Ah, the first Sherlock novel. The one that introduced us to the world's greatest detective. The one he seemingly hands over to another narrator for a Ah, the first Sherlock novel. The one that introduced us to the world's greatest detective. The one he seemingly hands over to another narrator for a third of the book…
Do you want to hear Doyle rant about Mormons for a good third of the book? If that is the case, you my dear friend are in luck! For everyone else, the mystery of this book is fairly interesting, but the long section where we break away from our leads is more of a sad story with more than a touch of the author standing up and ranting.
The most entertaining aspect about the novel for me was, as someone who has read many of the stories prior to the novel, is how the characters changed after the initial book. I always think of Watson as something of the man of action, and here he talks about being lazy and being in such poor health that he feels it unlikely that he will fully recover. Seems quite a different Watson from the one most people I think generally know.
Overall I found the book entertaining, but I think Doyle greatly improved as he went on. Particularly in terms of his short stories plotting. 3/5 stars...more
I am not a good enough reviewer to properly express why this is a five star book. I cannot do it justice with my meager words. My only hope is to possI am not a good enough reviewer to properly express why this is a five star book. I cannot do it justice with my meager words. My only hope is to possibly express just a touch of why this book works.
I've read three of Soseki's books and I've had a weird "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" reaction to them. First was Botchan which I really liked but had some major issues with the translation (this chair was too hard). Second was Kusamakura which has one of the most perfect translations I've ever read, with every chapter being beautiful, but I simply disliked the book (this chair was too soft). Then there is Kokoro which is just right in every way.
The book is deceptively simple. It follows a young man who meets an older gentleman who he refers to as Sensei the entire time. He looks up to Sensei though can't quite seem to express why. Sensei is a cynical man who holds no position. He simply stays home with his wife and reads. What happened in Sensei's past? Well that's something our narrator intends to find out.
Let me say now, during the first third of this book I kept asking myself why I was continuing on with it. The narrator is not a particularly likable fellow and Sensei honestly isn't really either. I was annoyed at these two people (and at least one of our narrator's actions actively angered me... which is unusual as I'm not the sort to get mad at fictional characters) and frankly when we started getting Sensei's past I thought it was pretty obvious where it was going... but at some point something clicked for me. It's hard to fully explain but I became engrossed not with the actual events, but the reactions of the characters. When we get inside Sensei's head and hear some of his descriptions of events I was caught up in his practically paranoid outlook and found the way he unfolded his tale to be fascinating.
There's something about this book that is practically insidious. The story itself is interesting, but not exactly groundbreaking... but it's told in a perfect manner. It got under my skin in a way that I couldn't stop thinking about it. I would be at work and a part of it would pop into my head. I would be driving and start thinking about Sensei's words. It's the sort of book that feels, while not really a perfect story, a perfectly told version of the story.
Again, I don't even know if what I'm saying makes sense, but at this point it's really the best I can do. The book is a masterpiece and one that will no doubt be staying with me for quite some time. 5/5 stars. ...more
“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.”
So begins Charles Dickens’ Hard Times. He creates a thesis for a character who believes that facts and a rationalism philosophy can conquer all, and for the next 280 pages will break down this philosophy.
It is well known that Dickens is a rather emotional writer. He wants to make people feel, so such a philosophy as the above must have been quite irritating to him. Imagine if you will that Dickens’ point in this novel is a watermelon. I know this sound peculiar, but bear with me. How to make sure that all his readers understand his point?
By doing the following:
[image]
This is the most blunt and blatant book imaginable. I’m not faulting him for that. Dickens wanted to make sure his readers got his point, and he was the most popular author amongst general readers, including many lesser educated. He wanted to make sure they got it, and by God, he would do his best to make sure they did. That said, the lack of subtlety hurt it from a modern perspective... still, he cannot really be faulted for that.
I’ve now read four Dickens books and of the four this is my least favorite. It doesn’t have the emotional impact of A Tale of Two Cities, the good humor of Oliver Twist or the perfect delivery of his moral that A Christmas Carol has. That’s not to say this is a bad book, it was quite a comfortable read with moments of the genius I’ve come to expect from him, it just didn’t quite match up to what I’ve enjoyed in the past. I’ve noticed that I tend to prefer Dickens when he’s in a more comedic mode, and while there is humor here, it is overall a much more serious book. At one point, prior to starting to read Dickens, I almost chose this to be my first one on account of it being so short compared to his other books. I'm glad I didn't as I'm not sure I would have felt the need to immediately jump to another of his works. Still, I’m glad I read it and will be continuing making my way through his works. 3/5 stars....more
"In an isolated castle deep in the Austrian forest, teenaged Laura leads a solitary life with only her father, attendant and tutor for company. Until "In an isolated castle deep in the Austrian forest, teenaged Laura leads a solitary life with only her father, attendant and tutor for company. Until one moonlit night, a horse-drawn carriage crashes into view, carrying an unexpected guest -- the beautiful Carmilla." - Description taken from the Pushkin Press edition of the novel.
[image]
Carmilla was published more than twenty years before Dracula. I feel like I should stress that as everyone tries to treat the good count as if he was the proper introduction to vampires (let's not even get into The Vampyre by John Polidori which is another conversation entirely).
If I'm to be completely honest, the fact that Dracula gets all the love over Carmilla is more than slightly frustrating, as in my opinion, Carmilla is actually a better vampire story and manages to pull it off in almost 1/4 the page count. That's not to discredit Dracula as I gave it five stars as well. Both are excellent stories, I just feel Carmilla is the more exciting of the two.
Carmilla is just such an interesting little tale. While Dracula had moments of homoerotic subtext, Carmilla is flat out blatant with it. Zero subtlety here, Carmilla is obviously trying to seduce our lead. Carmilla also uses a rather interesting tactic to get close to her victims which makes for and interesting tale… it's also rather fascinating that she's very much featured throughout the book whereas Dracula has very few pages in his own book.
This is such a delightful little book. One I can see myself revisiting again in the future. Well worth a read to all fans of classics and/or horror. 5/5 stars....more
I've mentioned in a few of my reviews that I grew up in a household that watches a lot of classic movies. TCM and AMC (back when they were commercial I've mentioned in a few of my reviews that I grew up in a household that watches a lot of classic movies. TCM and AMC (back when they were commercial free and played movies rather than TV shows)were the two channels of choice in my house and before I was 6 I'd seen more classic films than many of my friends have seen now in my thirties. One of my favorite films as a kid was The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. It's a movie that has always stuck out to me for some reason, and while I would not included it on my top 10 anymore, it's a film I still greatly enjoy. I found it funny as a child, and delighted at Rex Harrison's performance, but saw so much more in than just the humor as I grew older (while still laughing at his performance).
A couple of years ago I found a copy of the novel in a used book store and immediately picked it up. It has remained on my shelf for years, being something I knew at some point I would want to read but never having any real desire to pick it up quite yet…
Until now.
The plot: Mrs. Muir is a young widow. She longs to escape from her overbearing sister-in-law who determines how her life should be lived. One day, she decides just to escape. She visits a cozy seaside town and falls in love with a little house by the sea. A house which happens to be haunted by an old sea captain who is very bitter that a relative he doesn't even like owns the place and is renting it out and is even more annoyed that his death was considered a suicide when it was very much an accident. Rather than the traditional ghost story where the ghost tries to kick his new residents out, what we get is a rather humorous book about two individuals who while very different, very much work towards each other's goals and build a relationship (that while sometimes is antagonistic) is very much based around things working out for the best.
I rarely use the word "charming" in reviews, but I can think of no better one. This is not the best written book, it's not extraordinarily plotted or with prose to make the reader see the world in a new light… it is a simple book, but one I really didn't want to end. It's short. It's only 170 something pages, and I reached the end with some dread as I could have continued on for another couple hundred pages. It's a cozy book. I don't know what else to say.
The book is honestly a three star read for most of it. It's fun, it's funny, but not particularly deep… but it gets that extra star for having one of the most perfect endings of any book I have ever read. Honestly it is wonderful, closing just as it was meant to be. 4/5 stars....more
Welcome back to another edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion: and this is a big one, as Tim is about to state that he frankly dislikes one of the mWelcome back to another edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion: and this is a big one, as Tim is about to state that he frankly dislikes one of the most popular books ever written.
Yes, I dislike Pride and Prejudice. I’ll be honest, the only reasons it gets two stars is because of its historic influence on literature and the fact that it made me laugh on a few occasions, all from dialogue by Mr. Bennet, who while a flawed character was a joy to read. I dare say it would have been a 5 star read had it just been about him sitting in his library, tired of his relations and trying to get out of the story by mocking all of them.
I just don’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, I understand it’s influence, and I respect the people who love it, but I was bored the entire time and don’t get the love for it.
Abridged recap of the book: let’s go to a party. Let’s visit someone’s house. Oh my, now they are visiting us! What fun! Oh no, drama and gossip. Elopement… scandalous. Oh, hooray, a visit. That visit went poorly, hopefully the next will be better. Huzzah, it was!
I guess if I was trying to compliment it further, I should note that it is a rare example of a “pure” character done right. Jane is the annoying “see the good in everyone” but is actually able to see ill, she just doesn’t want to. It hurts. It’s not stupidity but a form of self preservation. This is refreshing, as usually in 19th century literature their purity just shines seemingly from stupidity.
Sorry everyone, I know this is a loved classic, but all I can say is that at least I’ve crossed it off my list of ones to read. It is at this point that I must just assume that Austen is not for me (though I at least did not despise it like I did Northanger Abbey.) 2/5 stars...more
Wait one damn second… there's no singing in this book at all! Pop culture has once again lead me astray!
Jokes aside, this is Dickens's second novel (aWait one damn second… there's no singing in this book at all! Pop culture has once again lead me astray!
Jokes aside, this is Dickens's second novel (and coincidentally the second novel I've read by him) and it shows. In many ways I had the opposite reaction of what I did to A Tale of Two Cities. I loved the characters here, both main and side, but found the plot a bit of a mess full of coincidences and things that can only be explained away with "well, God was looking out for them" which is an immediate downside for me. Clearly Dickens grows as an author between the two as A Tale of Two Cities is one of the most carefully plotted of books, filled with scenes that mirror earlier ones throughout. That complaint aside, I did enjoy the experience of this one more than the other book.
Oliver Twist is a book seemingly built on its characters and humor. The story of an orphan boy who things keep going to hell for could so easily turn into a misery porn sort of work, but here Dickens tells his tale with sympathy, yes, but with a wink and a smile. Many times I found myself laughing out loud. I found myself loving the side characters again, in particular Fagin (who is admittedly some of an offensive caricature at times, but a delightful villain filled with charm) the Artful Dodger (who is not in the book near enough), Mr. Bumble and Nancy. The book occasionally seemed to loose its way and go off on multiple chapter tangents (like when the two detectives show up to the house) but all of them were delightful vignettes.
Dickens also manages to moralize in this one without coming off as preaching. His descriptions of the work houses and young Oliver's life are terrible, but because of his humor he gets his point across without ever feeling too bleak (yet somehow still capturing the seriousness of the events). It's a fine balancing act performed throughout the novel, and one I can't help but applaud.
While I recognize this is likely not Dickens strongest work, it is an extremely fun novel and one I would highly recommend. I'm giving it the same rating as the other book of his I've read, but with the notation that I find this a far more enjoyable book. 4/5 stars...more
Hey everyone, it's my 400th review on goodreads!!!!!!
[image]
Honestly I'm a little surprised we've gotten this far as I mostly started reviewing just Hey everyone, it's my 400th review on goodreads!!!!!!
[image]
Honestly I'm a little surprised we've gotten this far as I mostly started reviewing just to make some mental notes on things I liked about recently read books… but here we are and with the 400th review. I decided to go with another classic. Let's try another cheerful Steinbeck work shall we?
It's the story of a boy and his pony! How sad can this one…
Oh…
Oh...
[image]
As I said, another cheerful Steinbeck read.
The book is really four connected short stories focusing on a young boy named Jody. In one he learns about death. In another he learns about death. In another he learns about life… and death. And guess what, there's some more education in the fourth as well.
[image]
Yes, I know I'm just making this sound like a charming book, aren't I? Seriously though, it's actually a great examination of a person coming to terms with mortality at various points in time. On one hand, it feels like it all hits this poor kid in a short amount of time, but it gets the point across.
The last Steinbeck I read (Burning Bright) was a major disappointment; this one certainly makes up for that. I do not find it as good as Of Mice and Men, but this is certainly well worth a read. I can't say it's a "fun" book, but it is a beautiful one and one I highly recommend... just, you know, don't buy it for a child thinking it will be a fun book about a boy and a pony because that would just be cruel.
Alright, I've mentioned before that I majored in English in college. If you've been following my reviews you'll notice that I've been knocking off a lAlright, I've mentioned before that I majored in English in college. If you've been following my reviews you'll notice that I've been knocking off a lot of classics that I missed out on in that time. Now here it is, my big dark secret… I've never read a proper Dickens novel. Prior to this I've only read some of his short stories and A Christmas Carol.
Well, it's been corrected! I've finally read a Dickens novel! Huzzah! Hooray! I went with the one it seems like… well, everyone has read.
Okay, so yes, I went with his most commonly read book, and yes I chose it entirely because it was his most commonly read book. I confess though, other than that it took place during the French revolution and those most famous and often quoted opening and closing lines, I knew very little about the book. Seems like the perfect introduction to Dickens proper, right?
Well, yes and no. Let me start by saying that yes, I did greatly enjoy this book. I liked it very much and was impressed at how intricately plotted it was. Scenes that I genuinely thought might have been comedic padding actually turned out important. Little details mentioned early on are used in interesting ways throughout. There are some genuinely beautiful, almost reflecting passages of the book where a scene early on is somewhat repeated with characters changed. There is a lot I loved about this book and I think my rating reflects that.
Here's the thing… my two favorite aspects of the book? The moments of humor and the interesting side characters. I'll be honest here, I didn't really care much about Charles Darnay or Lucie. They were frankly bland and uninteresting. Charles had the charisma of a board of wood and Lucie is so overly sweet that I feared diabetic issues if there were many chapters from her point of view. Dr. Manette was an interesting character because Dickens gave him more of a psychological depth to him… but really, the characters I liked reading about? The humorous messenger, grave robber and occasional bodyguard Jerry Crutcher, the man of business Jarvis Lorry, the clever and snide Sydney Carton and the sinister Madame Defarge. The side characters were all interesting, I loved seeing these quirky and interesting people come and go.
In other words, from what I gather, the thing I liked about this book the most (humor and the interesting side characters) are the aspects that show up more prominently in Dickens's other works.
So, apparently I picked wrong.
That said, this was a lovely and wonderful read. The writing was beautiful, I enjoyed my entire time with it and it will almost certainly not be my last Dickens novel… though it is a relief to finally cross him off my list of authors I'm embarrassed to say I had not read. 4/5 stars....more
“I could just remember how my father used to say that the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time.”
I've mentioned before in my re“I could just remember how my father used to say that the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time.”
I've mentioned before in my reviews that I majored in English in college, and I always found it funny how much my particular university seemed to hate classics. With the exception of The Great Gatsby and a few Victorian novels that were in one specific class focusing on the subject, I don't think we read a single novel written before the 1960s. As such I sometimes look at my list of classics that I've read and feel a bit disappointed in myself. For example, we never read anything by William Faulkner. Well, I decided to finally correct that.
I chose this book for two reasons. First because I've seen it on several lists of the greatest English language novels. The second reason is that wonderful title. Well, what did I think of it going into it mostly blind as I knew nothing of the plot?
Well, I found Faulkner's style stunning and frustrating in equal parts. The stream of conscious writing style makes some characters very difficult to understand and I found myself rereading some scenes trying to figure out exactly what happened. I usually figured it out by the next chapter as Faulkner seemed to recognize this and intend that effect in some chapters. As such, frequently the next chapter reexplain things a little more clearly from another character’s point of view.
The plot is simple enough, a family travels to a nearby town to bury their recently deceased mother/wife. Weather, injury and seemingly God himself all seem determined that they will not succeed in this… but they will keep going, "not begrudging it none." It's simple and doesn't sound that fascinating, but it is an excellent character study. Every one of those characters feels like a real person, and seeing their stream of conscious thoughts makes them feel real despite never getting detailed descriptions of them. The ending is also one of the cleverest I've ever read, making the entire thing feel like an even darker comedy than I realized at first.
This is a wonderful novel, something truly unique and close to perfection. It may have frustrated me at times, but that's not a criticism though I'm sure it is a deal breaker for some readers. I delighted in its language and trying to understand these characters. A rare 5/5 stars....more
I've just finished reading H.G. Well's "The Island of Doctor Moreau" and presently I shall begin my review.
This is one of those books that I honestly I've just finished reading H.G. Well's "The Island of Doctor Moreau" and presently I shall begin my review.
This is one of those books that I honestly figured I was guaranteed to love. I mean, let's combine early science fiction and horror (always fun), a classic author whose work I have enjoyed in the past (The Invisible Man is a gem of a read) and I remember seeing the movie from the 1930s when I was younger and I loved it. What's not to love? Sadly I can presently answer that question.
The answer: damn near everything. Wells creates a horrific situation and tells it in the most boring way imaginable. It isn't exciting, which it obviously wants to be. It isn't particularly scary. The characters are not memorable. I found myself growing increasingly bored. In fact, presently there is nothing about the book that I can honestly say I liked. It's one of those rare books where the film is better (and if you're familiar with that god awful adaptation staring Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer… I'd honestly put the book and that film on the same level).
It's interesting to me that this book was published the year before Dracula. In many ways it feels like a more modern novel, what with it's expounding on scientific theories and the more "action" oriented plot (though the action is very boring), but when I consider the two presently, Dracula succeeded in every way this book fails. It was thought provoking, scary and gripped me from start to finish. This book is only around 130 pages and it felt like a chore.
In closing: I debated on my rating. Part of me felt like I had to give it two out of five stars because of how influential it is and its classic status… but I decided against that. I've stated before that my ratings are my own and I do not let others influence them. I can appreciate the historic significance of something without liking it (for example The Great Gatsby or Northanger Abby) and I can't in good conscience give this book even an "okay" rating. I frankly hated it. Thus I shall presently give it the dreaded 1/5 stars.
Oh, did you find my use of the word "presently" throughout the review annoying? Then I highly suggest that you do not read this book. My final complaint: that damn word is used so many times in this book. On one occasion it was used three times in two pages. Even though I was reading a physical copy, I pulled up Project Gutenberg and did a search for it. It's used 49 times and I remind you it's only about 130 pages long. My only suggestion is to turn it into a drinking game, as that will at least help you forget that you're reading the book....more
[image] I love this cover. It is closer to the feel of the novel than any plot description I could possibly give.
How does one describe the plot of thi[image] I love this cover. It is closer to the feel of the novel than any plot description I could possibly give.
How does one describe the plot of this book? Yes, there is a synopsis that describes one of the plot lines, but the book is all over the place. Extremely entertaining, but with enough plot lines to fill a 800+ page book. We get a monk who falls in love with a woman who had a picture of herself made looking like the Madonna (and who had a convoluted scheme to get the painting to the monk so he could become obsessed with it), a man in love with a nun (and he had an adventure involving bandits and another convoluted relationship with the nun’s aunt) and another gentleman who falls in love with a woman whose mother married above her station and had to flee the country and who lost a son under mysterious circumstances and… this only the first 100 pages. It's ridiculous how all over the place it is.
…
And I loved it.
This is the most gothic Gothic to ever gothic. It was written fairly early into the genre's history, and yet it already feels like the author was embracing self-parody with his use of tropes… and yes, this is often clearly intentional.
This is one hell of a book. Published in 1796, The Monk is also one of the first extreme horror novels. Oh, it's fairly slow paced at the start and some extreme horror fans may find it a bit dull as they are used to getting to the gruesome bits fast… but the last 100 pages or so of this book has material I did not think I would see in a book from this era. Just off the top of my head, this is a book that contains murder, torture, rape, and descriptions of corpses in various stage of rot. It also has a poem section with a variation of the "Worms Crawl In" (also known as The Hearse Song).
It may also surprise you to find that this is a very funny book. Lewis wrote it all purposely trying to get a reaction out of people, but one of those reactions he wanted was laughter. Take a scene in which a character recounts an experience she had with a ghost. She says the week before her death, she saw the woman *GASP* eating a chicken wing on Friday (which according to the Catholic church at the time was a sin). She explains how she later saw the ghost again, and what did it say?
“Oh! That chicken’s wing! My poor soul suffers for it!”
This book is pure chaos… but chaos at it's finest. I can't say that it's a truly "great" book, but I dug the hell out of it. As ridiculous as it is, I can also say its highly influential to the horror genre, so, well, there's that too it too! Thus if you're looking for a classic that feels like a sleazy horror novel, have I got the book for you.
4/5 stars and a recommendation to all horror and classic fans who don't have to take their books too seriously.
As a quick aside, I wonder how many times the word “perfidious” is used in the novel. I think one could make a drinking game of it if they truly hated their liver…...more
"Hey Tim, old buddy… I hear you've been depressed recently. A book should cheer you up, right?" "Why yes Tim, that sounds delightful. Got any good idea"Hey Tim, old buddy… I hear you've been depressed recently. A book should cheer you up, right?" "Why yes Tim, that sounds delightful. Got any good ideas?" "How about a classic?" "Brilliant idea Tim! One I haven't read?" "Of course! How about Steinbeck?" "I don't know… I hear he's a bit depressing." "Come now, it's only 105 pages! How depressing could it be?"
…
Should I just end the review there? Nah, of course not.
[image]
Of Mice and Men is one of those books that pretty much everyone has read. I once saw an article that said it was one of the most commonly read books in High School classes in America. Somehow it is another one of those classics that I managed to never have assigned to me in both High School or College (and I majored in English). Well, I've read it now. My thoughts?
Well, it's a wonderfully well told story, frequently feeling more like a play than a novel, but I mean that as a compliment as it makes for a fast paced conversational tone. It's depressing as all hell mind you, but wonderfully told.
Did I enjoy reading it? No, no I sure as hell did not. I mean the writing is well done, Steinbeck created one of the best literary pairs ever written and managed to have the most perfect moment of foreshadowing I've ever read (in the form of a dog, so animal lovers beware!). I'm very glad I read it and genuinely liked the book. Enjoyment though? No, no and no.
Do I have anything else to add? Not really. It's a short review, because there's really not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I could address how Curley's wife is annoyingly only called Curley's wife despite being a main character, and the treatment she's given in the book… but I think this is entirely because Steinbeck is showing her only from the point of view of his characters. This is further reinforced by an article I saw in which it discussed how he wrote to Claire Luce, the actress who originated the role on stage saying the following about the character: "She is a nice, kind girl and not a floozy. No man has ever considered her as anything except a girl to try to make... As to her actual sex life — she has had none except with Curley and there has probably been no consummation there since Curley would not consider her gratification and would probably be suspicious if she had any." So I guess mission accomplished in showing how others viewed her, but also a bit of a failure if that was his real aim for the character (though I do love his jab at Curley there).
Will I read more Steinbeck in the future? Sure! I apparently like sliding down the rain slick precipice of despair, so why the hell not? 4/5 stars.
"Tell me what you told me before...about them rabbits"...more
Over the years I've somewhat fallen out of reading classics, which is a damn shame as I typically enjoy the process of reading them even if I don't enOver the years I've somewhat fallen out of reading classics, which is a damn shame as I typically enjoy the process of reading them even if I don't end up liking the book. In an effort to kick-start the process of reading them again on a more regular basis, I've decided to go with one I should have crossed off my list decades ago given my love of horror.
Dracula has been portrayed in so many different ways from all the different forms of media. He's been suave, sexy, violent, heroic, demonic… he's even been cute and cuddly.
[image] (Picture of my actual copy of the book along with one of my daughter's plushies)
So, it was an interesting experience, going back and seeing Stoker's original intent. So what was he?
I think he could best be described as an ever present entity who is only seen for around 30 pages or so. He has such little "screen time" for a title character and yet he's felt in every scene. He's a predator, something lurking in the shadows the entire time and the reader is just watching as those around him slowly piece together what he's doing.
I can only imagine that when this originally came out in 1897 that it caused a stir. While slow paced, it's frequently disturbing even by today's standards, particularly some of the scenes early on in Dracula's castle and some later when our heroes are staking out (pun intended) a graveyard. (view spoiler)[Also, yeah, Dracula's brides totally eat a baby... at least that is strongly implied. (hide spoiler)]
I confess, I'm not personally a big fan of epistolary novels. I majored in English and have read quite a few, but it's not a style that usually appeals to me. As silly as this may sound, I find I like it most in where it incorporates modern technology, such as chat logs or texts as it creates a multi-media aspect through current means of communication… as such I actually love what Stoker did. He did 1890s equivalent, as there are diary entries, telegraphs, newspaper articles and even transcriptions of phonograph recordings. In fact, one of the most fascinating aspects of the novel to me was how prominent then current technology was, with descriptions of light-bulbs, recordings, blood transfusions and rapid transit through trains all aiding our heroes. This is in many ways a book about science conquering the dark and superstitions (though as Van Helsing is quick to note, sometimes superstitions have their reasoning and should be taken into account with science). It's a rather fascinating look at the topic.
My biggest surprise while reading (other than some of the frightening content), the thing that I will no doubt take away with some awe is that the book contains a cowboy. Yes, a cowboy. He's not a joke character, he actually serves a purpose… but there's a random cowboy in the vampire hunt. I recently while looking this up on the internet (to find out if anyone was a shocked by said cowboy as me and WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL ME) found this gem and will close my review with it:
I've actually read this book before. It's an excellent classic science fiction work that no doubt inspired many writers. Initially published in 1920, I've actually read this book before. It's an excellent classic science fiction work that no doubt inspired many writers. Initially published in 1920, "We" came before both George Orwell and Alduous Huxley (and I would personally argue is better than Huxley's book). It's a lesser known work, but an extremely powerful one. I honestly don't have much more to say on the book itself.
So why am I reviewing it? Because I got a chance to read Bela Shayevich's new translation for free before its release in November. What do I think of this new translation? It's delightful. Very readable, well done, captures the emotions better than Clarence Brown's (the only other translation I have read) and is overall wonderful. The sarcasm and irony truly shine here... and yes, I find it a significant improvement to what was already an amazing read.
Should you read this book? Absolutely. This is a classic of both Russian literature and science fiction. It's a gem of a book that sadly goes unnoticed far too much. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up if you want to read an amazing early dystopian novel. 5/5 stars
My thanks to Netgalley and Ecco for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review....more
"He was not the Model Boy of the village. He knew the model boy very well though--and loathed him."
"No, his mind is not for rent To any god or govern"He was not the Model Boy of the village. He knew the model boy very well though--and loathed him."
"No, his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent He knows changes aren’t permanent – But change is"
[image]
Well, what is there to say about this one? It's one of those novels that is so prominent in pop culture that even if you have not read it you likely know scenes from it (Tom convincing others to paint a fence has been recreated and parodied how many times?). It’s a book that modern readers know going into it pretty much exactly what they're getting. As such I was very unsurprised that I liked it.
More surprising is that I actually hadn't read it already. I knew many people who were assigned this in classes and indeed I was assigned a Twain novel back in Highschool… but it was Huckleberry Finn, not this one (which was actually one of three novels I remember actually really liking of my assigned reading).
Now I must say, there is something about this one I did not expect. Many reviewers who read this later in life say that they wished they would have read it when they were a kid as they think they would have liked it more. I will be the voice against this. While the book was obviously intended for a younger audience and indeed can be read by them with possible great delight, I'm glad I read it in my thirties rather than pre-teen years. Why? Because Mark Twain is a cynical curmudgeon and I would not have appreciated that anywhere near as much in my younger days. The best parts of this book are not Tom and Huck's antics, they are the scenes where Twain just describes things in his conversational smartass way.
Some of my favorite examples:
"The congregation being fully assembled, now, the bell rang once more, to warn laggards and stragglers, and then a solemn hush fell upon the church which was only broken by the tittering and whispering of the choir in the gallery. The choir always tittered and whispered all through service. There was once a church choir that was not ill-bred, but I have forgotten where it was, now. It was a great many years ago, and I can scarcely remember anything about it, but I think it was in some foreign country."
Or take for example another great moment after Tom recovers from the measles:
"During two long weeks Tom lay a prisoner, dead to the world and its happenings. He was very ill, he was interested in nothing. When he got upon his feet at last and moved feebly downtown, a melancholy change had come over everything and every creature. There had been a “revival,” and everybody had “got religion,” not only the adults, but even the boys and girls. Tom went about, hoping against hope for the sight of one blessed sinful face, but disappointment crossed him everywhere. He found Joe Harper studying a Testament, and turned sadly away from the depressing spectacle. He sought Ben Rogers, and found him visiting the poor with a basket of tracts. He hunted up Jim Hollis, who called his attention to the precious blessing of his late measles as a warning. Every boy he encountered added another ton to his depression; and when, in desperation, he flew for refuge at last to the bosom of Huckleberry Finn and was received with a Scriptural quotation, his heart broke and he crept home and to bed realizing that he alone of all the town was lost, forever and forever."
There's such a cynical and sarcastic nature that Twain, not any of his quirky side characters of leads, is the most entertaining character of the book. Would I have appreciated this commentary as a kid? Maybe some of it, but nowhere near as much as I appreciate it now.
Overall this was a fun little classic to spend some time with. I'm glad I finally got around to reading it, and am looking forward to reading more Twain with my own cynical eyes. 4/5 stars...more
This was almost the first book I've read in over a year that I did not review. The only reason I decided to was because I was discussing it with a friThis was almost the first book I've read in over a year that I did not review. The only reason I decided to was because I was discussing it with a friend and while explaining to her my reasons for not wanting to review it, she said it was actually helpful enough to make her want to read it.
Well, hopefully others will find it helpful as well. Whether you like it or not, I hope I give you a decent expectation of what to expect.
This is a wonderfully well written book. Each page catches what it was like to be a teenager with a first love (or perhaps obsession is the right word? Debatable). It is a book with little in terms of plot, but filled entirely with emotion. I praise this because it was well done and felt real.
It was not for me.
Sure, I found it a success and feel the need to praise it, but I found reading it to not be a fun experience. It felt like I was sitting at a table, in an extended conversation with a teenager, who was going into a detailed explanation of all the drama in her life, the intricacies of school life and the subterfuge amongst its staff. Fortunately it's told extremely well with delightful word choices. That said, while this all may be very fascinating to insiders, it comes off over dramatic for those outside the situation.
But weren't we all over dramatic at the time?
Yes, this is a book that those with sweet nostalgia for their teenage years, those who long to relive those bittersweet memories of first love will likely delight in. Being the curmudgeon that I am, I find myself glad that I read it, but also slightly glad that it was short and now over.
Now, that all sounded extremely negative and that is the main reason I initially wasn't going to review it... because despite my reactions above I never felt like giving up on it. As I've noted, the prose is beautiful and it does capture a certain time and mix of emotions so perfectly that it is hard not to be caught up in it. I was not enthralled, but I was invested in seeing how this all played out.
How to rate this book? That's another challenge. I feel like I have to go with 3/5 stars, but with the notation that if you're not into prose, you maybe should subtract one star if you don't find the teenage experience (particularly their first time with an attraction) to be the most fascinating of subjects. Add one if you do. ...more
Welcome back to the newest edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion. I'll be your host today, and my, do I have a show for you.
I hate it when I don't lWelcome back to the newest edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion. I'll be your host today, and my, do I have a show for you.
I hate it when I don't like a classic. People immediately assume that you don't get it or that you need to look at it from the point of view of the readers at the time of publication. I know. I've put in my time reading classics in the past and frequently still do for fun.
Sometimes you simply just don't like a book.
Honestly, I should have loved this. I love ghost stories. I love books where you can examine the psychology of the lead. I like being able to have multiple interpretations for events. It seemed a book I was bound to love.
Yet here I am, having finished and absolutely hating it. It was dull, it was over written (and seemingly in a love/hate relationship with commas considering the extreme over use of them) and while the ambiguity was appreciated, the vagueness of the narrative was not. Half the time I felt like it was like a bad dream, using inaccurate data to come to an illogical conclusion, and rather than intriguing me, it annoyed me.
I know its well loved, but this is a case where the book is simply not for me. The psychological aspect is interesting, but the story isn't. I only finished it because it was extremely short... honestly though, I wish I had not bothered. 1/5 stars...more
So, I finished this one and I've come to a conclusion... I'm not a Miss Marple fan. Yes, yes, I know, I'm one of those basic Christie fans that she coSo, I finished this one and I've come to a conclusion... I'm not a Miss Marple fan. Yes, yes, I know, I'm one of those basic Christie fans that she couldn't stand that delights every time Poirot says something witty/arrogant, and looks at all her other characters with a "that's very nice... could you write more Poirot now?" stance. Sure, I would have been polite enough not to say that... but the thought would have occurred (that said my favorite Christie novel is Crooked House which does not feature any of her recurring characters).
No, let me get this out of the way, the book wasn't bad. It was entertaining enough and while I was pretty sure I knew who did it (I was right), I couldn't figure out how it was done. (view spoiler)[While we're on this topic, the clues were there, it felt like I must have missed a vital one somewhere because I sat there feeling like it wasn't exactly a "fair play" mystery upon the reveal. (hide spoiler)] That said, I just couldn't really get into it. It took me over a week to read (and Christie's books usually take me about two to three days) and the only character aspect I really enjoyed was the vicar and his wife's interactions.
This was just one of those books that I finished because I kind of felt like I had to and in the end it wasn't a bad read, it's not really one I can endorse... which is a bit sad. It's also the same way about A Murder Is Announced (the only other Marple book I've read, though I did not review it).
There was one really good thing about this book though. It may have had the absolute best quote I've read in one of Christie's novels. While I like her as an author, I don't particularly find her quotable, but this is certainly an exception:
“I was thinking,” I said, “that when my time comes, I should be sorry if the only plea I had to offer was that of justice. Because it might mean that only justice would be meted out to me...”
I don't know how to review this book. I cannot fairly review it as my own notion of the book is so altered by my own experiences, that I'm not[image]
I don't know how to review this book. I cannot fairly review it as my own notion of the book is so altered by my own experiences, that I'm not sure anyone reading it would see what I see. Hell, to a certain extent, I know they can't... not quite the same at least.
Instead I will try to express how this book made me feel.
This book took me way too long to read. Not because it was bad, life just kept getting in my way even when I would much rather have been reading, that said, I was happy to take my time. This book transported me back to a different place. I've been to Vietnam multiple times, it's where my wife is from and it's one of the most beautiful countries I've ever seen. I don't like traveling much personally, and the flight there is long (over 24 hours counting layovers), but I always find it worth it when we go back.
This book took me back there at a much cheaper price. Vietnam has changed a lot in the 65 years since Greene wrote this book... but in so many way it is still the same. Reading it, I was reminded of hot nights in Saigon (where the temperature was almost always 90+ degrees and the occasional bursts of rain were always a relief despite how heavy the downpours got). I was reminded of the architecture, the clothing, the traffic and smells.
The plot is interesting, and one might be surprised to know it was written before America really got into the Vietnam war (Greene's insight into how America operated is sadly only too true), and the book comes off melancholic for multiple reasons which Greene did not necessarily intend at the time. This is one of those books that was no doubt very good when published, but honestly time has made better. It becomes both a good story and a sad warning about mistakes that were made, and how one should avoid them.
The prose is beautiful and much of the dialogue quite amusing. We have a delightfully sarcastic narrator, and many of the people he meets takes a similar cynical tone. My favorite bit of dialogue is when someone questions a reporter about a news briefing in Hanoi:
"There's a rumor that the Vietminh have broken into Phat Diem, burned the Cathedral, chased out the Bishop."
"They wouldn't tell us about that in Hanoi. That's not a victory."
Do I suggest the book? Absolutely. Even without the personal experiences, this is an extremely good book. For me though... it's going on my favorites shelf. 5/5 stars....more
Loading...
