David Nicholls - One Day
The hype around this book made my expectations very high. I was sick of stepping onto the train in the morning and literally seeing half the carriage readin it, and I was even more sick of hearing my friends talk about how the film version is not as good as the book and Anne Hathaway's northern accent is just terrible (really, did you expect anything different?!)
Hence, having read a fair few romantic drama comedy's in my time, I was expecting this one to be really different. I was expecting some sort of ecclectic mix of true deep intimacy found in the classics and the funnier ridiculous natural scenes you experience in chic lit. I was disappointed on both counts. I think it would have been better had I come to read this book having never heard of it before. Honestly, I have come to conclusion that the only innovative thing about this story is the way it is told. The idea is the same - university sweethearts who are entirely different people and pulled apart by circumstances, inwardly struggling to be together. Because of course at university you meet so many people who are nothing like you............... I think most people tend to become the best friends with others who are actually rather like them, having just left university. One of my best friends is pretty much my double - we are two sides of the same coin. I do have friends who are nothing like me too who I met in Manchester, but I am much closer to the ones who are like me - the ones who I don't have to constantly justify or explain myself to or argue with. I think that's where the antagonism between the characters comes from in this novel - it's not because they are lovers who are struggling against their true feelings; that's far too obvious. They are struggling against the differences in each other which they hate yet love. Their differences is what makes them interesting.
This is hardly a new concept - the freshness comes only from the composition of the novel, which gives are flash points on the same day every year throughout a 20 year period. Indeed, this is one part of the book which I would praise; at no point did I think "god there's just been a massive leap in time and I don't understand what's gone on in between". Nor did I ever think "what a pointless descriptive paragraph just to keep the reader up to speed with the facts that the author has purposely ommitted". The jumps in time were seamless, and the catch up paragraphs were so well integrated into the overall text and story that at no point did the plot stutter in fluidity.
I had a problem connecting with the characters also. I hated Dexter. I'm not sure if we're supposed to hate him, but I really did. I found him arrogant and obnoxious and completely self centred. His personality was just abhorrent. In the beginning, I honestly thought Emma was an absolute IDIOT for maintaining her friendship with him, and honestly the only reason she did because he was so "handsome". I liked Emma more, I found her a much more believable character, although I thought she was lazy. I've worked in a restaurant which, from the sounds of it, is just like the one she wasted several of her best years in, when she could actually have been accomplishing something in. She got stuck in a rut and I think the author could have done much more with her life than just define her by her relationships and her job. Emma was far less motivated and strong than she considered herself to be.
If you don't want the end of the book spoiled for you, don't read on.
The ending was by far the worst part. Emma's death was just such a lame way to end it. It excused the author from having to really think about what Emma and Dexter's life would have been like together, how their contrasting and conflicting personalities actually would have conjoined into one marital unit. This would perhaps have been a much more interesting endeavour, rather than analysing how Dexter coped on his own without Emma as his crutch. I also like to think that some people want a book to have a happy ending - because despite all the divorce and heartbreak and adultery there undoubtedly is in the world, there ARE happy people out there too. It seems that people would rather have an unfulfilling and predictable ending than a happy one; there must be a lot of depressed people on my train in the morning!
Overall, disappointing. Makes a good holiday read but nothing more than that.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Allison Pearson - I Don't Know How She Does It
Allison Pearson - I Don't Know How She Does It
I saw an advert for the new film starring Sarah Jessica Parker when I went to see Something Borrowed, and decided to investigate this story a bit further, especially considering the hype and feminist debate the release of the film created. I resolved not to see the film because it irritated me that yet again an original story set in London had been relocated to America! I love Boston - I lived there for four months of my life - but it's not London. I felt the same annoyance when Confessions of a Shopaholic was transferred to New York, when the whole point of the second book is that she (an English girl) falls in love with an American and they MOVE to New York. Destroyed the ability to make a sequel anyway. So, I decided to buy the book, in fact I actually bought it on impulse when I had a couple of hours to kill in a Starbucks in London before my shift started at work.
I perhaps expected great things. I think it's probably highly likely that my future position will be rather similar to Kate Reddy's, because I too want both a family and a high power career - although I'm hoping my future husband would also have a well paid job so I won't shoulder the financial burden like Reddy does in this novel. I was looking for inspiration, some sort of indication that it is possible to do both and be good at both.
Perhaps it is better to start purely from the story, which I enjoyed. I thought it was engaging, if a little predictable - an almost-affair with an exciting foreigner, a high pressure middle class environment - and I suppose I quite liked how this book gave a glimpse into both the work life and home life of the character. Also, really interesting was how different the male characters were in each scenario, and in fact the most endearing male in the whole book is Reddy's boss. Indeed, the most moving part of the book (I think), concerns this character and his home life. But Reddy's relationship with her children also really touched me. There were moments where I could actually relate to the children too - I was once a little girl who wanted to rewind Sleeping Beauty so I could stop Aurora frm pricking her finger on the spinning wheel and falling to the evil evil Malificent (still must be THE MOST evil Disney villain ever, enough to strike fear into every little girl). The characters were dynamic; the only development criticism I would have is that Pearson could have made so much more of Reddy's wider familial relationships. I particularly would have liked to see more of her husband's condescending sister, although the author perhaps decided to make more of the non-working power mothers in order to fill this role, and indeed it was done rather well. In fact, I really hated the power mothers. And I hated the way, from a young person's point of view, that Emily's future was being pressured and planned already, when she was only 5! Poor child. The pressures of the modern education system and getting in to a good secondary school (something myself and my parents can still easily recall) were portrayed very well. It was the underwriting nuances in this book which made it a good read, in terms of the story. I particularly liked Momo, the younger woman in the book who Reddy originally passes off but eventually (if reluctantly initially) takes under her wing. I think I probably share this character's naivety and opinions far more than Reddy's.
So, where was my disappointment? I've got to say... it was the ending. In fact, it wasn't even the ending, it was the fact that throughout the book the work-family dichotomy was presented as a choice. Perhaps I'm being naive, or perhaps I am so focused on the career side of that equation that the family part doesn't occur to me too much, but it annoyed me that Reddy was always under pressure from someone to make a choice. Why should it be a choice? Does it have to be a choice?! I didn't find Reddy's eventual choice very uplifting; one extreme lifestyle was swapped for another, and perhaps that's how this book should be read - as a battle of the extremes. Is Reddy's conscience and guilt one that I will encounter in the future? Does doing a job that you relish; enjoy; get an absolute adrenalin rush from, just become a guilty burdenous load the moment your life becomes not just for yourself but for your children too?
At the time, I read an interesting article in the Guardian which I would refer anyone who has an interest in the subject to, click here. This article raises some of the issues I wish Pearson had dealt with, or I wish she had dealt with in a little more detail. I very often felt that Pearson was on the brink of conveying something really significant and revolutionary but then backed away, or tempered it by having Reddy feel sorry for her husband, or burden her with a dollop of motherly guilt. And I kept asking myself, why isn't there any fatherly guilt? Has anyone even raised this concept? Do father's feel guilty for the fact that a) there are children out there who only see their fathers in the early/late hours of the day and at weekends and b) that their wives are at home perhaps not following their own dreams or career aspirations or desires? Indeed, I think another pitfall of the novel is that you never really know enough about Reddy's husband. Maybe that's the point - to show that she doesn't really know him anymore. I'm sure there are many women who are wholly satisfied with remaining at home with their children; and I don't condemn that at all. I think it's brilliant. But there are women out there who are not satisfied. How do their husbands feel? Are they satisfied? Do they know whether their children like brocolli or not? Or are we still stuck in the traditional interpretation that the male in the family is the breadwinner and the female's role is in the home, and if that is the make up in the family then all is well, but if the opposite occurs then the family is odd, an anomaly?! Parenthood should be a 50/50 endeavour, but judging by this book, it's not, because there is never any indication of how the working father figure deals with this. Indeed, the only time this issue is tackled even slightly in the novel is when Reddy's boss is literally forced to consider it.
Honestly, I think my reading of this book was tainted by the fact that it didn't give me the answers or the interpretation I wanted from it. But perhaps that is something I will have to learn in my future.
I saw an advert for the new film starring Sarah Jessica Parker when I went to see Something Borrowed, and decided to investigate this story a bit further, especially considering the hype and feminist debate the release of the film created. I resolved not to see the film because it irritated me that yet again an original story set in London had been relocated to America! I love Boston - I lived there for four months of my life - but it's not London. I felt the same annoyance when Confessions of a Shopaholic was transferred to New York, when the whole point of the second book is that she (an English girl) falls in love with an American and they MOVE to New York. Destroyed the ability to make a sequel anyway. So, I decided to buy the book, in fact I actually bought it on impulse when I had a couple of hours to kill in a Starbucks in London before my shift started at work.
I perhaps expected great things. I think it's probably highly likely that my future position will be rather similar to Kate Reddy's, because I too want both a family and a high power career - although I'm hoping my future husband would also have a well paid job so I won't shoulder the financial burden like Reddy does in this novel. I was looking for inspiration, some sort of indication that it is possible to do both and be good at both.
Perhaps it is better to start purely from the story, which I enjoyed. I thought it was engaging, if a little predictable - an almost-affair with an exciting foreigner, a high pressure middle class environment - and I suppose I quite liked how this book gave a glimpse into both the work life and home life of the character. Also, really interesting was how different the male characters were in each scenario, and in fact the most endearing male in the whole book is Reddy's boss. Indeed, the most moving part of the book (I think), concerns this character and his home life. But Reddy's relationship with her children also really touched me. There were moments where I could actually relate to the children too - I was once a little girl who wanted to rewind Sleeping Beauty so I could stop Aurora frm pricking her finger on the spinning wheel and falling to the evil evil Malificent (still must be THE MOST evil Disney villain ever, enough to strike fear into every little girl). The characters were dynamic; the only development criticism I would have is that Pearson could have made so much more of Reddy's wider familial relationships. I particularly would have liked to see more of her husband's condescending sister, although the author perhaps decided to make more of the non-working power mothers in order to fill this role, and indeed it was done rather well. In fact, I really hated the power mothers. And I hated the way, from a young person's point of view, that Emily's future was being pressured and planned already, when she was only 5! Poor child. The pressures of the modern education system and getting in to a good secondary school (something myself and my parents can still easily recall) were portrayed very well. It was the underwriting nuances in this book which made it a good read, in terms of the story. I particularly liked Momo, the younger woman in the book who Reddy originally passes off but eventually (if reluctantly initially) takes under her wing. I think I probably share this character's naivety and opinions far more than Reddy's.
So, where was my disappointment? I've got to say... it was the ending. In fact, it wasn't even the ending, it was the fact that throughout the book the work-family dichotomy was presented as a choice. Perhaps I'm being naive, or perhaps I am so focused on the career side of that equation that the family part doesn't occur to me too much, but it annoyed me that Reddy was always under pressure from someone to make a choice. Why should it be a choice? Does it have to be a choice?! I didn't find Reddy's eventual choice very uplifting; one extreme lifestyle was swapped for another, and perhaps that's how this book should be read - as a battle of the extremes. Is Reddy's conscience and guilt one that I will encounter in the future? Does doing a job that you relish; enjoy; get an absolute adrenalin rush from, just become a guilty burdenous load the moment your life becomes not just for yourself but for your children too?
At the time, I read an interesting article in the Guardian which I would refer anyone who has an interest in the subject to, click here. This article raises some of the issues I wish Pearson had dealt with, or I wish she had dealt with in a little more detail. I very often felt that Pearson was on the brink of conveying something really significant and revolutionary but then backed away, or tempered it by having Reddy feel sorry for her husband, or burden her with a dollop of motherly guilt. And I kept asking myself, why isn't there any fatherly guilt? Has anyone even raised this concept? Do father's feel guilty for the fact that a) there are children out there who only see their fathers in the early/late hours of the day and at weekends and b) that their wives are at home perhaps not following their own dreams or career aspirations or desires? Indeed, I think another pitfall of the novel is that you never really know enough about Reddy's husband. Maybe that's the point - to show that she doesn't really know him anymore. I'm sure there are many women who are wholly satisfied with remaining at home with their children; and I don't condemn that at all. I think it's brilliant. But there are women out there who are not satisfied. How do their husbands feel? Are they satisfied? Do they know whether their children like brocolli or not? Or are we still stuck in the traditional interpretation that the male in the family is the breadwinner and the female's role is in the home, and if that is the make up in the family then all is well, but if the opposite occurs then the family is odd, an anomaly?! Parenthood should be a 50/50 endeavour, but judging by this book, it's not, because there is never any indication of how the working father figure deals with this. Indeed, the only time this issue is tackled even slightly in the novel is when Reddy's boss is literally forced to consider it.
Honestly, I think my reading of this book was tainted by the fact that it didn't give me the answers or the interpretation I wanted from it. But perhaps that is something I will have to learn in my future.
Bret Easton Ellis - Less Than Zero/Imperial Bedrooms
Bret Easton Ellis - Less Than Zero/Imperial Bedrooms
One of my favourite books I have ever read (and the screen adaption too, Christian Bale is simply stunning and it's a brilliant picture) is American Psycho. I've never been so gripped by a book. I've read it three times, and in my own copy I have notes in the margin... inner geek!
So, when I heard Easton Ellis had a new book coming out in Spring 2011, I knew I had to get it. I saw Imperial Bedrooms advertised on the side of a black cab near Liverpool Street station in London, and I eagerly looked it up! I then realised that this new book was in fact a sequel of one of his books which I had not yet read, named Less Than Zero. And since it obviously makes logical sense to read the original before the sequel, this is what I did.
Less Than Zero is Easton Ellis' first novel, so I was keen to read it and uncover where the literary genius of this man began. Both of these books are relatively short, and because of my admiration for the author and zeal to read them, I devoured them both. If you're not reading Easton Ellis impulsively, then as far as I'm concerned you're not reading them properly! I had finished them within 2 days of starting.
Less Than Zero is a brilliant piece of work for a debut novel, and was rightly recognised so at the time of it's publication. Undoubtedly his technique and style have improved over time, and perhaps because I came to this novel from reading his most accomplished work I was bound to find the style slightly more primitive, simply because I knew full well what he is capable of. One thing I really love about Easton Ellis is the continuity of his characters. Rules of Attraction and American Psycho revolve around the same family but are entirely different in content and style, and I was delighted to discover that some of the characters in Less Than Zero reappear in American Psycho. Admittedly, there could have been a little more development; I felt the book was very dialogue and psychologically focused, by which I mean when the characters weren't speaking it felt like you were stuck in their heads. I've never been to LA and I wasn't alive in the 1980s, so this perhaps hindered my appreciation of the scene.
There wasn't much plot either, but I think that is the point. Everyone thinks that rich teenagers in America, especially in California (and now New York thanks to Gossip Girl!) have the life. Everyone wants to be like them, dress like them, and thinks their lives are endlessly dramatic and therefore completely consuming and interesting to the outside eye. But, as depicted in Less Than Zero, it is all actually pretty monotonous. Countless parties, drugs, sex, and controversy do surround these people, but never at any point when I was reading Less Than Zero did I think "god I wish I knew people who had parties like this" or "I wish I was there". I think things that may well have shocked the original audience when it was first published fell a little short for me because I know Easton Ellis gets very much more controversial and outrageous in his later publications. But I still really enjoyed the read, and can see why it was so ground breaking and well reviewed when it came out.
I immediately moved on to read Imperial Bedrooms. This is set several years in the future, and you are kind of shocked to see who has ended up with who, what they are all doing, and in the end you realise that not only are they all exactly the same (haven't changed one teensy little bit!) but also that it's still a boring life that they lead. What maintains main character Clay's intensity and interest is the fact that he has left LA, and been somewhere else, and what he comes back to is a bit of a disaster zone. Having said all this, I feel like I can't really give a good review of this book yet, because as much as I enjoyed it I read it extremely quickly, and I feel I would definitely benefit from a second reading.
The plot in this later installment is significantly more enthralling, perhaps showing how teenage dramatics mature with age and become actually dangerous situations with real concequences. A metaphor for what happens when you do grow up and become responsible for your actions. Easton Ellis' accomplished writing style also makes it an easier read than the prequel, and there are a great number of fantastic lyrical flourishes. It is a very comfortable read, even though the subject matter in question is extremely uncomfortable. The ending puzzled me slightly also, which is why I shall definitely be returning to this book. I really enjoyed it though, and I would recommend reading them in conjunction with one another if you haven't read Less Than Zero already.
I think American Psycho will always remain Easton Ellis' masterpiece.
One of my favourite books I have ever read (and the screen adaption too, Christian Bale is simply stunning and it's a brilliant picture) is American Psycho. I've never been so gripped by a book. I've read it three times, and in my own copy I have notes in the margin... inner geek!
So, when I heard Easton Ellis had a new book coming out in Spring 2011, I knew I had to get it. I saw Imperial Bedrooms advertised on the side of a black cab near Liverpool Street station in London, and I eagerly looked it up! I then realised that this new book was in fact a sequel of one of his books which I had not yet read, named Less Than Zero. And since it obviously makes logical sense to read the original before the sequel, this is what I did.
Less Than Zero is Easton Ellis' first novel, so I was keen to read it and uncover where the literary genius of this man began. Both of these books are relatively short, and because of my admiration for the author and zeal to read them, I devoured them both. If you're not reading Easton Ellis impulsively, then as far as I'm concerned you're not reading them properly! I had finished them within 2 days of starting.
Less Than Zero is a brilliant piece of work for a debut novel, and was rightly recognised so at the time of it's publication. Undoubtedly his technique and style have improved over time, and perhaps because I came to this novel from reading his most accomplished work I was bound to find the style slightly more primitive, simply because I knew full well what he is capable of. One thing I really love about Easton Ellis is the continuity of his characters. Rules of Attraction and American Psycho revolve around the same family but are entirely different in content and style, and I was delighted to discover that some of the characters in Less Than Zero reappear in American Psycho. Admittedly, there could have been a little more development; I felt the book was very dialogue and psychologically focused, by which I mean when the characters weren't speaking it felt like you were stuck in their heads. I've never been to LA and I wasn't alive in the 1980s, so this perhaps hindered my appreciation of the scene.
There wasn't much plot either, but I think that is the point. Everyone thinks that rich teenagers in America, especially in California (and now New York thanks to Gossip Girl!) have the life. Everyone wants to be like them, dress like them, and thinks their lives are endlessly dramatic and therefore completely consuming and interesting to the outside eye. But, as depicted in Less Than Zero, it is all actually pretty monotonous. Countless parties, drugs, sex, and controversy do surround these people, but never at any point when I was reading Less Than Zero did I think "god I wish I knew people who had parties like this" or "I wish I was there". I think things that may well have shocked the original audience when it was first published fell a little short for me because I know Easton Ellis gets very much more controversial and outrageous in his later publications. But I still really enjoyed the read, and can see why it was so ground breaking and well reviewed when it came out.
I immediately moved on to read Imperial Bedrooms. This is set several years in the future, and you are kind of shocked to see who has ended up with who, what they are all doing, and in the end you realise that not only are they all exactly the same (haven't changed one teensy little bit!) but also that it's still a boring life that they lead. What maintains main character Clay's intensity and interest is the fact that he has left LA, and been somewhere else, and what he comes back to is a bit of a disaster zone. Having said all this, I feel like I can't really give a good review of this book yet, because as much as I enjoyed it I read it extremely quickly, and I feel I would definitely benefit from a second reading.
The plot in this later installment is significantly more enthralling, perhaps showing how teenage dramatics mature with age and become actually dangerous situations with real concequences. A metaphor for what happens when you do grow up and become responsible for your actions. Easton Ellis' accomplished writing style also makes it an easier read than the prequel, and there are a great number of fantastic lyrical flourishes. It is a very comfortable read, even though the subject matter in question is extremely uncomfortable. The ending puzzled me slightly also, which is why I shall definitely be returning to this book. I really enjoyed it though, and I would recommend reading them in conjunction with one another if you haven't read Less Than Zero already.
I think American Psycho will always remain Easton Ellis' masterpiece.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead
Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead
I started this book in December 2010. I finally finished it in August 2011. It was an absolute MISSION, and by the end of it I was just reading it so I could say I did - I finished this book. It certainly felt like an accomplishment by the end. I feel strangely satisfied.
It was a horrible book. I think anyone who doesn't quite agree with the philosophy Rand espouses will find this a hard read. Honestly, that all washed over me, and in a way I wish I had done some research on her views before I began the read. According to Wikipedia,
"Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally".
See the full article here.
Now, having read that, I not only agree with some parts, but I can also see exactly where it comes out in the book. But I'm not sure that means I would have enjoyed it any more. There were moments of sheer brilliance; passages about things like worrying or living in New York City or something, which I absolutely loved. The trouble was that these were flanked by endless amounts of texts which was complex for complexity's sake. Honestly, I didn't understand a lot of it, and I think this inhibited my enjoyment. The book is split into sections, one for each main character I suppose, and I liked the first section, Peter Keating. I found this character accessible - in fact, I totally empathised with his quest to gain employment with a corporate giant because that's exactly what I've done in my life (although, I'd like to think I maintain a bit of Roark's individualism as well!).
Unfortunately, the main downfall of the book for me was Ellsworth Toohey. I have never disliked, maybe even HATED, a character in a novel as much as I did this man. Vast amounts of the book are given over to very very long philosophical musings from Toohey. I'm not sure whether we're meant to like Toohey, or if the reader is supposed to find him self-indulgent, arrogant, and so intellectually advanced that one would have to have a phd to even attempt to understand every passage of his in the book. It's kind of funny that the only character I really liked within the whole book was Keating, who is supposed to be an absolute whelp! Dominique Francon was perhaps the most frustrating character. She seemed to be a strong female at the beginning, I was quite intimidated by her and so were the men in the book. But she was quickly defined by the men in her life - Keating, Roark and Wynand - and in the end she did everything for Roark... she has no individual feminine motive, it's all based around a man. I don't even want to try to describe or understand Roark... he didn't confine himself to the status quo, he was individualistic, he wanted to change the mould. Commendable, yes. But I still didn't like it.
I have achieved something in finishing this. But I won't be recommending it to anyone. I might even warn people off it if asked.
I started this book in December 2010. I finally finished it in August 2011. It was an absolute MISSION, and by the end of it I was just reading it so I could say I did - I finished this book. It certainly felt like an accomplishment by the end. I feel strangely satisfied.
It was a horrible book. I think anyone who doesn't quite agree with the philosophy Rand espouses will find this a hard read. Honestly, that all washed over me, and in a way I wish I had done some research on her views before I began the read. According to Wikipedia,
"Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally".
See the full article here.
Now, having read that, I not only agree with some parts, but I can also see exactly where it comes out in the book. But I'm not sure that means I would have enjoyed it any more. There were moments of sheer brilliance; passages about things like worrying or living in New York City or something, which I absolutely loved. The trouble was that these were flanked by endless amounts of texts which was complex for complexity's sake. Honestly, I didn't understand a lot of it, and I think this inhibited my enjoyment. The book is split into sections, one for each main character I suppose, and I liked the first section, Peter Keating. I found this character accessible - in fact, I totally empathised with his quest to gain employment with a corporate giant because that's exactly what I've done in my life (although, I'd like to think I maintain a bit of Roark's individualism as well!).
Unfortunately, the main downfall of the book for me was Ellsworth Toohey. I have never disliked, maybe even HATED, a character in a novel as much as I did this man. Vast amounts of the book are given over to very very long philosophical musings from Toohey. I'm not sure whether we're meant to like Toohey, or if the reader is supposed to find him self-indulgent, arrogant, and so intellectually advanced that one would have to have a phd to even attempt to understand every passage of his in the book. It's kind of funny that the only character I really liked within the whole book was Keating, who is supposed to be an absolute whelp! Dominique Francon was perhaps the most frustrating character. She seemed to be a strong female at the beginning, I was quite intimidated by her and so were the men in the book. But she was quickly defined by the men in her life - Keating, Roark and Wynand - and in the end she did everything for Roark... she has no individual feminine motive, it's all based around a man. I don't even want to try to describe or understand Roark... he didn't confine himself to the status quo, he was individualistic, he wanted to change the mould. Commendable, yes. But I still didn't like it.
I have achieved something in finishing this. But I won't be recommending it to anyone. I might even warn people off it if asked.
John Fowles - The Collector
John Fowles - The Collector
I bought this book because the characters drew from The Tempest. The Tempest is my favourite Shakespeare play (of the ones I have seen and read anyway). I did it for English Literature A Level and I just loved the characters and how each character spoke differently - particularly Ariel and Prospero. I've never seen a performance of it though, I keep wishing the Globe will but I don't think they are going to next year. I'll have to make a special effort to see one next season - this summer Ray Fiennes was in a production at the Haymarket but I didn't get on the ticket case quick enough. Luckily though, my friend bought be a 1942 edition Complete Works for my birthday last year and The Tempest is the first play in it!
Anyway, this book is rather different, and I guess the similarities are in the scenario and the character's names. Miranda is the female hostage, and she sees her kidnapper as Caliban, whereas he sees himself as Ferdinand - he even tells her to call him Ferdinand even though that's not his name. These intricacies will be appreciated by the informed reader, but the book itself has a danger of alienating anyone who doesn't know The Tempest well.
The book is divided up by both the characters and writing styles - Ferdinand's pieces are rather dull, and simple, and very to the point. Utilitarian. The feelings are there but they are not embellished. It's all quite one dimensional, so sometimes it can feel a bit slow. However, despite conveying Ferdinand in this style Fowles does very well to make sure the reader still gets to know Ferdinand quite well. He's not alienated from the reader - his thoughts are accessible. In fact, in a stange way his actions are accessible, even though they are in absolutely no way approvable! He is innocent like Caliban, but besotted like Ferdinand. I guess the character doesn't know real love - he's a virgin, a baby, who hasn't developed properly, like Caliban, yet he tries to woo Miranda as if he were Ferdinand. It's an interesting take on the male psyche.
Miranda is actually more philosophical and flamboyant in her chapters, Fowles seems to take on the female mind well although by the end of her part of the book I actually didn't like her very much. She seemed frivolous, and infatuated with this older man - GH, if I remember rightly - who quite frankly is an absolute arsehole! But, at 18, that is the kind of men you're attracted to isn't it?- those who seem mature and confident and intelligent. Despite this, I felt so sorry for her throughout the novel, she was so trapped and stunted, I could really imagine the kind of room she was kept in because Fowles sets the scene so well. Miranda's passages also reflect her artistic nature, which puts her into stark contrast with Ferdinand. They say opposites attract... in this book, they don't.
I think Ferdinand's character could be better developed, but it was a very good read - definitely a riveting story. Although it is relatively pedestrian (set in London, and around Lewes area, somewhere I know quiet well actually) this made it easy to picture in my mind, which meant I could just get on with reading it and embracing the story and the text. A bit more sexual content might have spiced it up a bit, but I think the omission of this was part of Fowles's plan - Ferdinand is never satisfied despite what he is offered, he doesn't really know what to do with Miranda when she plays up to her prison guard. The character dynamics were very impressive. A good read overall, not sure I'd recommend it to someone unless I was completely sure of their tastes because I don't think everyone would enjoy it.
I bought this book because the characters drew from The Tempest. The Tempest is my favourite Shakespeare play (of the ones I have seen and read anyway). I did it for English Literature A Level and I just loved the characters and how each character spoke differently - particularly Ariel and Prospero. I've never seen a performance of it though, I keep wishing the Globe will but I don't think they are going to next year. I'll have to make a special effort to see one next season - this summer Ray Fiennes was in a production at the Haymarket but I didn't get on the ticket case quick enough. Luckily though, my friend bought be a 1942 edition Complete Works for my birthday last year and The Tempest is the first play in it!
Anyway, this book is rather different, and I guess the similarities are in the scenario and the character's names. Miranda is the female hostage, and she sees her kidnapper as Caliban, whereas he sees himself as Ferdinand - he even tells her to call him Ferdinand even though that's not his name. These intricacies will be appreciated by the informed reader, but the book itself has a danger of alienating anyone who doesn't know The Tempest well.
The book is divided up by both the characters and writing styles - Ferdinand's pieces are rather dull, and simple, and very to the point. Utilitarian. The feelings are there but they are not embellished. It's all quite one dimensional, so sometimes it can feel a bit slow. However, despite conveying Ferdinand in this style Fowles does very well to make sure the reader still gets to know Ferdinand quite well. He's not alienated from the reader - his thoughts are accessible. In fact, in a stange way his actions are accessible, even though they are in absolutely no way approvable! He is innocent like Caliban, but besotted like Ferdinand. I guess the character doesn't know real love - he's a virgin, a baby, who hasn't developed properly, like Caliban, yet he tries to woo Miranda as if he were Ferdinand. It's an interesting take on the male psyche.
Miranda is actually more philosophical and flamboyant in her chapters, Fowles seems to take on the female mind well although by the end of her part of the book I actually didn't like her very much. She seemed frivolous, and infatuated with this older man - GH, if I remember rightly - who quite frankly is an absolute arsehole! But, at 18, that is the kind of men you're attracted to isn't it?- those who seem mature and confident and intelligent. Despite this, I felt so sorry for her throughout the novel, she was so trapped and stunted, I could really imagine the kind of room she was kept in because Fowles sets the scene so well. Miranda's passages also reflect her artistic nature, which puts her into stark contrast with Ferdinand. They say opposites attract... in this book, they don't.
I think Ferdinand's character could be better developed, but it was a very good read - definitely a riveting story. Although it is relatively pedestrian (set in London, and around Lewes area, somewhere I know quiet well actually) this made it easy to picture in my mind, which meant I could just get on with reading it and embracing the story and the text. A bit more sexual content might have spiced it up a bit, but I think the omission of this was part of Fowles's plan - Ferdinand is never satisfied despite what he is offered, he doesn't really know what to do with Miranda when she plays up to her prison guard. The character dynamics were very impressive. A good read overall, not sure I'd recommend it to someone unless I was completely sure of their tastes because I don't think everyone would enjoy it.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Audrey Niffenegger - Her Fearful Symmetry
Audrey Niffenegger - Her Fearful Symmetry
Having read the Time Traveler's Wife, I was expecting a lot from this book. The characters in TTW are meaningful and believable despite the supernatural context to the story. The female character, Clare, is so strong in that book, and I'm always a fan of strong female characters, but her will to have a child and fighting spirit is also very inspiring. The book is extremely well written, the story compelling and by the end of it I was in absolute floods of tears. I refused to watch the film version for a while because I knew how upsetting it would be.
This novel, however, disappointed me. The characters were not well developed enough, but especially Elspeth and Edie. So much more time could have been spent on their childhood - in fact, and this is a rare criticism, had the book been double the length it may have been better. Perhaps Niffenegger was told by her editors to keep it to a similar length to her previous publication, but the plot and character development especially could have benefitted from a few more chapters. More time could also have been spent on the elder generation - Edie, Elspeth and Jack, than Julia and Valentina. So all in all the balance between the characters wasn't quite right for me. I found the twis both extremely irritating, maybe because neither of them embodied the strong female I was so hoping would reappear. Julia maybe could have been, but she just came across as bossy and insensitive, not a very likeable character. I guess my problem is that I read books and unless a character is identified as being bad or obnoxious, ie I'm not supposed to like them, I always want to like the characters. So when I don't it changes the reading experience for me.
That said, it was generally a good story, and I enjoyed it being set in London. It was a bit cold towards the end, although I felt a death was inevitable, but I came to dislike Elspeth more than I ever expected to by the end, simply for her selfishness. I also felt the section where the complicated exchange between Edie and Elspeth in their earlier life could have been explained better - I read it several times and still had to write it down to get my head around it. Very imaginative plotline, but the ending felt like a bit of an empty climax. I also found myself wishing that I lived in the girls' flat - what a fabulous place to live in London! One day maybe I will!
I feel like maybe Niffenegger was either caged in or slightly lazy in certain passages, because there are undoubtedly flashes of brilliance, but they are flanked by normal, occasionally mediocre writing. If you can't decide which to read, in my opinion Time Traveler's Wife is definitely better.
Also, if you're wondering why these reviews are appearing quite frequently and thinking "gosh she can't be reading all of these this quickly", I'm not! I have a few reviews stocked up from earlier this year because I've been wanting to do this for a while, so now I'm uploading my back catalogue!
Having read the Time Traveler's Wife, I was expecting a lot from this book. The characters in TTW are meaningful and believable despite the supernatural context to the story. The female character, Clare, is so strong in that book, and I'm always a fan of strong female characters, but her will to have a child and fighting spirit is also very inspiring. The book is extremely well written, the story compelling and by the end of it I was in absolute floods of tears. I refused to watch the film version for a while because I knew how upsetting it would be.
This novel, however, disappointed me. The characters were not well developed enough, but especially Elspeth and Edie. So much more time could have been spent on their childhood - in fact, and this is a rare criticism, had the book been double the length it may have been better. Perhaps Niffenegger was told by her editors to keep it to a similar length to her previous publication, but the plot and character development especially could have benefitted from a few more chapters. More time could also have been spent on the elder generation - Edie, Elspeth and Jack, than Julia and Valentina. So all in all the balance between the characters wasn't quite right for me. I found the twis both extremely irritating, maybe because neither of them embodied the strong female I was so hoping would reappear. Julia maybe could have been, but she just came across as bossy and insensitive, not a very likeable character. I guess my problem is that I read books and unless a character is identified as being bad or obnoxious, ie I'm not supposed to like them, I always want to like the characters. So when I don't it changes the reading experience for me.
That said, it was generally a good story, and I enjoyed it being set in London. It was a bit cold towards the end, although I felt a death was inevitable, but I came to dislike Elspeth more than I ever expected to by the end, simply for her selfishness. I also felt the section where the complicated exchange between Edie and Elspeth in their earlier life could have been explained better - I read it several times and still had to write it down to get my head around it. Very imaginative plotline, but the ending felt like a bit of an empty climax. I also found myself wishing that I lived in the girls' flat - what a fabulous place to live in London! One day maybe I will!
I feel like maybe Niffenegger was either caged in or slightly lazy in certain passages, because there are undoubtedly flashes of brilliance, but they are flanked by normal, occasionally mediocre writing. If you can't decide which to read, in my opinion Time Traveler's Wife is definitely better.
Also, if you're wondering why these reviews are appearing quite frequently and thinking "gosh she can't be reading all of these this quickly", I'm not! I have a few reviews stocked up from earlier this year because I've been wanting to do this for a while, so now I'm uploading my back catalogue!
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Ian McEwan - Atonement
Ian McEwan - Atonement
This is the easiest book I have read in a long time. And not because it was a simple plot or had a simple vocabulary or was written for simple minds. It was simple because it is just so brilliantly written. I don't want to refer to films too much in this blog but I think it probably helps that I've seen the film so know the story and the characters slightly - helps me put a face to a name, even if it is the face of an actor. In this case, I think seeing the film allowed me to appreciate the writing skill and language and imagery a little more, because I wasn't having to concentrate on the plot so much.
The story is engaging and the characters are utterly believable. I can believe the malice and jealousy with which Briony concocts her horrendous tale. I've been a little girl, and when you're that age everything feels one thousand times more intense than it actually is. When you first read what happens you don't believe that something like a lie (albeit an awful one) can rock people's lives and destroy relationships in the way McEwan has written it. It's written in such a sensitive a way; I felt sorry for all of the characters at one point in the book, even Briony. I fund Cecilia a bit harder to relate to but the love between her and Robbie is so pure, you're just WISHING that it all works out for them. I know it's cliche and life doesn't always give us happy endings, but I wanted a happy ending so badly.
A brilliant brilliant read I would thoroughly recommend to anyone. Honestly I believe it deserves all it's accolades. The heat of the summer at the beginning of the book is conveyed through the words, and then when the scene changes to central London and Normandy the language reflects it. A true masterpiece and very very enjoyable. READ IT.
This is the easiest book I have read in a long time. And not because it was a simple plot or had a simple vocabulary or was written for simple minds. It was simple because it is just so brilliantly written. I don't want to refer to films too much in this blog but I think it probably helps that I've seen the film so know the story and the characters slightly - helps me put a face to a name, even if it is the face of an actor. In this case, I think seeing the film allowed me to appreciate the writing skill and language and imagery a little more, because I wasn't having to concentrate on the plot so much.
The story is engaging and the characters are utterly believable. I can believe the malice and jealousy with which Briony concocts her horrendous tale. I've been a little girl, and when you're that age everything feels one thousand times more intense than it actually is. When you first read what happens you don't believe that something like a lie (albeit an awful one) can rock people's lives and destroy relationships in the way McEwan has written it. It's written in such a sensitive a way; I felt sorry for all of the characters at one point in the book, even Briony. I fund Cecilia a bit harder to relate to but the love between her and Robbie is so pure, you're just WISHING that it all works out for them. I know it's cliche and life doesn't always give us happy endings, but I wanted a happy ending so badly.
A brilliant brilliant read I would thoroughly recommend to anyone. Honestly I believe it deserves all it's accolades. The heat of the summer at the beginning of the book is conveyed through the words, and then when the scene changes to central London and Normandy the language reflects it. A true masterpiece and very very enjoyable. READ IT.
Graham Greene - Brighton Rock
Graham Greene - Brighton Rock
My Mum was reading this book for her book group, and she really enjoyed it, recommended I read it too. So I did. I wasn't sure what to expect; the film with Helen Mirren, where the plot was reset in the 1960s (original is in 1930s) and it absolutely flopped. I saw the film after I've read the book, and I didn't feel it really captured the essence of the gang crime or the character of Rose. She came off as so stupid in the film, didn't really portray any of the worries of the period that are in the book, like finding a man to look after you and provide security. I guess the irony is in that Rose thinks she has found it in Pinkie, who turns out to be one of the most dangerous characters I've ever come across.
Pinkie's scheming ability, and the amount you as the reader grow to dislike him throughout the book, is unbelievable. There are few characters I've detested more, and Pinkie's not even supposed to be the villain. I'm sure there are readers who sympathise with his situation, but as soon as he killed Spicer I just couldn't feel any compassion or empathy towards him.
The descriptive capacity of Greene is really fantastic though. It is undisputedly brilliant. It was a good job that the characters were so well developed, and the scene so well set, because the story was much slower moving than that of more modern reads. I only found pieces of it truly exciting. By the end of it, I hated most of the characters, either for their actions, their interfering and not quite clear motivations, or for their weakness. Rose, in particular, was weak and foolishly portrayed in the book, but the movie just made her a complete whelp. She wasn't a relatable female character for me, but hopefully that shows what has changed over the last 70 years.
This novel is, despite all this, a classic, and I loved parts of it simply because Greene uses words so well. I'm glad I've read it, but I don't think I'll read another Greene novel.
My Mum was reading this book for her book group, and she really enjoyed it, recommended I read it too. So I did. I wasn't sure what to expect; the film with Helen Mirren, where the plot was reset in the 1960s (original is in 1930s) and it absolutely flopped. I saw the film after I've read the book, and I didn't feel it really captured the essence of the gang crime or the character of Rose. She came off as so stupid in the film, didn't really portray any of the worries of the period that are in the book, like finding a man to look after you and provide security. I guess the irony is in that Rose thinks she has found it in Pinkie, who turns out to be one of the most dangerous characters I've ever come across.
Pinkie's scheming ability, and the amount you as the reader grow to dislike him throughout the book, is unbelievable. There are few characters I've detested more, and Pinkie's not even supposed to be the villain. I'm sure there are readers who sympathise with his situation, but as soon as he killed Spicer I just couldn't feel any compassion or empathy towards him.
The descriptive capacity of Greene is really fantastic though. It is undisputedly brilliant. It was a good job that the characters were so well developed, and the scene so well set, because the story was much slower moving than that of more modern reads. I only found pieces of it truly exciting. By the end of it, I hated most of the characters, either for their actions, their interfering and not quite clear motivations, or for their weakness. Rose, in particular, was weak and foolishly portrayed in the book, but the movie just made her a complete whelp. She wasn't a relatable female character for me, but hopefully that shows what has changed over the last 70 years.
This novel is, despite all this, a classic, and I loved parts of it simply because Greene uses words so well. I'm glad I've read it, but I don't think I'll read another Greene novel.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Michel Faber - The Crimson Petal & The White
Michel Faber - The Crimson Petal & The White
Having read all the way through this book, I still don't know where the title comes from. Perhaps I should look it up on wikipedia... I'm sure there is something profound in it that I have missed, probably linked to one passage within the dense continuous description.
That sounds like a complaint. It's NOT. I have never read a book with so many descriptive passages, although now I'm reading (struggling through) Vanity Fair I perhaps see where Faber got his cues from. But, a book like this helps me remember why I took History at University. Delving into historical London with such lucious description made this book so enjoyable - I very much enjoyed this book. All the characters were historically accurate - I've never come across a William in historical literature quite like this one - and engaging, especially Sugar. Her feminist outburts and lascivious novel were brilliant, although I think more could have been done with said novel. It was pretty depressing when she lost it at the end. Anyway, combined description and good plot and wonderful imagery make this a pretty gripping read.
It's a big book. It took me a long time to read. But I never lost track of the plot because it was very well maintained. I guess what also helped was the BBC's dramatisation of the novel at the same time I was reading it - I know you shouldn't watch films/television before reading the book, but sometimes it brings the page to life a bit more in your head because you have a clear picture of the characters looks in your head. I find it quite hard to conjure a face and a body out of my imagination from just pure description, so having an actor stand in and do it for me - even if they're not quite accurate - definitely helps me.
I'm going to try and read more historical books from now on - hopefully I won't have to wade through endless amounts of trash (believe me, it's out there) before I find something as good as this. The great thing about it is that it is entirely fictional, I find it quite difficult to read books about Anne Boleyn or someone like that - a REAL person - which embeds them into a story when I know it's not true. Pure, imaginative fiction, like Vanity Fair, and this book, is much more up my street. Thanks to Katie Dyer for the recommendation.
Having read all the way through this book, I still don't know where the title comes from. Perhaps I should look it up on wikipedia... I'm sure there is something profound in it that I have missed, probably linked to one passage within the dense continuous description.
That sounds like a complaint. It's NOT. I have never read a book with so many descriptive passages, although now I'm reading (struggling through) Vanity Fair I perhaps see where Faber got his cues from. But, a book like this helps me remember why I took History at University. Delving into historical London with such lucious description made this book so enjoyable - I very much enjoyed this book. All the characters were historically accurate - I've never come across a William in historical literature quite like this one - and engaging, especially Sugar. Her feminist outburts and lascivious novel were brilliant, although I think more could have been done with said novel. It was pretty depressing when she lost it at the end. Anyway, combined description and good plot and wonderful imagery make this a pretty gripping read.
It's a big book. It took me a long time to read. But I never lost track of the plot because it was very well maintained. I guess what also helped was the BBC's dramatisation of the novel at the same time I was reading it - I know you shouldn't watch films/television before reading the book, but sometimes it brings the page to life a bit more in your head because you have a clear picture of the characters looks in your head. I find it quite hard to conjure a face and a body out of my imagination from just pure description, so having an actor stand in and do it for me - even if they're not quite accurate - definitely helps me.
I'm going to try and read more historical books from now on - hopefully I won't have to wade through endless amounts of trash (believe me, it's out there) before I find something as good as this. The great thing about it is that it is entirely fictional, I find it quite difficult to read books about Anne Boleyn or someone like that - a REAL person - which embeds them into a story when I know it's not true. Pure, imaginative fiction, like Vanity Fair, and this book, is much more up my street. Thanks to Katie Dyer for the recommendation.
Keith Richards - Life
Keith Richards - Life
I think it's quite fitting that my first book review is about someone who, despite his amazingly crazy life, has become an idol and hero and inspiring figure for so many people just through his music. I grew up with the Rolling Stones. I'm signed up to every ticket email list possible as well as all their fan pages so that when they finally tour again (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) I definitely get a ticket. I know it's morbid but they are getting old now and I really want to see them tour.
Keith Richards and Mick Jagger have, either independently or colloboratively, written a song for every feeling I have ever had. I'd much rather listen to old music from the 60s than some of the trash that comes out now.
I guess from the outset of reading Richards's autobiography, I knew I was going to like. It's written in such a casual style that you really feel like he is talking to you; you see words written down that you can imagine him saying. Reading this book enhanced my personal connection to the Stones in so many ways, but even more so because Richards doesn't hide anything about his childhood. Jagger and Richards were both born in Dartford, Kent, which is not too far from me at all - I now feel a geographical allegiance to the band!
I read it in a couple of weeks because I enjoyed it so much. And it's weird because so much of the subject matter is out of my circle of understanding, like being a heroin addict or playing sell-out rock shows across the world, but I still found that I could really connect with the content. People say that when you meet people you admire they often don't live up to your expectations, but now I want to meet him and see them tour more than ever. Literally, this book gave me so much more knowledge about the Stones and showed how much there is out there in the world that I have yet to experience or even know about! The entire book felt completely genuine throughout. More than anything though, Richards's documentation of the creative process, meaning that the reader really knows where some of their favourite and most famous rock songs of all time have come from makes it an unbelievably rewarding read. This book makes the songs greater - I adore them all the more. A true idol, with such an exciting life it almost doesn't seem real.
If I ever get pets (I'd like dogs one day) I'm definitely going to call them Jagger and Keef.
I think it's quite fitting that my first book review is about someone who, despite his amazingly crazy life, has become an idol and hero and inspiring figure for so many people just through his music. I grew up with the Rolling Stones. I'm signed up to every ticket email list possible as well as all their fan pages so that when they finally tour again (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) I definitely get a ticket. I know it's morbid but they are getting old now and I really want to see them tour.
Keith Richards and Mick Jagger have, either independently or colloboratively, written a song for every feeling I have ever had. I'd much rather listen to old music from the 60s than some of the trash that comes out now.
I guess from the outset of reading Richards's autobiography, I knew I was going to like. It's written in such a casual style that you really feel like he is talking to you; you see words written down that you can imagine him saying. Reading this book enhanced my personal connection to the Stones in so many ways, but even more so because Richards doesn't hide anything about his childhood. Jagger and Richards were both born in Dartford, Kent, which is not too far from me at all - I now feel a geographical allegiance to the band!
I read it in a couple of weeks because I enjoyed it so much. And it's weird because so much of the subject matter is out of my circle of understanding, like being a heroin addict or playing sell-out rock shows across the world, but I still found that I could really connect with the content. People say that when you meet people you admire they often don't live up to your expectations, but now I want to meet him and see them tour more than ever. Literally, this book gave me so much more knowledge about the Stones and showed how much there is out there in the world that I have yet to experience or even know about! The entire book felt completely genuine throughout. More than anything though, Richards's documentation of the creative process, meaning that the reader really knows where some of their favourite and most famous rock songs of all time have come from makes it an unbelievably rewarding read. This book makes the songs greater - I adore them all the more. A true idol, with such an exciting life it almost doesn't seem real.
If I ever get pets (I'd like dogs one day) I'm definitely going to call them Jagger and Keef.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Books I Have Read But Shall Not Review
I am now 21 years old.
In my past 21 years I have read several books which I will not review, but I think it's important that they are included because they show where I come from before I begin my reviews. Some of them I read in school, and this post will probably be updated as I remember novels I read in my past.
Chinua Achebe - Things Fall Apart
Richard Adams - Watership Down
David Almond - Skellig
Iain Banks - Dead Air
Ishmael Beah - A Long Way Gone
Louis de Bernières - Captain Corelli's Mandolin
Emily Bronte - Wuthering Heights
Russell Brand - My Booky Wook
Dan Brown - The Da Vinci Code
Candace Bushnell - Sex and the City
Roald Dahl - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Roald Dahl - George's Marvellous Medicine
Roald Dahl - Fantastic Mr Fox
Bret Easton Ellis - American Psycho (my favourite novel to date, although it is hard to pick!)
Bret Easton Ellis - Glamorama
Bret Easton Ellis - The Rules of Attraction
Helen Fielding - Bridget Jones's Diary
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Patricia Highsmith - The Talented Mr Ripley
Patricia Highsmith - Ripley Underground
Khaled Hosseini - The Kite Runner
Stephen King - The Green Mile
Sophie Kinsella - Confessions of a Shopaholic (and sequels)
D.H. Lawrence - Lady Chatterley's Lover
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
C.S. Lewis - The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Andrew Marr - History of Modern Britain
Andrew Marr - The Making of Modern Britain
A.A. Milne - Winnie the Pooh
Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveller's Wife
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Sylvia Plath - The Bell Jar
Beatrix Potter - The Tale of Peter Rabbit
Louise Rennison - Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging
Bernard Schlink - The Reader
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein
Lionel Shriver - We Need to Talk About Kevin
Patrick Suskind - Perfume
David Talbot - Brothers
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings
Rose Tremain - Restoration
E.B. White - Charlotte's Web
Oscar Wilde - Picture of Dorian Gray
Irvine Welsh - Trainspotting
I have also read a fair bit of Shakespeare (which I love!) I am familiar with:
Macbeth
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Much Ado About Nothing
Romeo and Juliet
Antony and Cleopatra
Othello
Hamlet
The Tempest (my favourite)
All's Well That Ends Well
As You Like It
There are so many more to read and see though, which I plan to continue throughout my life.
Other dramatics I have read include John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi, Tennessee Williams's A Streetcar Named Desire, Arthur Miller's The Crucible, and Brian Friel's Translations; all thanks to A Level English Literature!
I am not reviewing any of the academic books which I read in order to get my degree, one of note would be David Beresford's Ten Men Dead, which was a godsend during my dissertation!
In my past 21 years I have read several books which I will not review, but I think it's important that they are included because they show where I come from before I begin my reviews. Some of them I read in school, and this post will probably be updated as I remember novels I read in my past.
Chinua Achebe - Things Fall Apart
Richard Adams - Watership Down
David Almond - Skellig
Iain Banks - Dead Air
Ishmael Beah - A Long Way Gone
Louis de Bernières - Captain Corelli's Mandolin
Emily Bronte - Wuthering Heights
Russell Brand - My Booky Wook
Dan Brown - The Da Vinci Code
Candace Bushnell - Sex and the City
Roald Dahl - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Roald Dahl - George's Marvellous Medicine
Roald Dahl - Fantastic Mr Fox
Bret Easton Ellis - American Psycho (my favourite novel to date, although it is hard to pick!)
Bret Easton Ellis - Glamorama
Bret Easton Ellis - The Rules of Attraction
Helen Fielding - Bridget Jones's Diary
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Patricia Highsmith - The Talented Mr Ripley
Patricia Highsmith - Ripley Underground
Khaled Hosseini - The Kite Runner
Stephen King - The Green Mile
Sophie Kinsella - Confessions of a Shopaholic (and sequels)
D.H. Lawrence - Lady Chatterley's Lover
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
C.S. Lewis - The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Andrew Marr - History of Modern Britain
Andrew Marr - The Making of Modern Britain
A.A. Milne - Winnie the Pooh
Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveller's Wife
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Sylvia Plath - The Bell Jar
Beatrix Potter - The Tale of Peter Rabbit
Louise Rennison - Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging
Bernard Schlink - The Reader
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein
Lionel Shriver - We Need to Talk About Kevin
Patrick Suskind - Perfume
David Talbot - Brothers
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings
Rose Tremain - Restoration
E.B. White - Charlotte's Web
Oscar Wilde - Picture of Dorian Gray
Irvine Welsh - Trainspotting
I have also read a fair bit of Shakespeare (which I love!) I am familiar with:
Macbeth
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Much Ado About Nothing
Romeo and Juliet
Antony and Cleopatra
Othello
Hamlet
The Tempest (my favourite)
All's Well That Ends Well
As You Like It
There are so many more to read and see though, which I plan to continue throughout my life.
Other dramatics I have read include John Webster's The Duchess of Malfi, Tennessee Williams's A Streetcar Named Desire, Arthur Miller's The Crucible, and Brian Friel's Translations; all thanks to A Level English Literature!
I am not reviewing any of the academic books which I read in order to get my degree, one of note would be David Beresford's Ten Men Dead, which was a godsend during my dissertation!
Preface
I've always enjoyed reading. I took English Literature A Level partly because I did so well at GCSE, so I thought I was good at it, but also because I really enjoy reading. There are so many brilliant books out there, and although I spent most of my teens reading chick lit (and thoroughly relishing every page, despite the lack of supposed pedigree held in these pages) university not only gave me a degree but also showed me that there is a wealth of literature out there waiting for me to read and learn from! So much has been written - authors must be the most diverse occupational group on the planet.
I started secondary school wanting to be an author. I wanted to write a bestselling novel - a groundbreaking piece of literature. My first attempts, aged 11, were typical teen trouble stories, often written in collaboration of friends and obsessed with my male counterparts. Needless to say, they are not worth note now. I then turned to poetry and my mastery of vocabulary helped me write some lovely little rhymes, rhyme being the optimum word in that sentence. They rhymed, yes, they flowed well, yes, but they were not deep. Whenever I tried to be deep I just became depressing, and out of my depth.
So, I decided that in order to write a good novel I need to do two things.
Firstly, I must gain some life experience. I could probably write a good book about teenagers, but it would not be ground-breaking. It might be amusing, occasionally well written, but I don't want to contribute to that field of work. More than anything, I know a good friend is writing a fantastic novel about teenagers (with a supernatural, but non Harry Potter/Twilight, angle). I shall leave this area to her, and focus on gaining my life experience.
Secondly, I must read more. How can I write something new when I don't know what has already been written? People come up with amazing creative original stories because original things happen to them and then they can translate them into the written word. I need to culture my imagination a little after I have lived, and reading some past and present masters' work can only help me in this. Plus I'll (hopefully) really enjoy the process. Don't worry though, I won't pretend to like every book, although undoubtedly there are good points to all books.
I don't particularly care if no one else reads this, it is a process I want to go through regarding something I'm interested in. So, what follows are my personal, opinionated book reviews. Not supposed to be works of criterary genius, just my own observations on what I have read and what I have learnt. I'll focus on the classics and more modern reads because I think the classics have a lot to teach and provide a lot of subjectual, contextual and creative variety, but modern reads are sometimes easier and quicker and more relatable. The books I read are also not confined to fiction - you can learn a lot from someone's elses memories.
And so I begin.
I started secondary school wanting to be an author. I wanted to write a bestselling novel - a groundbreaking piece of literature. My first attempts, aged 11, were typical teen trouble stories, often written in collaboration of friends and obsessed with my male counterparts. Needless to say, they are not worth note now. I then turned to poetry and my mastery of vocabulary helped me write some lovely little rhymes, rhyme being the optimum word in that sentence. They rhymed, yes, they flowed well, yes, but they were not deep. Whenever I tried to be deep I just became depressing, and out of my depth.
So, I decided that in order to write a good novel I need to do two things.
Firstly, I must gain some life experience. I could probably write a good book about teenagers, but it would not be ground-breaking. It might be amusing, occasionally well written, but I don't want to contribute to that field of work. More than anything, I know a good friend is writing a fantastic novel about teenagers (with a supernatural, but non Harry Potter/Twilight, angle). I shall leave this area to her, and focus on gaining my life experience.
Secondly, I must read more. How can I write something new when I don't know what has already been written? People come up with amazing creative original stories because original things happen to them and then they can translate them into the written word. I need to culture my imagination a little after I have lived, and reading some past and present masters' work can only help me in this. Plus I'll (hopefully) really enjoy the process. Don't worry though, I won't pretend to like every book, although undoubtedly there are good points to all books.
I don't particularly care if no one else reads this, it is a process I want to go through regarding something I'm interested in. So, what follows are my personal, opinionated book reviews. Not supposed to be works of criterary genius, just my own observations on what I have read and what I have learnt. I'll focus on the classics and more modern reads because I think the classics have a lot to teach and provide a lot of subjectual, contextual and creative variety, but modern reads are sometimes easier and quicker and more relatable. The books I read are also not confined to fiction - you can learn a lot from someone's elses memories.
And so I begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)