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.
Monday, November 21, 2011
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)