Little Women is a puzzling and interesting book to read and to think about afterwards. This book was very good. Paradoxically, I rated it more on thisLittle Women is a puzzling and interesting book to read and to think about afterwards. This book was very good. Paradoxically, I rated it more on this reread upon noticing flaws that my adoring eyes had not upon the first read. The book has power. It has the power to enchant us. E.g. I began and completed reading it during the month of March. That cannot be a coincidence. There is an untarnished sweetness in the book that is not nauseating for most. For those who dislike the book, I cannot disagree with them. But this book is very special.
The first volume is above reproach, to me. It is so lifelike, it takes your breath away. The book format works much better with this material than any adaptations onscreen, including the latest one (2019). There is a certain voyeurism in the first book which is the only sinful thing about it. The March family has been captured perfectly and regurgitated with pen on paper. You feel the chirpy voices in your ears. You see the knotted fingers and the weary shoulders of the girls, who are poor and happy. Marmee, the mother, is like a bookend, with the other piece of the bookend, Mr March, a distant trifle that does not and should not intrude in his own home when he returns from war.
The March little women are a collective force of eruption of colour, whether in their decent language or their untidiness. They toil under the yoke of boredom so much that you feel you are cheating them by having modern amenities that they will never have. Yet they are lucky enough. They have each other. They have their youth, which they retain up till the last page of volume two. Jo, the ringleader and amateur poet, playwright, and writer of the family, goes down on one knee under the force of time, at the early age of 30 years, yet it feels as titanic an act as Thor's feat. Jo is my favourite character in the book.
There is a failing in health from Beth, the penultimate child. And one feels sadness for her and solace for oneself. Who is to say how long a lifetime should be. Beth is the kindest of the four girls. She takes care of her dolls with happiness and patience. One of her dolls is disabled, which perhaps foreshadows her own fate in a grim and sanguine way. Meg, the eldest, and Amy, the youngest, have upbeat and delightful fates, and perhaps these are what prevents them from making their mark in the book. Meg is the most mature and the silliest, being precocious without the gift of experience. Amy, well, she shines most in volume two.
The unlikely neighbours in the form of the two Lawrences, rich, honest duo of grandfather and grandson, are plot movers in name and in game. Laurie, like a certain Mr Darcy, has always been played by actors far older than what the books tell you. Laurie is very young, and, in the hands of Louisa May Alcott, becomes the type of character that shows all that women write men better than the opposite. Laurie lives his late teens in a state of paradisiac bliss. Having made best friends with Jo, he is flushed with the naivety of youth, which is also his innocence.
The book cannot escape the merriment infused in its characters by the authoress. The fixation on education and culture is unmistakably feminine. This could have been a blemish, but here is not. In their conversations the March girls display a longing for the future, which they will not reach till after the first part. It is hinted that they know French, and that they are steeped in the type of customs that seem stuffy to most people now. The book is clever in its depiction of the various short and pertinent adventures of the girls. If only things could remain the same forever. It was not to be.
Alcott should have been more in tune with her own creation when writing further adventures of her fictional family. She commits the mistake of believing that her work is an example of morality selling fast. In fact, it sold despite the moralising, not because of it. There is a strange power play that occurs in the book. The author saddles her women with back breaking moral rigmaroles. And we see that the life of the characters begin to feel independent of the author's meddling. The latter cannot comprehend the minds of her creatures. They rebel in a way, then accept with fake joy their fates that Alcott prefers for them.
The constant pontification made me laugh rather than groan. This was quite true of Professor Bhaer's defence of Christianity in the face of a couple of heathen zealots. Never mind that Bhaer has a zealotry of his own to keep his dull mind busy. It is proper for a book of this type to be rooted in a sort of vulgar realism by marrying its lively girls to older and crusty, pompous nonentities. But in trying to stay true, Alcott forgoes verisimilitude. It is the classic case of overcompensation. None of the male characters do things that come even close to the female ones' acts. This is okay, except that, seeing her little women maturing, the authoress abandons herself to a matchmaking mood.
Alcott tries to be daring in her own small ways. She longs for her characters to be colourful and carefree, yet she herself probably bought into the patriarchy 'wisdom'. This is displayed in the unflattering presentation of two women discussing female emancipation. It is displayed in the stated dependence of the woman on the father-like husband. The sheep with its shepherd if you will. Alcott is also daring in one glaring way. She creates a quadroon child for the purpose of fleshing out the future of Jo March. That was as far as she could reasonably have gone.
Little Women is not the most popular of classics. It is also not the most revealing. Not the most clever, neither the funniest. But her characters not only are more than the sum of themselves. The characters are autonomous, and cannot be controlled. They will speak to the reader in their own voices and authorship be damned. The writer had captured something in this book that not only she could never replicate in sequels, but also that no author I have read could or would replicate. This is why I will pick up this book next year, probably during March, if I'm not being careful....more
It is rather funny to think of the word 'cynical'. When applied to a person, one sees a worldly but weather beaten man (often a man) who is never hoodIt is rather funny to think of the word 'cynical'. When applied to a person, one sees a worldly but weather beaten man (often a man) who is never hoodwinked and who knows his way around society. When applied to a work of art, or in this case, to Two Nights in Lisbon, one sees a book that is iniquitous, dishonest, shallow, and ultimately of little worth. My reasons for giving this book one star, in a nutshell.
This book has elicited a few common complaints from disgruntled readers. There have been people who call it repetitive. I think it is right to do so. The book is indeed repetitive, but it has other more rugged flaws. It is a poorly narrated book. The author is not as prolific as the masters of the thriller genre, and one wonders if his inexperience made the book have a merely average score.
Two Nights in Lisbon's main character, Ariel Pryce, is a cynically designed character. To make it do the ungrateful task of ingratiating to the audience it targets, though, the character must be slightly dense. With this chink in the armour, the author then can throw in lots of poorly thought ideas, half baked ones, and they will stick. Genius marketing, not genius writing.
Ariel is a successful woman. Tres jolie, and frankly stunning to look at. The women who read this book will either identify with this book or fantasize themselves in it. So far, so good. Ariel has a murky, hidden past. She has a husband. Ah, say the housewives, a woman after our own heart. She has a wonderful husband. After all, he drives well, and does not kick the pets. Surely a fine catch. Ariel's husband disappears and the book takes place during the 2 days and 2 nights where Ariel is doing her level best to find her significant other.
My major problem with this book is that it reveals its hand to me as written by an author who think himself too smart, who has been caught with one sticky hand in the cookie jar. He inserts street smarts in the book in pretty much manipulative ways, making us believe that he is on our side and is in fact not working for the Man.
Pavone's shenanigans makes him be the very type of writer that he probably fears of being. He wants to be seen as cosmopolitan, sophisticated, with a heart of gold, and a first class brain. Pavone, and there are not many different ways of saying this, is a hack. There, I've said it. Pavone is a columnist who thought he was a thriller writer.
There is no wrong in being a journo. Charles Dickens wrote for Morning Chronicle. Doyle wrote for The Strand. Pavone however, does not have the talent to back up his writing. His pandering lets him down badly. The spell is broken. I only hope that there are as few Pavones as possible, because this type of book (that he has authored) takes in the gullible too often.
The thriller is quite simply, boring. The stakes are not high. The pacing is inexistent. The characters are not appealing. There is not one intelligent or even strong character in the book. I think that with so far only 4000 ratings drummed up on Goodreads, people have not bought or borrowed the book in droves. There is hope yet for the reading public. There are better mystery books out there. I only think this book to be a necessary evil when cultivating a decadently big appetite in search for the next 5 star book....more
Ken Follett seems to enjoy a longevity that would be the envy of Kafka or Nietzsche. If you weren't aware, I'm talking about his long life, not his heKen Follett seems to enjoy a longevity that would be the envy of Kafka or Nietzsche. If you weren't aware, I'm talking about his long life, not his hegemony. Follett is also without doubt a very successful author, who has hundreds of thousands of fans around the world. I'm not going to join that particular club.
Follett's book, Winter of the World, has clues littered over its face as to the secret of its success, just like a naughty kid has crumbs over his maws after pilfering the cookie jar. The first book, Fall of Giants, got one star from me. So maybe I should stop reading his books? But I have avoided the lure of his historical thrillers successfully. To this day therefore, I cannot tell you why I ceded to this WW2 book.
The deaths of the innocent is the fuel which drives the mechanism of this book. The stakes ought to be high, but this ambitious book about multi-generations and rendezvous with history seems stuffy as the stage of a high school. Follett tries to camouflage the deaths which (perhaps) seemed right and logical to him, with deaths that are not vindictive or strangely fateful. This book is very limited.
Every single woman that is interesting meets a tragedy in one form or other. While there are men who risk their lives daily in the war to end all wars - haha - the women are either boring hopefuls whose aim is to get their men, or monosyllabic geniuses who somehow untangle their tongues to narrate convenient past familial tragedies.
The men are dealt a farcical card, in a universe, that, when guided by Follett's pen, seems jocularly simplistic. The sole intriguing fact about this book are the couples and maybe happy marriages that survive their acid tests. The unions in this book are devoid of romance. Even the most focused of romances, which ought to feel like a mini slice of harlequinism (that word ought to exist) are as famous as the year your warm beer was made. Dusting off my review of Fall of Giants, it seems that the author has continued in creating characters that have a life that looks like the high school overachiever. All the characters, without fault, have the most exciting part of their lives when they are 21.
While some arcs have less melodrama than others, those that don't, just ruin the effect of danger that the book strives to have. The plot is logical when it is convenient, and its opposite when it is inconvenient. The lack of respect for the reader means that many who have given this book a positive score have ignored or been unaware of it. Congrats Kenny, you know the odds, if not your audience.
The worst things about this book is that it lets major bias from the author creep in. First of all, one character keeps the love child of a rapist. Her revenge is that she will raise her kid to be someone you know, who treats men and women equally respectfully. Banzai! Also, Truman thought he was the king of the world? The truest and most honest man to hold any kind of office in world history?
This book lacks the cruelty of Pillars of the Earth, for which I am personally thankful. But its senseless romance, its staged suspense, its deliberate putdown of women, its unawareness of what is clever and what is stupid, all undo the hard work of the research to which Follett has probably had access to. This is the work of a successful, prolific, inspiring, and experienced writer. It feels like the work of an AI who has been programmed to imitate the writing style of a combination of a 16th century Calvinist monk and Barbara Cartland. Follett, take up a hobby and enjoy your twilight years, there's a good lad....more
Words of Radiance is a damn fine title of a very good book. In it the superheroes absorb something called Stormlight, and glow, and can fly and duel wWords of Radiance is a damn fine title of a very good book. In it the superheroes absorb something called Stormlight, and glow, and can fly and duel with the best of duellers. Along with being purdy, the flashes remind me of the brilliance of Sanderson's imagination.
This reread erased many confusions and unfounded hunches that I had collected like stamps, on my first read. Many misconceptions or simple confusions were ironed out. This is a Fantasy book. It is an improvement on the longwinded Fantasy books of the 70s and 80s where their brick sized mass seemed like overweight men who have a lot of gas. Does reinventing a tired genre cures one from wind? I personally intend to find out.
I thought that the ideas in the book were of the magnitude of serious daring. Many of the ideas fitted each other like Lego blocks, or puzzle pieces. It is the result of intense thought. The result makes the reader be immersed in the society created by the author. Reading this feels right.
I hope to live long enough to reread this, when inexorably, my memories of the book dulls. My favourite character remains Kaladin. It was a move of inspiration that made Sanderson give the name of 'Stormblessed' to his most heroic and least boring character. I have a fondness for him because he expresses the type of angst that takes delay to be recognised as that of a new adult.
Shallan is the main problem in this book. She does never shut up. She is not funny, and not even smart. Her goofiness passes for fencing humor here, but she is beyond help. She is an issue, but the only one.
Words of Radiance seems complete and unchanging. Its reputation will stay immortal. Its treatment of slavery, religion, economics, Monarchy, its inspiration for names from many cultures, its lithe storytelling, will stay like a huge pyramid that will weather storms for fun. Just like the Eiffel Tower was the first building to be higher than the pyramids, 2400 years later after the latter, so will Words of Radiance be unchallenged for decades at least.
I will also salute the format of the book. It is easily the best e-book design I've ever seen. Then there are the hints that are lovingly revealed throughout confused, small passages. The very supernatural aspects of the book come in small packets. This reread made me understand that. I see things in the story clearer. A perfunctory read of the book will not do. Your eyes need to be alert for pages and pages of suggestions and hints. I look to the past with scorn, at the Tolkienising of Fantasy. But I look to the future with eager pride at what I have witnessed....more
The Saving Grace of this book is that it is amateurly made. There is no whiff of professionalism in it. I have never really broken out the thesaurus bThe Saving Grace of this book is that it is amateurly made. There is no whiff of professionalism in it. I have never really broken out the thesaurus by way of giving such kind of book its due. So this review will be shorter than what I usually write.
There were 3 typos that did not escape my mind. Once a glaring but innocuous s instead of a. Secondly, peak instead of pique, thirdly, purest instead of purist. I will add that the book is readable and I did read it easily, with few winged bugs in the ointment.
Nancy Coco ought to have got data of her Don Juan romeo village Bruce Wayne from comics. Having been s reader of them for a while, I know that comics, particularly those from the late 60s, are as quotable as a Charlie Chaplin movie, or a Tarantino one.
When I knew that Coco, surely a pen name, would write a killer Ken Doll as her MC's love interest, it did peak my interest. I waited for the entertainment to begin, and it did not disappoint.
Trent Jessop was a kind of bizarro Zorro, which would peak the interest of even the most strict purest. His lines, rotten and reheated, were hilariously devoid of personality. I would go on and quote the book, but life is short and while I thank Coco for giving me some cheer, and while I will read more of the series, I won't twist the knife counter-clockwise....more
This one is a weird book. It tried to work through its story in a simple but effective way, and I happen to think it was not successful in this approaThis one is a weird book. It tried to work through its story in a simple but effective way, and I happen to think it was not successful in this approach. The book banked a lot on appealing to our emotions in surgical hits.
The start, and the first 4 or 5 Chapters were fine. But then due to the style of the writer, I began to be of the mind that a third person perspective would have suited the book better. We are witness to the grief of the main character. But in trying not to fall in melodrama land, the author came across as muted and uncreative.
There is a way of writing simple and understated thoughts about bereavement, but if the author went with that device, she would have been labeled as a copier of Kerouac, Zola, or Hemmingway. That would have been preferable to what I read.
I think the author should not have given her main character a loaded past. It didn't serve the story proper. There are other, less bloody but more sanguine ways of worming heroines in our minds. I think many readers have and will applaud the merits of Daley, but I'm not one of them.
The climax, which was telegraphed to the heroine, was commendable. It was original, but lacked authenticity and feeling. But it was the only reason why I gave the intentionally different climax its due. So, the book gets 2 stars instead of one, from me. The author, however, caught my attention, and I will try the second book. I don't know what to expect. Exactly....more
I saw one of my Goodreads friends give this 2 stars. I felt then, that I could live with disagreeing with her. A few days later and here we are and onI saw one of my Goodreads friends give this 2 stars. I felt then, that I could live with disagreeing with her. A few days later and here we are and one star it is. I didn't read the book completely. This book made me question my renewed interest in science fiction.
If you type 'media death cult' on YouTube, you'll get to the channel which recommended this book to sci fi beginner readers. I don't think science fiction is cut from the same cloth as the erstwhile cozies that I used to consume in humongous amounts. Neither is it cut from the same stuff as the 2000s thrillers that appealed to me.
Red Rising lacks awareness and context. The idea was okay to begin with, but the author didn't take it to unhallowed places. The science in the book was a head clash away from the raison d'être of the dystopian society on Mars. I went into this book with no preconceptions and I came away from it without slaking of any kind.
Lastly, Red Rising has the same flaw as hard sci fi. As opposed to the latter it is a moronic sort of take, but it contains the same lack of need for situating the human condition. This book would be better off as a swashbuckling book, or a YA Fantasy. But the treatment it was given did not help it in any way, shape, or form....more
A Good Yarn is a tired and cliched book about feelings. The fact that many people want their characters to do well in poorly written books indicates tA Good Yarn is a tired and cliched book about feelings. The fact that many people want their characters to do well in poorly written books indicates that a mint can be made on anything that reassures rather than reveals. Debbie Macomber provides easy answers rather than answering the difficult questions her characters ask throughout the book.
People who cannot survive the genre transfusion that occurs often when middle aged readers dive into YA literature, turn to books like this. Comforting, familiar, repetitive, and ultimately redundant, A Good Yarn is a lazy attempt at writing. The characters here seem to impress upon readers that they will have a HEA. Regardless of the life they are leading.
The type of glandular love that passes for something more divine shows how sanitised and embracing the Romance genre has become. Romance is the only genre whose young writers, fresh out of the workshop of Creative Writing class, never innovate. It's easy money for those who are very visible or have a long career at this type of shilling. I myself have recently been wanting a book about Christmas and love. Oy Vey....more
Schopenhauer is a name in philosophy that cannot be brushed under the rug. Reading this book was a task I procrastinated too much. At 96 pages, it is Schopenhauer is a name in philosophy that cannot be brushed under the rug. Reading this book was a task I procrastinated too much. At 96 pages, it is written, in the translation, with elegance of style and utilitarian in words.
The style reminded me of a writer who shall remain unnamed here. Suffice to say that the heightened prose lent a touch of prosody to the crystal clear flow of words that sparkled like fish in a koi pond.
Schopenhauer was a writer of his time. He almost succeeded in being as timeless as Homer, Virgil, Milton, or Byron have remained. His reason betrayed his judgement in a way that puts him in mostly ordinary and grounded company.
Women are the oldest group to be persecuted in society. It, of course, started when God decided to make a companion for Adam out of one of his ribs. The Bible for me, is a book that has a sequel that is a rehash (the Koran).
The Bible also has a fanfic which some say surpasses the original (Paradise Lost). Back to this book... is it so difficult to see with clarity that women are the intellectual equal of men? Only Socrates is the most modern man from the antiquity up to our times.
Chauvinistic as the chapter on honor was, it was not that the topic was distasteful, it was that the topic was boring, and reasoned in a lazy manner. I admit to skimming, but the last chapter, about fame made up for it....more
In my life I've read the book 2 times. And there have been 2 more times when I had to refrain from completely reading it due to not being prepared forIn my life I've read the book 2 times. And there have been 2 more times when I had to refrain from completely reading it due to not being prepared for it. Although I give the book 4 stars, it remains one of the best books I've ever read.
Consider two albums by Radiohead. The Bends and say, Hail to the Thief. The Bends has fewer radio friendly songs, but when the songs hit a high note, boy do they hit it. Conversely, Hail to the Thief was nice, not great. The band is more consistent, but they never threaten to achieve the level of superlative form as in The Bends. Martin Chuzzlewit is like the Bends. Phew.
When Dickens plots, he plots like nobody else. He excels at creating characters that move on the board as set pieces. Some characters bide their time. Others burn bright then sober up. It's a vast canvas here and I retained a powerful extolment during the American episode. But Dickens never knows the term writing block.
Dickens turns on the faucet of words at will and can go on, sometimes being unfunny, other times being even less funny. His sense of humor has aged like a Chaplin film. But he can write at will, like I said. Martin Chuzzlewit's villains and victims were memorable, and their tragedies and rewards were what I take away from this latest read....more
This was a well constructed tale about an invasion by aliens that is so silent, it escapes the nets of what people used to call Uncle Sam. The USA is This was a well constructed tale about an invasion by aliens that is so silent, it escapes the nets of what people used to call Uncle Sam. The USA is alive and kicking in this book, so ardents of Panem won't be satiated.
Well, the book itself is very much grounded, walking the line between Sci Fi and the simple novel. There are only the baddies and the telepath to make this quite enthralling story a futuristic horror one.
The upbeat ending does not mesh with the chaos in the battle between alien and man. But we go along with the ride. I gave Three to Conquer a perfect score because of its battleground and its casualties, and its prophecy veering towards a caveat for mankind....more
I did not like the ending. This is what happens when theology messes with a good story. But regardless, the only reason I didn't give this short but aI did not like the ending. This is what happens when theology messes with a good story. But regardless, the only reason I didn't give this short but amazing book a perfect score is because of the dated and rampant misogyny in the proceedings.
The author was so obscure. She wrote a sterling book, never broke out of anonymity, and her work has been neglected cruelly.
I was happy, having read a book that carried a low expectation. Lately, my ratings have leaned towards negativism, but I hope to discover more gems like this one....more
This was a reread. It proved to be a night and day experience, the reread being the night. It does have some professionally installed bells and whistlThis was a reread. It proved to be a night and day experience, the reread being the night. It does have some professionally installed bells and whistles, but made for pretty raw and rough reading.
Rebus is too much the gallant knight in shining armour. He gets the best lines, probably to the detriment of any other Detective in the book. The hero - for that he is - shouldn't exist in the world created by Rankin. It jolts yours truly to fit in the misfit.
It was a slog finishing this book. Never again will I reread a thriller that I touched upon in the Dark Days, when the internet for my country was a privilege for the few and at a time Stephen King was trying to bypass the publishers to reach out electronically.
But yeah. Fleshmarket Close was a wretched experience. The best aspect was the discovery of unfamiliar words, all of them coined 'familiar' by the dictionary. My next read has not a lot to live up to. Toodle-oo for now....more
I still don't know why I rated High Fidelity 5 stars. Most of these books don't stand a chance against an early Agatha Christie or a modern cozy, or aI still don't know why I rated High Fidelity 5 stars. Most of these books don't stand a chance against an early Agatha Christie or a modern cozy, or a book by Dawkins... but I put all of them on the same level.
I'm going to watch the movie first time later this day. Most books that have first person view make it hell for me to get into. Not here. Reading this book was like meeting an old friend.
I don't know what Nick Hornby has gone through to piece together this ode. It feels real. It's real art. It's one of the best books I've read, ever. I am far, far from being the neurotic Rob, but this bitter ending upset me in a good way. I recommend this. By the way, I too like the Beatles a lot....more
This was a silent, unexpected, and a nasty surprise. What a farce. Books like this are getting 4.02 as average score, while other better books by the This was a silent, unexpected, and a nasty surprise. What a farce. Books like this are getting 4.02 as average score, while other better books by the same author are languishing in around 3.60 score.
Readers who hate cozy mysteries hate books like this. Ring for Murder does a disservice to the genre. The main couple get their marriage postponed. Okay. There are promising points to be plotted.
But instead, the author goes on a tangent about a murder of the hero's brother, in the middle of which the couple cuddle and hug and kiss without sleeping together. The murder mystery is a mess. I'm glad this is the last book in the series....more
Review to come. So far this has been an engrossing read. I remember watching the movie an having mixed feelings about it, but the book has less of thoReview to come. So far this has been an engrossing read. I remember watching the movie an having mixed feelings about it, but the book has less of those moments when you are kind of exhorting the plot to stop plodding. It really puts into perspective how we are the products of our culture. This is definitely five-star material.
Finished the book finally. What a chunkster! What a story! The words kept coming, and I kept being riveted all the way. A slight complaint is that the main character Scarlet has too much grief to bear, and there's no respite for her. The last chapter took me 10 hours to complete. It was so unrelenting in tension. But people labelling it as a romance is sometimes a disservice. It's so much more. This large but singular book (Margaret Mitchell did not write a Go Set A Watchman) is viscerally yours to enjoy. That's it from me....more
Whenever I've heard about other people's favorite books that they reread once a year, I'm puzzled by the fact that they say that they find new things Whenever I've heard about other people's favorite books that they reread once a year, I'm puzzled by the fact that they say that they find new things every time when reading. Not every time, is it?
In fact whenever I reread a Dance with Dragons, I get lost at the very same place, my most treasured book parts are the self same. I don't read the book to hone any detective skill that might be lying dormant in me, but for pure pleasure.
I know the book has problems, but I say that it wouldn't do to follow the same schema as previous books. A Dance with Dragons is officially the fourth best book I've ever read. I can't find the right words to express that hyperbole ( to others). But you know who you are. You who have favorite books and reread them every year. We share the same hobby!...more
The Time Traveler's Wife is the only book where I've considered giving it 1, 2, 3, 4, and five stars at some point. It started off with a strong qualiThe Time Traveler's Wife is the only book where I've considered giving it 1, 2, 3, 4, and five stars at some point. It started off with a strong quality in the writing, which was at first a story about two people coming together. After that, I feared about misunderstanding what the story was about. But the beginning was simply a purely intimate exchange between two people. I thought that by being fated to be stuck together, Clare and Henry lost some free will. Like their high point was consuming an arranged marriage like it occurs mostly in the third world.
But maybe they never compromised at all. Maybe, compromise is a portmanteau of "comme promis". There is some arbitrary French and even more German peppered through the story. Also bands and music artists' names. References to art. I can imagine that the writer is making a comparison between free will and destiny, and life and art. You see, I never bother about guessing the writer's intent in most books. And in my current avatar as an Amazon customer, I've read primarily mysteries. But here the subject is so private that I'm anxious. But that in itself is impossible and silly.
It's also nice to ruminate about the titular character. Clare is the time traveler's wife. The title could not have been the time traveler's child, for example. I think the last chapter decides the earnestness of the whole book, and is the latter's spine. I wish I had read this beautiful story earlier. My God, how could they make a mess of adapting the book for the big screen? The movie is absolutely dreadful. The author remained inspired throughout, and the book never loses steam. I have read about Henry and known him in a way not possible in other mediums. I would, however, not like to meet him. Like Gomez said, he's not right. It's safe to conclude that the meeting with Clare tempers Henry's devilish side. This is not a science fiction story. It's not perfect. If the book WAS perfect, I'd say 'read it and weep'. But I did not, so it's not....more
I chuckled twice while reading the book. You know how likely that a funny writer decides to write urban fantasy? The chances are a hundred to one, proI chuckled twice while reading the book. You know how likely that a funny writer decides to write urban fantasy? The chances are a hundred to one, probably.
"What's the matter, Trent? Jealous?" was a very funny quip. The parts where Rachel was captive, were among the most transcendental bits of a genre that I've barely explored, but did so, so far, to meager rewards.
Now that I've got an entire series of good books waiting in the wings, I'll read them one after the other, starting soon. That's a promise to myself....more
What a disappointment. Why is it that in most books' reviews, only the marginal niche fans vote massively, upholstering the average score so unfairly.What a disappointment. Why is it that in most books' reviews, only the marginal niche fans vote massively, upholstering the average score so unfairly. Unless, it is the romantics who do read diversely that in their unbiased way, gave the book four to five stars. Even people who gave the book the same score as me must have done so for different reasons. Maybe the ending threw them. Maybe I'll never know. I'm left scratching my head as to why this book is considered the best historical fiction on this site.
I'll pool all my misgivings from the last third of the book in this paragraph. Chiyo's outlook towards life is delusional, and is vindicated by her being united with her beau. I wonder what friends I myself would have had my life been more successful. Chiyo's memories of her past are very selective. Sometimes she wants to be a geisha, but anyway she has no choice. Her heart breaks and reseals itself over her journey in becoming one. Her infatuation with the Chairman and her laughable dressing of her repulsion to Nobu sums up the genre of romance. The book is an ungodly mess in its themes. The analogies and lesson-like counsel that passed for wisdom at the end made it all clear. This book's just an escapist dream for delusional romantics of all genders and ages. My reason for my score is mainly that at not one point did the book reel me in. I was never hooked.
I have to consider Hatsumomo, most of the book's main archenemy. She is described as stupid, but reveals herself as cunning. The latter attribute is proved beyond doubt. But her stupidity, abetted by drunkenness, only comes at the end. This was a missed opportunity to dress up a promising character. When Hatsumomo mars a kimono belonging to her rival, it's almost an act of vandalism. But we are never allowed to get the insight whether the act itself has the fuel of 30% meanness and 70% stupidity, or the other way round, or some other permutation.
I first intended to write more than I'm doing. But I want to put this book behind me quickly. I want to make two points (which is more than my favorite team can make at the moment). First, I knew that such a dishonest and cowardly book would make of the tragic Pumpkin, a mean spirited person. I knew it! Her separation from Chiyo should have been temporary. Instead, she estranges herself from joy and purpose in life in the most random way. She is very wimpy in her decision to "join the dark side". It's just not that convincing. Maybe her scavenging act early on foreshadows what the author did with her. It's not an excuse though. Second thing, the stupid and bizarre episode between Chiyo and the Baron. It should have had consequences, but it seemed like the mother of all treaties had been signed between all parties. Very inexplicable. Inexplicable but quite welcome. It's an occurrence that made me distance myself from the narrator. I don't have to be concerned with her when she troubled trouble.
This book, were it a flawed masterpiece and dealt with a genre I detest, would still have gotten more than two stars. But at no point did Memoirs reach a pinnacle or peak of sorts. No event was reciprocal, there was no theme except from a rags to riches story. Nature sometimes was described richly, but new objects of unfamiliarity and technology were glossed over, which is cool, as we're all aware of modern contrivances. It's just that everything I've mentioned makes the narrator fake. It's just sad. It means I'll never read this book again. Neither it nor I deserve it....more
Luffy (Oda's Version)
>
Books:
anti-feminist
(30)
Loading...
