Tag: 5-stars

Insurgent, Veronica Roth

Posted on by Dana

Tris Prior lives in a dystopian future Chicago divided by factions: Dauntless, who value bravery; Abnegation, who value selflessness; Erudite, who value education and intellect; Amity, who value love and friendship; and Candor, who value truth. Like other citizens in Chicago, Tris takes an aptitude test at the age of sixteen that will determine which faction she has an aptitude for. Tris’s test reveals that she is a rare individual with an equal aptitude for three factions: she is Divergent. The Divergent are considered dangerous and untrustworthy, and Tris is told to hide her test results at all costs.

Veronica Roth’s novel [amazon_link id=”0062024043″ target=”_blank” ]Insurgent[/amazon_link] is the second in a planned trilogy, the first of which, Divergent, tells the story of Tris’s decision to choose Dauntless and her initiation into her faction. I would not recommend trying to read Insurgent without reading Divergent first. Roth wastes no time catching up readers who didn’t pick up the first book and dives into the story, instead. In fact, even though I read Divergent just a few months ago, I frequently found myself trying to remember who various minor characters were and how they fit into the story. You may want to stop reading now if you haven’t read the first novel. Continue reading “Insurgent, Veronica Roth” →

Related posts:

The Plague of Doves

Review: A Brief History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson

Best Books of 2012

Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi

Posted on by Dana

The Complete PersepolisThe first time I ever heard anything about the country of Iran was when I was in second grade. Americans had been taken hostage at the American Embassy in Tehran. We wrote letters to the hostages, and I remembered very clearly that a boy in my class wrote in his letter, “I hope you don’t get shot.” Miss Johnson, my teacher, made him change it because, she said, while she was sure they would appreciate his hoping they wouldn’t get shot, he shouldn’t remind them of the possibility in a letter. They were already scared enough. I remembered thinking that these people must be crazy to kidnap people they didn’t know for no reason I could understand. I think a lot of Americans came to view Iranians as crazy fundamentalists, and it was easy to lump the entire country together under that label. [amazon_link id=”0375714839″ target=”_blank” ]Persepolis[/amazon_link] is a memoir by Marjane Satrapi, who experienced what it was like to live in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. She paints a different image of Iran and Iranians than many Americans my age and younger grew up seeing. She describes what it was like to feel hopeful when the Shah was deposed, only to find the revolution was not what she and her family expected, and in many ways, their lives were worse. Satrapi suddenly had to wear a veil to school. Satrapi was outspoken and frequently courted trouble. When she was fourteen, her parents sent her to school in Austria. She came back to Iran at the age of eighteen confused about who she was: she didn’t feel completely Iranian because her beliefs were out of step with those of her more traditional friends, but she didn’t feel Western, either.

The version I read contains the complete graphic novel, spanning Satrapi’s life from the late 1970’s to the mid-1990’s. I liked the artwork. It was simple but effective, and I found Satrapi’s story so captivating that I read the novel in a matter of hours (although it is true that graphic novels are quicker to read). I have not read many graphic novels. In fact, this is only my second, the other being [amazon_link id=”0394747232″ target=”_blank” ]Maus I: A Survivor’s Tale: My Father Bleeds History[/amazon_link]. I didn’t like Maus all that much, and I have never been much of a comic book reader, so I think I told myself I didn’t like graphic novels. This graphic novel was excellent, though. I found Satrapi’s description of life in Iran and her parents interesting. I think growing up when I did, it was easy to see the people of Iran as “the enemy” and to forget they are not terribly different from us, and what this book does brilliantly is expose that prejudice to the reader. Reading this memoir, I do not have the sense it was written for an Iranian audience. It feels more like it was meant to educate Westerners, and it certainly changed my perspective. We have our own religious extremists here in America, but the difference is that our government allows dissent, and we’re not yet living in the Republic of Gilead.* I enjoyed the fact that the memoir was an unflinchingly honest examination of Satrapi’s coming of age, but also not without quite a fair amount of humor, even the face of difficult circumstances and devastating events. Ultimately, Satrapi’s memoir is the story of how she discovered who she is and what she wanted. I would recommend it to anyone who thinks they don’t like graphic novels. Anyone who already enjoys graphic novels will love this book.

*A reference to the government established by the Religious Right in Margaret Atwood’s novel [amazon_link id=”B003JFJHTS” target=”_blank” ]The Handmaid’s Tale[/amazon_link].

Rating: ★★★★★

I read this novel to fulfill the Graphic Novels and Manga category of the Mixing it Up Challenge.

Related posts:

Review: How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question, Michael Schur

Review: The Book of Life, Deborah Harkness, narrated by Jennifer Ikeda

Those Across the River, Christopher Buehlman

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, J. K. Rowling

Posted on by Dana

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book 2)If you have visited recently, you may recall I’m rereading the Harry Potter series on e-book after receiving the wonderful digital gift of the entire series, British versions. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets does not have as many differences from the American version. Once again, upon reading it, I was struck with how much of the foundation for the rest of the series is laid in Chamber of Secrets.

First, the nasty prejudice against Muggle-borns is first brought to light when Malfoy calls Hermione a “mudblood,” and she and Harry learn what it means from Ron and Hagrid. I never liked the fact that the movies put too many other characters’ lines in Hermione’s mouth, but always thought one of the most egregious violations was when Hermione herself explains to Harry what a mudblood is rather than Ron. After all, as much as she reads, she was still brought up in the Muggle world, just as Harry was, whereas Ron has only grown up among wizards. The reader doesn’t learn how deeply this prejudice against Muggle-born wizards runs until Chamber of Secrets. The only inkling the reader has that it’s a problem in [amazon_link id=”0747573603″ target=”_blank” ]Philosopher’s Stone[/amazon_link] is an offhand remark Draco Malfoy makes in Madam Malkin’s while he and Harry are being fitted for robes, and he is the only character in the book (if memory serves) who exhibits the prejudice. In Chamber of Secrets, we learn Tom Riddle/Voldemort shared the prejudice to the point that he set a monster on Muggle-borns when he was at school, killing Moaning Myrtle, and we also learn that not only do quite a few modern Slytherins share this prejudice, but also that the founder of the house, Salazar Slytherin, left Hogwarts and destroyed his friendship with Godric Gryffindor over the issue. The pervasiveness of the prejudice is really uncovered for the first time in Chamber of Secrets.

Another important issue in the books, starting with [amazon_link id=”0439785960″ target=”_blank” ]Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince[/amazon_link], is the destruction of Voldemort’s horcruxes. We don’t find out what horcruxes are until Dumbledore explains them to Harry in Half-Blood Prince, but a reread of Chamber of Secrets reveals that Dumbledore definitely suspected Harry himself was a horcrux as early as Chamber of Secrets. Harry says, “Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?” Dumbledore replies, “It certainly seems so,” and explains that he didn’t think Voldemort meant to do it. Of course, Harry often hears a nasty little voice in his head, and he somehow intuits how to destroy the diary horcrux without knowing how he knows. His ability to speak Parseltongue probably stems from the horcrux inside him, and I have often wondered if he retained the ability after Voldemort destroyed that horcux, or if he lost it. It seems likely he lost it, but who knows?

We are also introduced to house elves and their peculiar enslavement and magic in Chamber of Secrets. House elves become a huge issue later on when Barty Crouch uses his to hide a horrible secret and winds up setting a Death Eater loose to help Voldemort rise again and subsequently loses his life. We also see how Kreacher’s mistreatment at the hands of Sirius Black costs Sirius his life, and how Harry is able to turn Kreacher’s feelings around through kindness. Hermione, of course, takes up the cause of house elves in [amazon_link id=”0439139600″ target=”_blank” ]Goblet of Fire[/amazon_link].

We also learn for the first time about Polyjuice Potion, which allows witches or wizards to disguise themselves as other people. Rowling was so careful to insert the incident when Harry, Ron, and Hermione brew Polyjuice Potion so they can quiz Malfoy about his involvement with opening the Chamber of Secrets, and given that they don’t really learn much useful information, it seems a sort of throwaway plot line, but it does enable them to become acquainted with Moaning Myrtle, and later on, when Barty Crouch, Jr., uses it to disguise himself as Mad-Eye Moody, we don’t suspect it until the end-of-the-novel reveal, when we learn how Rowling has hoodwinked us yet again while laying the clues out for all to see. Of course, it’s also used in [amazon_link id=”0545139708″ target=”_blank” ]Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows[/amazon_link] when Harry is transported to the Burrow. I suppose the only thing that prevents Polyjuice Potion from wreaking utter chaos in the Magical World is that 1) Polyjuice Potion is difficult to brew, and presumably not every witch and wizard is up to it; and 2) the ingredients are hard to come by—even Barty Crouch, Jr., is forced to pilfer them from Snape’s stores in order to get them.

This book also contains a character Rowling insists is based on a real person—Gilderoy Lockhart. The real person must have been truly awful for Rowling to exact such revenge upon him/her in the form of Gilderoy Lockhart.  What a truly amazing character. So much fun to read and so much fun to hate. I love how Ron is really the first person to have the true measure of Lockhart. When someone points out to Ron all the amazing things Lockhart has done, he mutters under his breath, “He says he’s done.” Ron is the first character to insinuate Lockhart lied about his accomplishments. Even smart Hermione doesn’t see through Lockhart. We also learn for the first time that the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher job is hard to keep filled in this book as well. The DADA teachers seem to be the Red Shirts of the Harry Potter universe. Hagrid tells the trio that Lockhart was the only man willing to take the job and that people seemed to feel the job was cursed.

All of that said, this book is not necessarily my favorite in the series, but I always forget how much I like it until I reread it. It’s quite funny in some places, and it’s really important in terms of laying the cornerstone for the focus of the series. When I read the series first, only the first four books had been released, and rereading this time is bringing back a little of the memory of all the speculating and waiting to find out if I was right. I really wish I could tell J. K. Rowling how much these books mean to me.

Rating: ★★★★★

Related posts:

How to Read Novels Like a Professor, Thomas C. Foster

New Moon

A Thousand Acres

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, J. K. Rowling

Posted on by Dana

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's StoneA friend of mine gave me the wonderful gift of all of the Harry Potter books in e-book format. I just reread the first on my Kindle, and I must say that visiting Harry Potter’s wizarding world feels as comfortable as curling up under a warm blanket, snug against the cold. I realized on this reading that I have much of the book memorized at this point, but this was the first time I read the British version, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. My friend managed to get the British versions of the books for me, and after reading just this one, I much prefer the British versions. I have always thought the American title for this book was foolish dumbing-down for Americans, as though Americans couldn’t be expected to be familiar with the Philosopher’s Stone. I remember being confused when I first read it, thinking that the Sorcerer’s Stone sounded a lot like the Philosopher’s Stone, and wondering why Rowling didn’t use that term, only to find out she did, but that her American editors changed it. Grrr.

Aside from the fact that the British version is better, it’s a joy to return to this world that Rowling crafts  so fully and so beautifully again and look around. Her books are always just as good as I remembered them. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are always as wonderful and winsome as they were the first time. I think Rowling has something of Dickens’s gift for crafting characters. The first time I read the books, I was struck by Rowling’s wordplay, too, and I still enjoy it when I reread.

There are not many books that I reread frequently, but the Harry Potter books certainly are, and I find something new to enjoy and marvel at each time. This time, for instance, I read Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone after having experienced that book on Pottermore. I had the extra information about wandlore, Quirrell’s house at Hogwarts, and McGonagall’s history in mind as I read. I won’t share that information, as it is spoilery, and if you didn’t manage to get into the Beta version of Pottermore, you might wish to explore it on your own and discover the information as you navigate the site. Besides, if you want the spoilers, you can find them elsewhere online. Reading the book made me want to hop on Pottermore and reread some of those sections on the site. I remember how unexpectedly moved I felt when I got my wand, and how happy I was to be sorted in Ravenclaw (I always knew I was a Ravenclaw).

I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of reading this book on my Kindle, too. I often highlight and annotate more in my Kindle books, as I don’t necessarily share them with other family members (and we certainly share Harry Potter books), and I also don’t feel like I’m defacing books. I have a peculiar aversion to writing in books. It does not bother me to write in textbooks or professional reading; in fact, I mark those books up quite a lot. I don’t like annotating fiction, though. What I should say is I don’t like annotating print fiction. I annotate e-books quite a lot. Reading this book on my Kindle gave me license to highlight all my favorite parts and take notes on connections I made. I enjoyed reading the book in this way. Perhaps if I didn’t have a hangup about writing in my print books, reading e-books wouldn’t feel that different to me, but I am finding that I actually prefer e-books lately because I feel I can write in them.

Of course, I finish this book as the book world is buzzing about J. K. Rowling’s new book, The Casual Vacancy, set for release in September. The readers will, of course, just be outraged that it’s not Harry Potter, but I think Rowling is right to go for something completely different. It will be expensive: nearly $35 for hardback and $20 for the e-book (Amazon has it for pre-order in hardback at $21.00). I’ve never paid so much for an e-book, and I can’t see myself rushing out to buy the book at those prices.

The Guardian also recently ran a lovely piece on rereading: “The Pleasures of Rereading” by Tom Lamont.

Rating: ★★★★★

Related posts:

Three Books from My Old TBR Pile and One New Book

Review: If Beale Street Could Talk, James Baldwin, narrated by Bahni Turpin

Top Ten Books That Should Be Required Reading for Teens

Divergent, Veronica Roth

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”0062024027″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]Divergent[/amazon_image]Veronica Roth’s novel [amazon_link id=”0062024027″ target=”_blank” ]Divergent[/amazon_link] is the story of Beatrice Prior, who lives in a future dystopic Chicago. After a cataclysmic war that Beatrice, the first-person narrator of the story, doesn’t know much about, Chicago divided into five factions: Abnegation, who believe that the cause of war is selfishness and seek to be as selfless as possible; Dauntless, who believe the cause of war is cowardice and seek to be as brave as possible; Erudite, who believe the cause of war is ignorance and seek knowledge; Candor, who believe the cause of war is deception and seek to be as honest as possible; and Amity, who believe the cause of war is unkindness and seek to be as kind as possible. At the age of sixteen, each member of this society takes an aptitude test that partly determines which faction they will join. Some people are best suited for the faction into which they are born, but those who are not leave their families behind because in this society, faction comes before family. Beatrice has always felt out of place in Abnegation. She doesn’t feel selfless enough. When she takes her aptitude test, the results are inconclusive, and her test administrator explains that she is something called “Divergent,” which is a very dangerous thing to be, though Beatrice doesn’t know why. All she knows is that she must keep her test results quiet. The day after the aptitude test, Beatrice must choose which faction she will join, and she shocks everyone by choosing Dauntless.

After joining Dauntless, Tris, as she is known, undergoes a tough initiation that hardens her mentally and physically and prepares her for her role in the faction that protects the society. Even in this competitive environment, she manages to make friends and develops an attraction to Four, her instructor. As she becomes more deeply involved in her initiation, she discovers something is not right about her society, which is perhaps not as invested in peace as she has grown up believing.

Fans of Suzanne Collins’s [amazon_link id=”0545265355″ target=”_blank” ]Hunger Games[/amazon_link] series will find much to like in Divergent, the first book of a planned trilogy. Tris is a tough-as-nails heroine not too different from Katniss, though with perhaps a little less confidence. Four is an interesting counterpart and love interest, too (more interesting than Peeta or Gale, in my opinion). The craziness of the Dauntless initiation will remind some of the Hunger Games, and certainly the dystopic future set in a world where people divided based on some arbitrary factor will look familiar, but the factions are more interesting than the districts of Panem. Your station in life in Panem depends so much on which district you are born into, and it seems fairly difficult to change your stars in Collins’s series, but choices determine everything about who you are in Roth’s dystopic Chicago, which I liked because it puts more responsibility into the hands of everyone. Rather than a ruthless Capitol victimizing everyone, Roth writes about a society in which everyone is responsible, to some degree, for the way things are, and are also ignorant of some facets of the society. I haven’t seen a lot of people compare this novel to [amazon_link id=”0547424779″ target=”_blank” ]The Giver[/amazon_link], but I thought of that book often as I read. In Lois Lowry’s novel, the society seems perfect, but Jonas discovers that they systematically execute those who are weak or ill or old. Feelings are suppressed. No one can see color. The weight of discovering what his society is drives him to escape, an event which might destroy his society, given that he has been chosen to the the society’s Receiver. I suspect something similar will happen with Tris. I can’t help but feel she’ll upend the whole society. Unlike Katniss, who knows her society is corrupt and unfair, both Jonas and Tris discover the darkness in their society when they both come of age and choose their role or have it chosen for them.

Divergent is a gripping, edge-of-your-seat read. I read it on the bus, which was a mistake because it nearly caused me to miss my stop several times and actually did cause me to miss my stop once. I can’t wait to read the next book in the series, [amazon_link id=”0062024043″ target=”_blank” ]Insurgent[/amazon_link], which is due out in May. The book leaves open several questions that I hope I learn the answers to before the end of the trilogy:

  • How did the society get like this? Lake Michigan is nothing more than a marsh. I want to know how that happened.
  • What is going on outside of Chicago? Are they the only people in the world, or just cut off from everywhere else?
  • If there are other people, do they have factions too, or is that just Chicago? If it’s just Chicago, what the heck is going on there?

I have other questions, but they’re a little spoilery.

I love dystopian novels. So much fun to read, and with the success of The Hunger Games, it looks like we’ve been seeing a lot of them lately.

I was glad I recently visited Chicago as it helped me visualize the scene much better than if I hadn’t, but I suspect Google Images and a good map would be nearly as helpful.

Oh, and I’m totally jealous of Veronica Roth, who wrote this debut novel when she was only 22 and studying creative writing at Northwestern.

Rating: ★★★★★

Other reviews of Divergent:

This one’s been on my TBR pile for a little while and qualifies as the children’s/YA choice for the Mixing it Up Challenge. Actually, it qualifies for sci-fi/fantasy, but I can’t double-dip.

 

Related posts:

Review: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams

Criticism of the Twilight Series

Summer Reading: Greek and Roman Myth

Moloka’i, Alan Brennert

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”0312304358″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]Moloka’i[/amazon_image]Alan Brennert’s historical novel [amazon_link id=”0312304358″ target=”_blank” ]Moloka’i[/amazon_link] tells the story of the leper colony on the Hawaiian island of Moloka’i through the life of one remarkable woman named Rachel, who is sent to live at the colony at the age of seven when she contracts Hansen’s Disease and is exiled to Moloka’i, forced to leave her family and live as a virtual prisoner.

Once on the island, she has a difficult adjustment, but she also finds a second family, friends, love and causes for joy that she never expected. She builds a life for herself on the island, and she endures her share of tragedy, but ultimately, the book is not sad, and I would even say I felt it ended on a triumphant note. I liked this passage at the beginning and thought I’d share it:

Papa tied up at the Esplanade, his children putting on a brave face as they escorted him back to the SS Mariposa, all of them quietly determined not to cry.

But almost as though someone were taking their secret thoughts, their hidden grief, and vocalizing it, there came—from the pier immediately ahead—a terrible, anguished wail. It was not one voice but many, a chorus falling like the wind. It was, Henry and Dorothy both knew, not merely a wail, but a word: Auwē, Auwwayy! (Alas! Alas!)

It sounded exactly like the cries of grief and loss that Rachel had heard the day the king had come home. “Mama,” she said, fearfully, “is the Queen dead, too?”

“No, child, no,” Dorothy said.

Moored off Pier 10 was a small, decrepit interisland steamer, the Mokoli’i. A distraught crowd huddled behind a wooden barricade, sighing their mournful dirge as a procession of others—young and old, men and women, predominantly Hawaiians and Chinese—were herded by police onto the old cattle boat. Now and then one of the people behind the barricade would reach out to touch someone boarding the ship: a man grasping for a woman, a child reaching for his mother, a friend clasping another’s hand for the last time.

“Ma’i pākē,” Kimo said softly.

“What?” Rached asked.

“They’re lepers, you ninny,” Sarah admonished. “Going to Moloka’i.”

“What’s a leper?”

Someone in the crowd threw a flower lei onto the water, but contrary to legend, it was not likely to ever bring any of these travelers back to Honolulu.

“They’re sick, baby. Very sick,” Mama explained. Rachel didn’t understand. The people didn’t look sick; they didn’t look much different than anyone on the other side of the barricade.

“If they’re sick,” Rachel asked, “why isn’t someone taking care of them?”

No one answered her; and as that word, leper, hung in the still humid air, Dorothy dug her fingers into Rachel’s shoulders and turned her away from the Mokoli’i. (16-17)

This passage sets up the events in the novel beautifully and creates a thread, with the cry of Auwē, Alas! that is woven throughout the book. I liked Rachel a great deal as a character. The characters as a whole are well developed, and I think this book tells the important and little known story about Moloka’i respectfully and beautifully in a way that exposes the pain that the colony’s residents surely felt while still acknowledging that even in circumstances of pain and loss, it’s possible to find great joy and happiness. Rachel’s incredible life is a monument to the real residents of the colony at Kalaupapa, Moloka’i. I am very glad I was introduced to their story.

I will admit that for part of this book, it wasn’t coasting on a full five stars, mainly because Brennert does make some choices as a writer in terms of style that detracted from my enjoyment of the novel, but the characters and plot swiftly drew me beyond caring anymore, and by the end, I was in love with the book. If you have a mind to learn about Hansen’s Disease or late nineteenth and early twentieth century Hawaii, or if you just like a good historical novel, I highly recommend this book.

Rating: ★★★★★

Full disclosure: I obtained this book from PaperBackSwap.

Historical Fiction Challenge 2012

Mount TBR Reading Challenge 2012

Related posts:

Reading Update: Where is Shelley's Ghost?

The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien, Rob Inglis

Three Sherlock Holmes Stories

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Sherman Alexie

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”0316013684″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian[/amazon_image]Sherman Alexie’s young adult novel [amazon_link id=”0316013684″ target=”_blank” ]The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian[/amazon_link] is the story of Arnold Spirit, Jr., better known as Junior, a fourteen-year-old Spokane Indian living on the reservation and dreaming of a better life. When he begins high school on the reservation and opens his geometry book only discover his mother’s name written the book (it had been her geometry book, too), he becomes enraged at the poverty surrounding him and the way he must live. His teacher suggests he go to the white high school in a nearby small town off the reservation so that he will have a shot at a better education. He decides to do it. He must win the acceptance of his white peers at the high school and contend with his friends’ belief that he is a traitor for going to school off the Rez.

Neil Gaiman’s blurb on the back cover reads:

Excellent in every way, poignant and really funny and heartwarming and honest and wise and smart… I have no doubt that in a year or so it’ll both be winning awards and being banned.

In fact, it was recently removed from the library shelves and curriculum of a local Georgia system (for “study,” ostensibly). Whether the book will survive the challenge or not is up in the air, but people who pick out a couple of things to be angry about in these books without looking at the context make me so angry. One of the complaints the book received in this recent challenge is that it’s “anti-Christian.” Junior is mad at God after suffering the deaths of two people close to him in senseless accidents within a matter of weeks. Many people going through the grieving process are mad at God for a while. And they may say things that indicate that anger. If the worst thing a kid in Junior’s shoes does is imply Jesus once passed gas, then I would like to think we could all have a sense of humor and admit it’s true. All human beings do that, right?

At any rate, I think this book is great for students in middle and high school to read. It’s funny, even when Junior is describing the tragedy of living with an alcoholic father or losing his best friend, he manages to make you smile and even laugh out loud. More than that, however, the book is perfect for examining the big question of identity that teens grapple with. Junior has more trouble than most teens with this question because he knows he can’t reach his goals on the reservation, but he also feels like he’s betraying the people he loves by going. Junior’s cartoons, sprinkled throughout the text, illustrate his complicated feelings and add to the story.

I have to say I agree completely with Neil Gaiman’s assessment of the book.

Rating: ★★★★★

Full disclosure: I checked this book out of my school library.

Related posts:

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Great Expectations, Charles Dickens

The American Heiress, Daisy Goodwin

Misery, Stephen King

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”0451169522″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]Misery[/amazon_image]You’ve probably seen the film based on Stephen King’s novel [amazon_link id=”0451169522″ target=”_blank” ]Misery[/amazon_link], even if you haven’t read the book, so you probably know the story: writer Paul Sheldon is kidnapped after nearly dying in a car accident and tortured by insane former nurse Annie Wilkes, who is his number one fan. Incredulous that Paul has written a novel she considers crass, she forces him to burn it and write Misery, the romance-novel heroine he killed off in his last book Misery’s Child, back into being in Misery’s Return. Paul undergoes the worst sorts of physical and psychological terror as he writes what ironically is certainly the best Misery novel he’s written.

I saw the movie when it came out, and having read the book now, about twenty years later, it seems as if the movie adhered fairly closely to the plot of the book. Kathy Bates was brilliant as Annie, and having seen the movie first, of course I pictured her in the role as I read. Annie Wilkes may be completely insane, but putting on my writer glasses, I can see she was a gift of a character for King. She is possibly the most frightening villain I’ve read precisely because of the realness of her character. On the one hand, she’s a completely psychotic serial killer who first murdered almost an entire family at the age of eleven; on the other hand, she can’t stand cursing, lying, or smoking. She uses lame expletives like “cockadoodie brat” and admonishes Paul for wanting a cigarette even as she contemplates murdering him. My husband says he thinks King is wary of people who don’t curse, that somehow, those people are a little unhinged.

One of the things King says in [amazon_link id=”1439156816″ target=”_blank” ]On Writing[/amazon_link] is that folks ask him why he writes the kinds of stories he writes, and his response is that he doesn’t have a choice. You have to wonder what kind of a place a novel like Misery came from. I always kind of enjoy books about writers. My NaNoWriMo novel is such a book. I’m not sure why, but that sort of window into the creative process is always interesting to me. I like to see fictional writers flying away on their keyboards, sweating through writer’s block, and triumphantly finishing a novel. It’s kind of weird to read books about writing, I guess, and now that you pin me down, I’m hard pressed to name another book like this that I’ve read.

One reason I read this novel (finally) was that King mentioned both the book and the character Annie Wilkes (and he clearly thought Annie was more interesting than Paul Sheldon) several times in On Writing, and I was struck with the desire to see what it was all about. It is fairly gruesome, but I think most people picking up a Stephen King book know what they’re in for without needing to be warned. The book is quick-paced and starts off right in the middle of the action. It’s a great on-the-edge-of-your-seat read.

Rating: ★★★★★

Full disclosure: I obtained this book from PaperBackSwap.

Related posts:

Review: The Bookshop on the Corner, Jenny Colgan

Delirium, Lauren Oliver

Great Expectations, Charles Dickens

Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”9626343613″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]Sense And Sensibility (Naxos AudioBooks)[/amazon_image]This morning on my way to school, I finished listening to the Naxos Audio recording of [amazon_link id=”9626343613″ target=”_blank” ]Sense and Sensibility[/amazon_link] by Jane Austen read by Juliet Stevenson. I first read S&S 1998 and again in 2010, and it was a treat to re-read. I particularly loved Elinor this time around.

If you have not read the book, it is the only Austen novel I can think of with two female protagonists, though it could be argued the protagonist is really Elinor more than Marianne.  I like Elinor so much. I want to be her when I grow up. Anyway, Elinor and Marianne are the two Dashwood sisters turned out of their home, Norland Park, after their father died and their elder brother inherited the estate and was convinced by his horrible wife Fanny not to provide much for his stepmother and sisters. Meanwhile, Fanny’s brother Edward Ferrars visits Norland, and he and Elinor form what looks to all around them like an attachment. The Dashwood women are offered a cottage in Barton by Sir John Middleton, a relation. Marianne meets dashing John Willoughby and considers him a kindred spirit and soulmate even as she captures the heart of Colonel Brandon. However, both women are disappointed in their love affairs, and it is their responses to their disappointments and their consideration of others that forms the basis of most of the novel.

Sense and Sensibility is one of my favorite novels of all time, and is in my top three Austen novels (alongside Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion). Each time I turn to any of these novels, I feel I’m sitting down with an old friend. I feel at home. I think Austen does an excellent job with characterization. I did find myself wondering (yet again) what made Edward Ferrars so attractive to Elinor. Hugh Grant does an excellent job bringing life to that character in the 1995 film. I found I liked the idea of her marrying Colonel Brandon and wondered why he wasn’t sensible enough to see how wonderful she was, but as neither of them was interested in the other, perhaps it was for the best. Marianne grated on me a little more this time, perhaps because I am now 40 years old instead of my mid-20’s when I read the book last time, and I found her too immature and dramatic. I know—she’s supposed to be; that was rather the point. I do love the character names in this book, too. Just a touch of the exotic.

Juliet Stevenson is an excellent narrator. I love her characterization of Mrs. Jennings, and she does an excellent job reading Elinor and Marianne, too. They sound just like they should sound. I had the feeling that Stevenson was rather trying to imitate Elizabeth Spriggs, who played Mrs. Jennings in the 1995 production of [amazon_link id=”0800141660″ target=”_blank” ]Sense & Sensibility[/amazon_link]. She certainly sounded like Spriggs to me. I had previously listened to Stevenson read [amazon_link id=”9626344369″ target=”_blank” ]Persuasion[/amazon_link] (review), which I also loved. Stevenson also reads versions of [amazon_link id=”962634394X” target=”_blank” ]Emma[/amazon_link], [amazon_link id=”962634427X” target=”_blank” ]Northanger Abbey[/amazon_link], and [amazon_link id=”9626344679″ target=”_blank” ]Mansfield Park[/amazon_link] for Naxos, but, curiously, not [amazon_link id=”9626343567″ target=”_blank” ]Pride and Prejudice[/amazon_link]. She’s an excellent narrator, and if you can snag one of her Austen recordings, you won’t regret it.

I wonder if anyone can answer me this question (particularly if you’re British). I noticed that Stevenson pronounces the word “further” like “farther” and “farther” like “further” (so their sounds are switched) and says “sprung” for “sprang” and the like. Is that a dialect? Or is that considered the proper way to pronounce those words? I thought it was odd because it introduces confusion where there need be none. If it’s a dialect, I get it, but if it’s accepted pronunciation, that seems like a strange language quirk to me.

I reread this novel for the Sense and Sensibility Bicentenary Challenge. It was actually published 200 years ago this month, so how appropriate did it turn out to be, after all, that I waited until almost the end of the year to start this particular challenge?

Rating: ★★★★★

Related posts:

Review: Salt Fat Acid Heat, Samin Nosrat

Review: A Better Man, Michael Ian Black

Review: The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, Sherman Alexie

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, Stephen King

Posted on by Dana

[amazon_image id=”1439156816″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” class=”alignleft”]On Writing: 10th Anniversary Edition: A Memoir of the Craft[/amazon_image]Stephen King’s guide for writers, [amazon_link id=”1439156816″ target=”_blank” ]On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft[/amazon_link], is the best book on writing well that I’ve ever read, and as an English teacher, I have had my hands on all kinds of writing advice. King’s memoir begins with what he calls his C.V.: the story of how he became a writer. The middle section of the book contains King’s advice for writers, including everything from how to start to how to find an agent. It’s practical, no-nonsense advice. The final section chronicles King’s near-fatal accident and how he recovered and was able to write again.

King’s best advice, from the venerable [amazon_link id=”0205313426″ target=”_blank” ]Strunk & White[/amazon_link], is to “omit needless words.” Especially helpful are King’s demonstrations of how he does that in his own writing. I have already found myself applying his advice as I am drafting my NaNo novel. Interestingly, I am not a tremendous fan of King’s books. I grew up with a healthy respect for him as a writer because my parents always had his books around, and I could always find them in the bookstore, grocery store, or library whenever I wanted. I read a few of them when I was in high school, but I have not picked up his writing since that time. Reading this book has just about convinced me I have to pick up [amazon_link id=”0451169522″ target=”_blank” ]Misery[/amazon_link]. I’ve seen the movie, but I have never read the book. Annie Wilkes sounds like an interesting character to read. However, this is not to say I have ever thought he wasn’t a good writer, and to be honest, whether I think that or Harold Bloom thinks that (he doesn’t, by the way, but Neil Gaiman does) doesn’t matter much because a lot of people like his books. He’s doing something right. For what it’s worth, I think Harold Bloom is a sexist, barmy old fart.

King’s advice to read a lot and write a lot if you want to be a writer is the soundest, most succinct advice I’ve ever read. I know my writing has improved by bounds since I began reviewing books in this blog because I have read more. This year, I plan to finish 50 books, which will probably be the most books I’ve ever read in a year. Reading is studying and researching the craft, and I recognized myself in King’s description of that moment a writer has when she has realized for the first time that she could write better than a published writer she has read. I am also writing a lot more. I wrote over 2,000 words in my NaNo novel yesterday, and that really wasn’t even all I wrote that day. I write something every day. Last year, I couldn’t finish, and the year before that, writing even the daily 1,667 was difficult. It’s easier now. Not to say it’s easy, but it’s easier. I have to attribute that to the reading and writing I’ve done this year. If I could add anything to King’s advice, I’d recommend reflecting in writing on the books you read, whether it’s a blog or a reading journal. I find that thinking about the reading in that way is a bit like tinkering under the hood. You learn more about how others use words and how paragraphs fit together. Just reading is enough, but the reflection helps you process what you’ve read.

I didn’t expect this book to be so personal. It’s very clear that King is deeply in love with his wife, and given the length of their marriage, it’s refreshing and encouraging. He respects her opinion and views her as his partner in every sense. I have to admit I did tear up near the end as I read about his fear that he would die as a result of his injuries and how his wife helped him start writing again. I know she is very much in his shadow. I did try to read a book she wrote when I was in high school, but I didn’t get far, and I just haven’t picked up anything else.

On Writing is readable and direct as well as entertaining and informative. If you harbor any secret desires to be a writer, this book is an essential part of your collection, and dipping into it again every once in a while as a refresher is a good idea.

And now I really need to turn to my own writing, if you’ll excuse me.

Rating: ★★★★★

Related posts:

May Reading Update

The Fault in Our Stars, John Green

Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle