The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

I didn't like the writing style of this book at first. I'm not sure what it was but I felt like there was something off about how certain things were written. It was almost as if Collins as a writer was getting used to Katniss's way of thinking and talking. It's kind of felt like she was trying to break in a new pair of shoes or jeans.

Otherwise, I'd have to say that the plot was riveting. There were some obvious things that she foreshadowed and I was for some reason irritated by the fact whether or not Katniss would survive was played up a bit. Given it's popularity and the fact that there's a third volume of the series, there was virtually no way that Collins would kill Katniss off.

I kept doubting myself though, hoping in one way or another that Collins would be different but I mean I think I would've been just as upset if Katniss didn't make it. She was a pretty realistic character and more than that, she kind of put a lot of things into perspective (about society and its abundance). I liked the fact that the huge disparity between the rich and the poor were juxtaposed because even if we see it in our daily lives, I feel like the reality of it doesn't really hit. It made me want not want to waste my food.

Overall a really good read. I think it'd be interesting to explore this book on an academic level though I'm not really sure how much "meat" there really is beyond the obvious (poverty vs. wealth. love, humanity, etc.). I think I'd read this book again. I can't decide if it would list among my favorites but it was definitely a really good read.

On a completely different note, I somehow managed to keep the number of posts on this blog the same for the past three years without consciously trying. Interesting.

The Tempest by Shakespeare

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.

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.

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.

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...).

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.

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