buddhists will say that they don't practice a religion as much as a philosophy).. In the end, I still think that if you're going to follow some kind of teaching, it's a religion, no? Obviously there was ways to get into this discussion but for the purpose of this blog, I won't.
I liked this book. I'm not Taoist but I agree with some of the philosophies (not all, just some). I mean my grandpa apparently had a saying: "Lazy eyes, busy hands" meaning that when there's a lot of work to do, instead of constantly checking to see how much you have left, just keep busy and before you know it, you will have finished your work. I like that saying. I think that's basically the Taoist principle 'cept it took an entire book to say it. And obviously the idea of going with the flow, pursuing happiness, etc. Hoff was really good about illustrating his points and I really liked the extended Pooh analogy. It worked really really well.
The only thing I didn't like about the book was that it was pretty disparaging about certain things that I relish - like learning/knowledge/cleverness. I think that perhaps in this society, there is undue importance placed on knowledge and cleverness, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad, right? I mean maybe it's because I'm aiming to be one of the "scholarly" or "learned" that Hoff so disparages but what's wrong with it if that's one's path to "happiness"? Or perhaps there's nothing wrong with it if that's what makes one happy... In the end, Taoists strive for simplicity and I really agreed with that - sometimes things are over-complicated in life and for no reason at all.
I don't know if I'd recommend this book to other people because I didn't fully agree with everything he said but he was able to illustrate his point in such a simple and concise manner and it was relatively entertainingly written that if someone were to ask about the book, I'd probably respond favorably. I mean you could tell he had bitterness towards those who disagreed with him because they were disparaging toward his philosophies and in that aspect, I think that perhaps he failed as a Taoist but again, that would be another discussion for another blog perhaps on another day. :D
I liked this book. I'm not Taoist but I agree with some of the philosophies (not all, just some). I mean my grandpa apparently had a saying: "Lazy eyes, busy hands" meaning that when there's a lot of work to do, instead of constantly checking to see how much you have left, just keep busy and before you know it, you will have finished your work. I like that saying. I think that's basically the Taoist principle 'cept it took an entire book to say it. And obviously the idea of going with the flow, pursuing happiness, etc. Hoff was really good about illustrating his points and I really liked the extended Pooh analogy. It worked really really well.
The only thing I didn't like about the book was that it was pretty disparaging about certain things that I relish - like learning/knowledge/cleverness. I think that perhaps in this society, there is undue importance placed on knowledge and cleverness, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad, right? I mean maybe it's because I'm aiming to be one of the "scholarly" or "learned" that Hoff so disparages but what's wrong with it if that's one's path to "happiness"? Or perhaps there's nothing wrong with it if that's what makes one happy... In the end, Taoists strive for simplicity and I really agreed with that - sometimes things are over-complicated in life and for no reason at all.
I don't know if I'd recommend this book to other people because I didn't fully agree with everything he said but he was able to illustrate his point in such a simple and concise manner and it was relatively entertainingly written that if someone were to ask about the book, I'd probably respond favorably. I mean you could tell he had bitterness towards those who disagreed with him because they were disparaging toward his philosophies and in that aspect, I think that perhaps he failed as a Taoist but again, that would be another discussion for another blog perhaps on another day. :D
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Dance Dance Dance by Haruki Murakami
At first, I kind of didn't like this book because of the similarity in plot and character(s) with Norwegian Wood. However, the plot took a different, more surreal twist like the Windup Bird Chronicle so I suppose I can't complain. This is the third book I read by Murakami and I still think he's my favorite author but I feel like a lot of his characters are the same. I wonder if the main characters are just alter egos of himself (or thinly disguised autobiographies of himself with the surreal just being a physical manifestation of the state of the narrator's mind). I mean I suppose its hard to have multiple personalities or whatever or to take on a different voice than what you're used to but all of these characters had pretty much the same personality. I like listening to Murakami through this voice but it makes me wonder if there's more to him than just this one voice and this one type of point of view.
This book was also pretty depressing but unlike the other two, it had a happier ending, where the narrator reached some kind of reconciliation with his mind and the world (or at least he was able to find some kind of consolation in reality).
At any rate, I still like Murakami's writing style and all that but I guess my opinion of him has gone down a little. I mean it's only expected I suppose and perhaps I was just drawn to the novelty of his writing style and the way he expressed certain ideas. I'm not sure. I do want to read the rest of his books (there seems to be some noise about Kafka on the Shore so hopefully it'll be different from the others).
*update* I read Kafka on the Shore, link here.
I mean thinking about it now, Murakami is kind of like a glorified Dan Brown. I mean obviously with a much more varied plot and more three-dimensionality than Brown but the core (the characters and to a certain extent, what happens to the characters) remains the same. Eh. Again, it's only three books and perhaps it just happened that those three books all happened to have a depressed character trying to get over the death of a friend/lover and has to live on in life and spends time traveling or isolated from society. There's always a point where the narrator's life stagnates and something (music, the surreal, a dream) that brings the character back.
It's funny though, with this book, I'm almost positive that he made a cameo (well if that's possible in books). With Yuki's dad - Hiraku Makimura just seems like a play on his name and Murakami totally portrays him as this douche guy that feeds into what he calls "advanced capitalist society." Is that how Murakami sees himself? And the fact that Yuki completely hates him. I thought it was an interesting touch.
I did like the ideas (motifs?) of shoveling cultural snow and advanced capitalist society. To put it simply, he basically says that everything in life - all the stupid rules and ways we live life right now is complete bs. I can't say I completely agree with everything the narrator had to say, but he definitely has an interesting point.
I also liked the idea of one's way of living life being a dance. Most people dance to the beat of society though some may be a little off-beat and others at different stages of the dance, but some people will choose to dance to their own beat. Others will try to take the dance and create something new and different - if it is well-received, it becomes the new dance.
Anyway, the book definitely gave me a lot to think about. I like Murakami's ideologies - I feel like there's a lot of truth to it and he has some fantastic quotes. Some of his ideas are trite and if anyone else besides Murakami tried to do the same thing, they would come off as boring and cliche. But Murakami is so skilled at putting it in a new way - he gives color to ideas that have turned gray from overuse. He makes you rethink the things you've taken for granted. That's what makes him a brilliant writer, plot and character redundancy aside.
Yeah, he's still one of my favorite authors.
This book was also pretty depressing but unlike the other two, it had a happier ending, where the narrator reached some kind of reconciliation with his mind and the world (or at least he was able to find some kind of consolation in reality).
At any rate, I still like Murakami's writing style and all that but I guess my opinion of him has gone down a little. I mean it's only expected I suppose and perhaps I was just drawn to the novelty of his writing style and the way he expressed certain ideas. I'm not sure. I do want to read the rest of his books (there seems to be some noise about Kafka on the Shore so hopefully it'll be different from the others).
*update* I read Kafka on the Shore, link here.
I mean thinking about it now, Murakami is kind of like a glorified Dan Brown. I mean obviously with a much more varied plot and more three-dimensionality than Brown but the core (the characters and to a certain extent, what happens to the characters) remains the same. Eh. Again, it's only three books and perhaps it just happened that those three books all happened to have a depressed character trying to get over the death of a friend/lover and has to live on in life and spends time traveling or isolated from society. There's always a point where the narrator's life stagnates and something (music, the surreal, a dream) that brings the character back.
It's funny though, with this book, I'm almost positive that he made a cameo (well if that's possible in books). With Yuki's dad - Hiraku Makimura just seems like a play on his name and Murakami totally portrays him as this douche guy that feeds into what he calls "advanced capitalist society." Is that how Murakami sees himself? And the fact that Yuki completely hates him. I thought it was an interesting touch.
I did like the ideas (motifs?) of shoveling cultural snow and advanced capitalist society. To put it simply, he basically says that everything in life - all the stupid rules and ways we live life right now is complete bs. I can't say I completely agree with everything the narrator had to say, but he definitely has an interesting point.
I also liked the idea of one's way of living life being a dance. Most people dance to the beat of society though some may be a little off-beat and others at different stages of the dance, but some people will choose to dance to their own beat. Others will try to take the dance and create something new and different - if it is well-received, it becomes the new dance.
Anyway, the book definitely gave me a lot to think about. I like Murakami's ideologies - I feel like there's a lot of truth to it and he has some fantastic quotes. Some of his ideas are trite and if anyone else besides Murakami tried to do the same thing, they would come off as boring and cliche. But Murakami is so skilled at putting it in a new way - he gives color to ideas that have turned gray from overuse. He makes you rethink the things you've taken for granted. That's what makes him a brilliant writer, plot and character redundancy aside.
Yeah, he's still one of my favorite authors.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami
So I realized that I hadn't updated the books I read in like 3 months though I don't actually know if I've read a lot many books in that time span anyway. Oh well.
So I read Norwegian Wood (don't think I posted that one) and liked it so I decided to read this one. Apparently its one of his more surreal novels or something like that.
I really liked it. Sometimes, if books are surreal or if they contain elements of the supernatural, it just doesn't seem to fit with the novel. Usually it's because it's random and inconsistent with the rest of the book. This one book by Stephen King that I read a looooong while back had that. It was about a woman trying to get away from her abusive husband and he's "taken care of" by this monster that looks like her. I might have been too young to catch the symbolism behind it (maybe it was an illustration of her mental and emotional struggle against him and his influence on her?) but I just remember thinking it was really random and really weird.
Murakami on the other hand, completely incorporates the sense of the surreal throughout the novel and it really contributes to the overall mood. The surreal aspect of the novel really enhanced the plot and made the character seem more real because it was so different. All the things that were happening to him were believable and I felt like what happened to Mr. Okada/Mr. Wind-Up Bird in real life was almost a mirror of what was going on in his mind.
The writing was fluid, the plot engaging and everything was steeped in meaning. I really like how Murakami played with that idea. In novels, the seemingly random is never random and all actions have meaning. However, in real life, such is never the case and it is up to the individual to glean meaning from the mundane. So it all goes in full circle. What seems mundane and meaningless in the novel isn't because it is a novel. Yet because it is a portrayal of real life, the meaningful seems meaningless to those involved. But it's not meaningless because it all works toward an end.
Anyway, he definitely made me think of a lot of things and I want to come back to this novel someday. I feel like this novel is accessible to most people though if I were to recommend a Murakami novel (of the whopping two that I read), I would recommend Norwegian Wood first because the plot's more "normal."
So I read Norwegian Wood (don't think I posted that one) and liked it so I decided to read this one. Apparently its one of his more surreal novels or something like that.
I really liked it. Sometimes, if books are surreal or if they contain elements of the supernatural, it just doesn't seem to fit with the novel. Usually it's because it's random and inconsistent with the rest of the book. This one book by Stephen King that I read a looooong while back had that. It was about a woman trying to get away from her abusive husband and he's "taken care of" by this monster that looks like her. I might have been too young to catch the symbolism behind it (maybe it was an illustration of her mental and emotional struggle against him and his influence on her?) but I just remember thinking it was really random and really weird.
Murakami on the other hand, completely incorporates the sense of the surreal throughout the novel and it really contributes to the overall mood. The surreal aspect of the novel really enhanced the plot and made the character seem more real because it was so different. All the things that were happening to him were believable and I felt like what happened to Mr. Okada/Mr. Wind-Up Bird in real life was almost a mirror of what was going on in his mind.
The writing was fluid, the plot engaging and everything was steeped in meaning. I really like how Murakami played with that idea. In novels, the seemingly random is never random and all actions have meaning. However, in real life, such is never the case and it is up to the individual to glean meaning from the mundane. So it all goes in full circle. What seems mundane and meaningless in the novel isn't because it is a novel. Yet because it is a portrayal of real life, the meaningful seems meaningless to those involved. But it's not meaningless because it all works toward an end.
Anyway, he definitely made me think of a lot of things and I want to come back to this novel someday. I feel like this novel is accessible to most people though if I were to recommend a Murakami novel (of the whopping two that I read), I would recommend Norwegian Wood first because the plot's more "normal."
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart
I really like this book. I like it because of how nerdy the characters are, the wordplay, the cheesiness of it being a children's novel, the plot and character development and.. well just about everything. This 3-book series (I think the third one was sadly the last one) is probably going to be one of my favorite books (on a complete side note, is "series" a singular noun? People say "a book series" or "a series of games" so I'm assuming it is, hence the singular usage of "this" and a singular verb. Because this is a book review blog, I feel it necessary to explain any grammatical inconsistencies if I find any. I did mention that there was going to be very little editing on my end, things that still bother me.).
Going back to the book, the plot was engaging - it kept moving and it kept you guessing. I loved the fact that there were riddles throughout the novel that the kids had to solve (that I would end up trying to solve with them). Stewart really manipulates language so that he never gives away the answer but with a close enough reading, people can get the answer (though sadly, I usually wouldn't get it). The characters were unique and it was that unique-ness that drew me to the characters. It really made them seem like real people (quirky, but real). I also liked how he developed each of the characters so that they retained their real-ness.
Overall, I would recommend this book to everyone. It's just a good read and the characters are definitely very endearing.
Going back to the book, the plot was engaging - it kept moving and it kept you guessing. I loved the fact that there were riddles throughout the novel that the kids had to solve (that I would end up trying to solve with them). Stewart really manipulates language so that he never gives away the answer but with a close enough reading, people can get the answer (though sadly, I usually wouldn't get it). The characters were unique and it was that unique-ness that drew me to the characters. It really made them seem like real people (quirky, but real). I also liked how he developed each of the characters so that they retained their real-ness.
Overall, I would recommend this book to everyone. It's just a good read and the characters are definitely very endearing.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells
I read this one last year (2010) but I had two pages of the afterword that I hadn't finished and I just finished it.
I can't say I completely liked this book. I think that H. G. Wells really captures the chaos and reactions that people would've had if something like this really happened on Earth. I liked the realism and the way the narrator spoke to the reader.
I'm not exactly sure what it was, but I think perhaps sci-fi isn't a particular genre that I like and I felt like for a classic, it should've had more meat to it than it did. The only real themes that I got were of panic, chaos and the sanctity of life. As humans became a lesser species, all of a sudden, human life isn't worth much. Yet I felt like H. G. Wells did pose the question - is human life really worth all that much? Why is it that some people are spared and others aren't? Some live purely because of luck. It really made life seem hopeless. Or perhaps just pointless.
I think that what I didn't like about the novel was that the text wasn't really engaging. It was somewhat engaging (to the point where I eventually finished it) but it wasn't to the point where I just couldn't put it down. The movement of the plot was good enough that I wanted to know what happened next. I think because the plot was set up precisely to show how chaotic and aimless everything becomes in light of such attacks but I guess because there was no direction, it was hard for me to become completely engaged in the text. You know what I think it was? I think it was the fact that even though the narrative was in the first person, there was still less "showing" and more "telling." What I mean is that instead of "A single tear trickled down her face when she found out he no longer loved her." it was "She was really sad that her boyfriend told her that he didn't love her." I guess since the narrative was more detached it was harder to really sympathize with the narrator.
At any rate, I had a mediocre response to this book that supposed to be so pivotal to science fiction as a genre. I suppose as a forerunner fiction novel, it isn't terrible.
I don't think I'd recommend this novel to other people - it is an easy read but I just didn't think it was AWESOME.
I can't say I completely liked this book. I think that H. G. Wells really captures the chaos and reactions that people would've had if something like this really happened on Earth. I liked the realism and the way the narrator spoke to the reader.
I'm not exactly sure what it was, but I think perhaps sci-fi isn't a particular genre that I like and I felt like for a classic, it should've had more meat to it than it did. The only real themes that I got were of panic, chaos and the sanctity of life. As humans became a lesser species, all of a sudden, human life isn't worth much. Yet I felt like H. G. Wells did pose the question - is human life really worth all that much? Why is it that some people are spared and others aren't? Some live purely because of luck. It really made life seem hopeless. Or perhaps just pointless.
I think that what I didn't like about the novel was that the text wasn't really engaging. It was somewhat engaging (to the point where I eventually finished it) but it wasn't to the point where I just couldn't put it down. The movement of the plot was good enough that I wanted to know what happened next. I think because the plot was set up precisely to show how chaotic and aimless everything becomes in light of such attacks but I guess because there was no direction, it was hard for me to become completely engaged in the text. You know what I think it was? I think it was the fact that even though the narrative was in the first person, there was still less "showing" and more "telling." What I mean is that instead of "A single tear trickled down her face when she found out he no longer loved her." it was "She was really sad that her boyfriend told her that he didn't love her." I guess since the narrative was more detached it was harder to really sympathize with the narrator.
At any rate, I had a mediocre response to this book that supposed to be so pivotal to science fiction as a genre. I suppose as a forerunner fiction novel, it isn't terrible.
I don't think I'd recommend this novel to other people - it is an easy read but I just didn't think it was AWESOME.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Magicians by Lev Grossman
This was one of those books that for the first time in a while, I had difficulty putting down. I was excited to see what happened next and I really liked the way the book played out.
I'm always one for happy endings that have a semblance of reality. I feel like this particular book had too much of a realistic ending in that people die, someone gets hurt and everyone has to live with the consequences of their actions. I suppose it all makes sense and all but I sort of wish things would have ended differently. I hate it when main characters die, especially ones that I like.
Originally, I didn't like the book as much because I felt like the pacing was too fast - there were entire years that were condensed into a chapter (or was it just several pages?) and things were fast-forwarding way too quickly. It felt like there was a lot Grossman wanted to do/say but he didn't want to turn his book into another Harry Potter series. Perhaps it was just me. Maybe he skipped all the 'boring' details. I wanted to relish in that world a little more.
Although time-wise things were going very fast, I felt like there was too much 'setting' up and perhaps not as much conflict? I think that the realism factor made the story so compelling, but if you think about it from purely the point of view of a plot, you can tell something is brewing for the first 2/3 of the book but you really don't know what. This wasn't the type of suspenseful buildup where you're really curious as to what's going to happen next as much as there's a desultory nature to the way even the characters don't know what they're supposed to do.
However, I thought the ending was pretty cool with how a lot of the questions were resolved with Jane Chatwin. It really brought the story together and the whole idea of "resetting" time to try to get a better "answer" so to speak still only came up with something less than a perfect ending. I think that the realism factor really played well in that sense. In life, it's true - nothing comes out exactly perfect and that's how life just is. But at the same time I thought it was depressing and I generally don't like depressing books because they depress me.
One complaint that I would have besides the pacing is the characters themselves. I mean perhaps I feel like college students aren't that immature and maybe they are but I kept thinking that even as college students, they were still in high school. The fact that when Quentin is in school, he's technically supposed to be in college didn't really process for me. I almost feel like if the setting was in a high school, it would be more fitting. I just felt like their maturity level was too low to be college students. There seemed to be this impression that most of the students didn't know what they wanted to do after they graduated and that there was this emptiness in being a magician. There was nothing to do it seemed.
In the end, the book gave me a lot to think about, which is always a good thing. There were elements in the book that I may not have liked but I feel like those points actually contributed to the novel rather than detracted from it. As for recommendations - I would recommend the novel to non-readers because it is pretty accessible and the pacing is decent enough to keep a non-reader engaged. I'm not sure if I'd ever read it again because I know the ending and I know that I'll probably get depressed after reading it. However, I feel like there may be more to the book than meets the eye so I may come back to it waaaay down the line when I'm bored or something.
I'm always one for happy endings that have a semblance of reality. I feel like this particular book had too much of a realistic ending in that people die, someone gets hurt and everyone has to live with the consequences of their actions. I suppose it all makes sense and all but I sort of wish things would have ended differently. I hate it when main characters die, especially ones that I like.
Originally, I didn't like the book as much because I felt like the pacing was too fast - there were entire years that were condensed into a chapter (or was it just several pages?) and things were fast-forwarding way too quickly. It felt like there was a lot Grossman wanted to do/say but he didn't want to turn his book into another Harry Potter series. Perhaps it was just me. Maybe he skipped all the 'boring' details. I wanted to relish in that world a little more.
Although time-wise things were going very fast, I felt like there was too much 'setting' up and perhaps not as much conflict? I think that the realism factor made the story so compelling, but if you think about it from purely the point of view of a plot, you can tell something is brewing for the first 2/3 of the book but you really don't know what. This wasn't the type of suspenseful buildup where you're really curious as to what's going to happen next as much as there's a desultory nature to the way even the characters don't know what they're supposed to do.
However, I thought the ending was pretty cool with how a lot of the questions were resolved with Jane Chatwin. It really brought the story together and the whole idea of "resetting" time to try to get a better "answer" so to speak still only came up with something less than a perfect ending. I think that the realism factor really played well in that sense. In life, it's true - nothing comes out exactly perfect and that's how life just is. But at the same time I thought it was depressing and I generally don't like depressing books because they depress me.
One complaint that I would have besides the pacing is the characters themselves. I mean perhaps I feel like college students aren't that immature and maybe they are but I kept thinking that even as college students, they were still in high school. The fact that when Quentin is in school, he's technically supposed to be in college didn't really process for me. I almost feel like if the setting was in a high school, it would be more fitting. I just felt like their maturity level was too low to be college students. There seemed to be this impression that most of the students didn't know what they wanted to do after they graduated and that there was this emptiness in being a magician. There was nothing to do it seemed.
In the end, the book gave me a lot to think about, which is always a good thing. There were elements in the book that I may not have liked but I feel like those points actually contributed to the novel rather than detracted from it. As for recommendations - I would recommend the novel to non-readers because it is pretty accessible and the pacing is decent enough to keep a non-reader engaged. I'm not sure if I'd ever read it again because I know the ending and I know that I'll probably get depressed after reading it. However, I feel like there may be more to the book than meets the eye so I may come back to it waaaay down the line when I'm bored or something.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
G by John Berger
I read this a while back but I forgot to write about it. Hopefully I'll be able to do a proper analysis given that there's probably a lot that I forgot.
I think this book won the Booker T Prize or something prestigious and I noticed (at least with the two books I read that were Nobel Prize winners) that there was a more academic aspect (in that I suppose these books are the types that you heavily analyze and more likely than not, you'll study the book in some kind of literature class). However, with this book, I wasn't sure about the academic aspect, which was interesting.
Really the only thing I remember about this novel is that despite all the big events that were going on (the first flight *almost* over the Alps, World War I (I think?)), G is completely distant from all the movements that are going on. It seems that all he cares for is women and in a way freedom. He does it in a way that makes people angry and I thought that was interesting. It made his character interesting.
As far as the writing style goes, I'm not sure if I liked it because it was a little detached so the characters, although there was a lot behind who they were, they seemed almost two-dimensional. But I could be remembering the book incorrectly. None of the characters really struck me (or at least made a lasting impression on me since I can't remember anyone except for G and his father) and the plot itself was interesting but not completely engaging.
Perhaps I need to go back and read this novel. I would hesitate to recommend this novel to anyone because eeh~ I don't remember much about it and it just didn't seem that good. It has been a while since I read it so perhaps I need to skim through it again to see if there's anything I missed.
I think this book won the Booker T Prize or something prestigious and I noticed (at least with the two books I read that were Nobel Prize winners) that there was a more academic aspect (in that I suppose these books are the types that you heavily analyze and more likely than not, you'll study the book in some kind of literature class). However, with this book, I wasn't sure about the academic aspect, which was interesting.
Really the only thing I remember about this novel is that despite all the big events that were going on (the first flight *almost* over the Alps, World War I (I think?)), G is completely distant from all the movements that are going on. It seems that all he cares for is women and in a way freedom. He does it in a way that makes people angry and I thought that was interesting. It made his character interesting.
As far as the writing style goes, I'm not sure if I liked it because it was a little detached so the characters, although there was a lot behind who they were, they seemed almost two-dimensional. But I could be remembering the book incorrectly. None of the characters really struck me (or at least made a lasting impression on me since I can't remember anyone except for G and his father) and the plot itself was interesting but not completely engaging.
Perhaps I need to go back and read this novel. I would hesitate to recommend this novel to anyone because eeh~ I don't remember much about it and it just didn't seem that good. It has been a while since I read it so perhaps I need to skim through it again to see if there's anything I missed.
Messenger by Lois Lowry
I liked how this book was an extension of The Giver. It gives an indirect afterword (or whatever it's called) into what happened to Jonas and Gabe after they left the community. There'a apparently another book called Gathering Blue that is similarly an extension of this book as well.
As for overall impressions, this is the second book in a row where a couple doesn't end up getting together! I don't know if I'm necessarily looking for romance but I just think it's sad when a budding love ends in sadness, not because of age or relationship conflicts or anything like that, but because of death. It's one of those irrevocable, there's-nothing-to-do-but-mourn kind of endings where you almost hope that the person who died will miraculously come back to life to continue the love story. At any rate, that was rather disappointing.
That aside, I felt like the book was well-written though not as compelling as The Giver (if I had to make a comparison). I did like the overall flow but perhaps because it is geared towards a younger audience and I read it right after I read The Elegance of the Hedgehog, I felt like the writing was almost too simple. I think that it was intentional but in some ways I think it took away from the book aesthetically (or artistically or whatever you want to call it). I think that this is perhaps what took away from the work as a whole because Lowry could've weaved in more themes or motifs or something but she was left with just the obvious because I felt like she was trying to dumb down her language for her audience. I don't know though because I know my gauge is kind of skewed right now.
At any rate, I found it to be an enjoyable quick read (finished it in like a day) and because it had more depth than some random action novel (Percy Jackson comes to mind), I was definitely able to relish in the writing a bit more. That aside, I would hesitate to pick this novel up again because there weren't as many ideological aspects (like the moral/point of the story if there was one was so glaringly obvious that I don't feel like there's that much more the book could offer).
I feel like there could've been more character development through actions rather than telling (something that I learned in a creative writing class :P) and the plot could've had a little more depth. I don't know I felt like perhaps the plot and characters were too linear.
I don't know if I would recommend this book because The Giver is such a better book and this one I feel just has a really lukewarm quality to it.
As for overall impressions, this is the second book in a row where a couple doesn't end up getting together! I don't know if I'm necessarily looking for romance but I just think it's sad when a budding love ends in sadness, not because of age or relationship conflicts or anything like that, but because of death. It's one of those irrevocable, there's-nothing-to-do-but-mourn kind of endings where you almost hope that the person who died will miraculously come back to life to continue the love story. At any rate, that was rather disappointing.
That aside, I felt like the book was well-written though not as compelling as The Giver (if I had to make a comparison). I did like the overall flow but perhaps because it is geared towards a younger audience and I read it right after I read The Elegance of the Hedgehog, I felt like the writing was almost too simple. I think that it was intentional but in some ways I think it took away from the book aesthetically (or artistically or whatever you want to call it). I think that this is perhaps what took away from the work as a whole because Lowry could've weaved in more themes or motifs or something but she was left with just the obvious because I felt like she was trying to dumb down her language for her audience. I don't know though because I know my gauge is kind of skewed right now.
At any rate, I found it to be an enjoyable quick read (finished it in like a day) and because it had more depth than some random action novel (Percy Jackson comes to mind), I was definitely able to relish in the writing a bit more. That aside, I would hesitate to pick this novel up again because there weren't as many ideological aspects (like the moral/point of the story if there was one was so glaringly obvious that I don't feel like there's that much more the book could offer).
I feel like there could've been more character development through actions rather than telling (something that I learned in a creative writing class :P) and the plot could've had a little more depth. I don't know I felt like perhaps the plot and characters were too linear.
I don't know if I would recommend this book because The Giver is such a better book and this one I feel just has a really lukewarm quality to it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery
I think that this is probably my favorite novel. It is pretty academic and there's a lot that I don't agree with in terms of philosophy and themes and like the ideological aspects of the characters, but I think that that's precisely why I like it. It gives me a lot to think about and it challenges what I consider to be good and right in the world. However, I do have one complaint: my goodness what the heck is up with the ending? Really.
[DISCLAIMER]
Obviously I'm going to give away the ending. Please stop reading if you don't want me to spoil the book for you.
[END DISCLAIMER]
Okay, so I'm going to have my rant about the ending and then I'm going to go ahead with what I liked about the novel. Why the heck did Barbery kill off Madame Michal/Renee? Really? Why? I mean I was seriously looking forward to her relationship with Kakuro and for her to suddenly be offed by a dry cleaning vehicle. Really? Like what the heck? Why the sudden death?
Okay to be fair, I think the flow of the novel and just the way it led up to her death, it makes sense and honestly was a pretty decent choice just in terms of supporting the themes of Beauty and the transience of life and all that but WHYYYYYYYY?? I think that I was so firmly attached to Renee that for her to have been suddenly killed off (yes, killed off by the author) like that was a huge disappointment in the novel.
I guess while I was reading the novel, I had had this hope that somehow everything would work out and the meaninglessness that Paloma and Renee thought was life would somehow change to this renewed respect for beauty and love through their relationship. BLAH. That was probably my biggest disappointment. I mean it is a pessimistic novel so I suppose there's going to be some discordance with me and the novel but still! I can't believe Barbery killed off Renee. She was way too cool to be killed in such a crude manner. My goodness.
*edit* 2013.06.23: So I recently watched the movie and Renee's death made a lot more sense. Basically, it needed to happen in order for Paloma to gain closure in that suicidal phase of her life. Renee died while she was in love, she died loving and to Paloma, was a beautiful way for dying. Paloma was planning on dying hating the world and feeling a sense of pointlessness of continue to be a part of it and she didn't want to do that after seeing Renee's death. That's why Renee had to be killed off. It makes so much more sense now.
But I still would've liked to see Renee get together with Kakuro Ozu and have a good life with him....
Okay moving on.
So I felt like there were inconsistencies in the philosophies of Paloma and Renee but I think those flaws were intentionally put there because in the end, they decide that they were wrong (to a certain extent).
The only other complaint I would have about this novel is that in the beginning of the novel, there was one point where I couldn't fully "hear" Renee and Paloma's distinct voices. Instead I heard something in between and that was the author talking.
I feel like there was more of the author and sometimes a little too much so. I mean I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, but it didn't really contribute to the novel.
So I think that this kind of novel is the kind of novel I would want to study in depth. There's just so much philosophy and just so much food for thought that I could probably read this book over and over again and just not get enough.
I like the language and tone that Barbery used - she uses "harder" language or really just bigger vocabulary words and the way she chooses to arrange the words and the way she describes even the most mundane made the mundane seem significant. And most of the time it was. I liked how she would bring back different motifs like the camellias though I sort of wish she (he?) would've brought the idea of consonance back more. I don't know. I must say though, it was extremely well written and it had all the components that I would ever want in a novel.
It had two characters that were nit-picky about grammar. That's awesome. Barbery spends several pages talking about the misuse of a comma and brings this motif back time and time again. Some might say it's pretentious, I say it's genius.
The language and syntax was hard enough to challenge me, but it as accessible enough for me to understand what was going on. Just the thought processes that each character goes through I felt really enhanced my appreciation for beauty.
I really liked the theme of Beauty and the seeking of Beauty in life. There was a weighing of whether or not life was worth Beauty and that ending conclusion that Beauty is worth living for was just so well put together. I also liked how the sources of Beauty were both classical and modern. It's kind of like that quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." where Beauty is felt individually, yet collectively many can feel the same type of Beauty.
The ideologies that Paloma and Renee go through are fascinating too. Just their thought processes make them interesting people. It made me want to learn French so I could have a conversation with the author. I think I might pick it up. We'll see.
It had Japanese culture. I understood some of the references and that just made me feel cool. :D
Overall, I would have to say I really really enjoyed this novel and is definitely one of my top novels. However, I was rather disappointed at the ending though I will acknowledge that it was fitting.
Regardless, I definitely want to read this again and properly analyze this novel.
As for recommending it to others, I'd hesitate because it is somewhat on the academic side and for friends who don't like seemingly superfluous language and friends who don't like thinking about like... random philosophical things may not like it. But, I think this is one of my favorite novels.
[DISCLAIMER]
Obviously I'm going to give away the ending. Please stop reading if you don't want me to spoil the book for you.
[END DISCLAIMER]
Okay, so I'm going to have my rant about the ending and then I'm going to go ahead with what I liked about the novel. Why the heck did Barbery kill off Madame Michal/Renee? Really? Why? I mean I was seriously looking forward to her relationship with Kakuro and for her to suddenly be offed by a dry cleaning vehicle. Really? Like what the heck? Why the sudden death?
Okay to be fair, I think the flow of the novel and just the way it led up to her death, it makes sense and honestly was a pretty decent choice just in terms of supporting the themes of Beauty and the transience of life and all that but WHYYYYYYYY?? I think that I was so firmly attached to Renee that for her to have been suddenly killed off (yes, killed off by the author) like that was a huge disappointment in the novel.
I guess while I was reading the novel, I had had this hope that somehow everything would work out and the meaninglessness that Paloma and Renee thought was life would somehow change to this renewed respect for beauty and love through their relationship. BLAH. That was probably my biggest disappointment. I mean it is a pessimistic novel so I suppose there's going to be some discordance with me and the novel but still! I can't believe Barbery killed off Renee. She was way too cool to be killed in such a crude manner. My goodness.
*edit* 2013.06.23: So I recently watched the movie and Renee's death made a lot more sense. Basically, it needed to happen in order for Paloma to gain closure in that suicidal phase of her life. Renee died while she was in love, she died loving and to Paloma, was a beautiful way for dying. Paloma was planning on dying hating the world and feeling a sense of pointlessness of continue to be a part of it and she didn't want to do that after seeing Renee's death. That's why Renee had to be killed off. It makes so much more sense now.
But I still would've liked to see Renee get together with Kakuro Ozu and have a good life with him....
Okay moving on.
So I felt like there were inconsistencies in the philosophies of Paloma and Renee but I think those flaws were intentionally put there because in the end, they decide that they were wrong (to a certain extent).
The only other complaint I would have about this novel is that in the beginning of the novel, there was one point where I couldn't fully "hear" Renee and Paloma's distinct voices. Instead I heard something in between and that was the author talking.
I feel like there was more of the author and sometimes a little too much so. I mean I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, but it didn't really contribute to the novel.
So I think that this kind of novel is the kind of novel I would want to study in depth. There's just so much philosophy and just so much food for thought that I could probably read this book over and over again and just not get enough.
I like the language and tone that Barbery used - she uses "harder" language or really just bigger vocabulary words and the way she chooses to arrange the words and the way she describes even the most mundane made the mundane seem significant. And most of the time it was. I liked how she would bring back different motifs like the camellias though I sort of wish she (he?) would've brought the idea of consonance back more. I don't know. I must say though, it was extremely well written and it had all the components that I would ever want in a novel.
It had two characters that were nit-picky about grammar. That's awesome. Barbery spends several pages talking about the misuse of a comma and brings this motif back time and time again. Some might say it's pretentious, I say it's genius.
The language and syntax was hard enough to challenge me, but it as accessible enough for me to understand what was going on. Just the thought processes that each character goes through I felt really enhanced my appreciation for beauty.
I really liked the theme of Beauty and the seeking of Beauty in life. There was a weighing of whether or not life was worth Beauty and that ending conclusion that Beauty is worth living for was just so well put together. I also liked how the sources of Beauty were both classical and modern. It's kind of like that quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." where Beauty is felt individually, yet collectively many can feel the same type of Beauty.
The ideologies that Paloma and Renee go through are fascinating too. Just their thought processes make them interesting people. It made me want to learn French so I could have a conversation with the author. I think I might pick it up. We'll see.
It had Japanese culture. I understood some of the references and that just made me feel cool. :D
Overall, I would have to say I really really enjoyed this novel and is definitely one of my top novels. However, I was rather disappointed at the ending though I will acknowledge that it was fitting.
Regardless, I definitely want to read this again and properly analyze this novel.
As for recommending it to others, I'd hesitate because it is somewhat on the academic side and for friends who don't like seemingly superfluous language and friends who don't like thinking about like... random philosophical things may not like it. But, I think this is one of my favorite novels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)