Slaughterhouse-five by Kurt Vonnegut

I kept thinking of circles when I read this novel (things he brought up would be brought back in a different form). It kind of reminded me of Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe in that sense (though Vonnegut did it in a different way, with a different function).

I don't mean the non-linear storytelling, though that's part of it. I mean that he would bring up random images and they'd come back later - like the blue and ivory feet, the serenity prayer and the pornographic picture of the woman and the horse. Are those triggers for Pilgrim's PTSD? (well, I suppose not the serenity prayer, really).

I don't think I really liked this novel. It's worth a read, obviously and there's a lot to it. If I remember correctly (which sometimes I don't), Vonnegut was the one who tried to make his writing seem effortless even though he spent hours refining his work. I don't mean this in the sense that his work reads almost like a first draft (it flows well and seems to lack depth, though there's a story) - I suppose I mean it in the sense that his writing comes off as kind of simplistic.

However, there's so much and it's funny because I suppose it would read "effortlessly" but I don't think that it was something that seemed un-orchestrated (which is what Vonnegut is trying to go for). It's pretty obvious that he's up to something (I mean c'mon now, blue and ivory? That's so not a coincidence.) but he does make the reader do a lot of the connecting.

His writing has black humor, it's depressing and honestly, it's a pretty bleak outlook on life. However, he's still an interesting and easy read so I suppose I'd give my somewhat better-than-mediocre response to an interested reader.

The Return of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

This was an enjoyable read.

There isn't really much else to say about it. The stories are episodic, the information Doyle gives are only relevant to help elucidate the unraveling of the case and there are interesting moments of class-play (like status, wealth and a lower-upper class dialectic) but in the end, I felt the book was just a light, simple read.

I read some of Doyle's other works and enjoyed them. Good for other people to read. Understandable as to why it's a classic.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgeral

I can see why this is an American classic. There's considerable more depth than I gave it credit for and there are so many angles that a person can dissect it, I think I could probably read it multiple times and still derive analytical enjoyment from the book.

That said, for personal reading/for my personal tastes, the only reason I wouldn't like this book is because it seems to follow all the typical conventions of American literature (and I'm making an extreme generalization) - subversion of the authority and the pursuit of the American dreams by abandoning tradition. Yes, Fitzgerald shows that this is impossible through Gatsby's multiple failures, but it's still that same theme. I suppose it makes sense because that's what America is all about, but sometimes, I wish that there was more American literature that would deal with other themes. I'm sure there are but of all the canonical works that "define" American literature, it's always about identity (as an American or an [insert ethnic group]-American) or about the subversion of authority because authority never knows what's good for the public. Eh, perhaps I'm being critical because in comparison to other types of literature (e.g. British Literature), the themes of American literature seem limited. Eh. Another argument for another day.

Going back to Gatsby, I liked it because it was a pretty short, easy read. Fitzgerald's writing style is really accessible but its simplicity doesn't take away from its depth. That's the kind of writing that you know is artful - and which is why I understand why it's read in like every other high school.

I'd recommend this book to others but I feel like it's such a typical book that people know of and have read that if anything, it'd be fun to read in a book club to re-examine what was already learned in high school. It doesn't go on my list of favorite books but it's definitely one that I enjoyed.

South of the Border West of the Sun by Haruki Murakami

This book was interesting in that it was different from Murakami's typical surrealist writing. There was no other-world manifestation of the mind and there was no implied resolution. This book was imbued with Lacanian (if that's a word) thought. I'm taking a Literary Theory class and we just went through Lacan and I can't help feeling that this book is completely influenced by his theories.

There's this constant sense of incomplete-ness and then there's the comparison between Shimamoto and Izumi - both who influence Hajime in many ways. They seemed to represent both sides of who he was - his better half (so to speak) and his darker side. I suppose a Freudian analysis could be done, but there's this sense that in the end, there is no self -  Hajime doesn't realize or can't realize who he is - he exists but that core of the self doesn't. There can only be some kind of relational way of creating the self and there is only some kind of resolution through his wife, Yukiko.

Anyway, it's all half-baked and I'd have to read it again to really flesh out these thoughts but it was a pretty interesting read, nonetheless.

I do like Murakami's style of writing - this one was less like his typical writing and had more philosophy (or literary theory if you want to make the distinction) embedded in it and I really enjoyed that.

*warning* SPOILER I think that a lot of people wouldn't like this story because there is a sense of incompleteness (which is completely intentional on Murakami's part) but most people don't like stories like that. There seems to be this almost-resolution, but in the end, something in Hajime's self pulls him back.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I'd recommend this book to other people - simply because it doesn't meet typical readers' expectations. I enjoyed it immensely but I always like Murakami's works.