Rather like Orwell's "Animal Farm", this is a very disappointing book by an accomplished author. After "Grapes of Wrath" and "Cannery Row" (two of theRather like Orwell's "Animal Farm", this is a very disappointing book by an accomplished author. After "Grapes of Wrath" and "Cannery Row" (two of the finest American novels ever written), Steinbeck produced this tedious dreck. Like Spielberg in more recent times, Steinbeck disabled his self-censoring ability so as to produce more art, and this mawkish and simplistic morality tale bears some comparison with the predictability and emotional illiteracy in the "Star Wars" series. Both are poor works by talented artists which outsold the artists' better work. Go figure. Read "Cannery Row". Don't read this unless you're a school student and you have to. ...more
This book is an astounding piece of work. Beevor does not have the moral resonance of a Martin Gilbert or the sparkling language of a Dan Van Der Vat,This book is an astounding piece of work. Beevor does not have the moral resonance of a Martin Gilbert or the sparkling language of a Dan Van Der Vat, but in his own stolid way he tells a damn good story. Painstakingly researched and grippingly told, the book begins with Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's ill-conceived and treacherous plan to invade the Soviet Union. As we all know, this attempt foundered after the Soviet counter-attacks around Stalingrad in the Northern winter of 1942-43. Beevor attains a nice balance between telling the stories of the top leaders with their cigars, brandy and strategy maps, and what life was like for the ordinary soldiers who died in their hundreds of thousands in the snow. He also has a nice balanced approach to the two sides; we are spared neither Hitler's stupidity and vacillation, nor Stalin's arrogance and carelessness. Ultimately, the book's thesis is that both leaders were pretty careless of their own people's lives, but that Stalin was the more pragmatic; Hitler's amour propre and fey mysticism cost him and his country dear in the end. A fitting lesson for our times....more
Amis almost defines what is good about post-modernism in literature for me. Here he examines London in the late 20th century, touching upon themes likAmis almost defines what is good about post-modernism in literature for me. Here he examines London in the late 20th century, touching upon themes like class, sex, money and Anglo-American cultural differences. Memorable to me are the descriptions of Marmaduke (the baby from hell) and Keith Talent (the yobbish darts player). As in all Amis's work, the language never disappoints; he is a worthy successor to Nabokov in this regard. A dark and sometimes highly cynical book, this is not for everyone, but if you have the intelligence to "get" what Amis is talking about I think you will enjoy this book very much....more
Catch-22 is a difficult book to review. By bringing absurdism into the area of war (and particularly the Second World War, the last "good war" AmericaCatch-22 is a difficult book to review. By bringing absurdism into the area of war (and particularly the Second World War, the last "good war" America fought in), Heller knowingly risks offending people's sensitivities. So be it. Heller justifies all in the name of art and morality, and I embrace that justification. This book is definitely "worth its salt", to quote one of the many running gags within.
Yossarian is a Bombardier in a USAAF bomber squadron in the Mediterranean. He fears death and wishes to survive the war. In trying to escape combat duty on a medical exemption he encounters the paradoxical "catch" embodied in the title, which has since entered the language:
"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle." "That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed."
This is a clever and well-written book which demands rereading in these gung-ho times. One may disagree with Heller's cynicism on war ("Open your eyes, Clevinger. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead.") but anyone has to acknowledge Heller's talent with words. As a dead war veteran himself, Heller, like Vonnegut (whose wonderful "Slaughterhouse-5" should be read alongside this book), is impregnably immune to the carping of war-loving critics who, like George W Bush, had something better to do when the opportunity to fight arose....more
"Darkness at Noon" is an intelligent and moving treatment of the Soviet system at the time of Stalin's purges of the 1930s which killed anywhere betwe"Darkness at Noon" is an intelligent and moving treatment of the Soviet system at the time of Stalin's purges of the 1930s which killed anywhere between 1 and 2 million people, the vast majority of whom had done absolutely nothing wrong.
Rubashov, the book's protagonist, is a Bolshevik 1917 revolutionary who is first cast out and then imprisoned and tried for treason by the Soviet government he once helped create. George Orwell reviewed this book and tried to better it in writing "Animal Farm" - unsuccessfully in my view. Koestler's work is fresher, better and a more honest work of art....more
Less of a book and more of a "treatment", this almost reads like the outline or precis of a real novel which McEwan was too lazy or otherwise unable tLess of a book and more of a "treatment", this almost reads like the outline or precis of a real novel which McEwan was too lazy or otherwise unable to write. Full of good ideas which are not developed in any meaningful way. I don't recommend it; I hear some of his other stuff is better but I let this one put me off the writer so have not read them....more
This is one of the best, perhaps the best ever, drug books ever written. If you saw the film (which is decent), please read the book. It is as fresh aThis is one of the best, perhaps the best ever, drug books ever written. If you saw the film (which is decent), please read the book. It is as fresh and as good as if it was written yesterday. A splendid antidote to both anti-drug and pro-drug propaganda, Dick was there and lived the life and wrote beautifully about it. I wish there were writers like this alive and writing today in the US....more
In reviewing this wonderful 1969 book by German-American war veteran Kurt Vonnegut, one may hardly do better than quote the author himself, who, in trIn reviewing this wonderful 1969 book by German-American war veteran Kurt Vonnegut, one may hardly do better than quote the author himself, who, in true post-modernist fashion, explains thoroughly in the book itself what the book is about.
"There are no characters in this story and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters."
Vonnegut was captured by Germany during the Battle of the Bulge and, as an impressed POW worker, witnessed the destruction of Dresden ("the Florence of the Elbe") by Allied air power in early 1945. The book is a fictionalized account of Vonnegut's war experience, from the point of view of Billy Pilgrim, who has lost his grip on time after being abducted by aliens. Like Vonnegut, Pilgrim is captured by the Germans, taken to Dresden, with which he falls in love, works in a factory making food supplements for pregnant women, survives its devastation and emerges into the ruins after sheltering in the cellars of an abattoir (the "Slaughterhouse-Five" of the title).
It is a powerful and moving indictment of war, well outside the traditional canon of war literature, by one who saw war at first hand. It takes a moral stance on war without being simplistic. In its depth and range, it is among the finest of American fiction, and it should be reread constantly by those who need to be reminded of the human consequences of warfare. To quote again from the book:
"The nicest veterans in Schenectady, I thought, the kindest and funniest ones, the ones who hated war the most, were the ones who'd really fought."...more
Turgid and labored, this is a poor book by a great writer. If you want good Orwell, try "1984", try "Down and Out in Paris and London", even try "ComiTurgid and labored, this is a poor book by a great writer. If you want good Orwell, try "1984", try "Down and Out in Paris and London", even try "Coming Up For Air" (though only if you want to be depressed). Don't try this simplistic fairy tale; its only value is as a lesson of what happens when the artist falls too much in love with his own art. This is Orwell's "Of Mice and Men", the moment where he over-reached himself and gave birth to a lump of pure schmaltz which has been humorlessly mis-read by right-wingers ever since it came off the presses. The horses are good.
If you want a really good critique of the Soviet system, try instead Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon"....more
This is a gripping World War 2 thriller written by a former merchant seaman. I last read it when I was 11 in 1976 and recently reread it. It stands upThis is a gripping World War 2 thriller written by a former merchant seaman. I last read it when I was 11 in 1976 and recently reread it. It stands up well; the story-line moves along briskly, the characters are believable (if somewhat interchangeable) and the ending is satisfying and slightly poignant. On rereading it with more knowledge of WW2 naval history the whole premise of the story is unconvincing but it is a good, slightly slim, naval warfare thriller....more
Golding's thesis in this book is that, given the opportunity, people revert to savagery, or at least adolescent boys do. Having been a teacher for somGolding's thesis in this book is that, given the opportunity, people revert to savagery, or at least adolescent boys do. Having been a teacher for some years, I can at least sympathize with this. However the book he writes to purvey this notion is an unsatisfying one. Golding huffs and puffs and works very hard to produce a page-turner with shocking notions, a page-turning plot and a cliff-hanger at every chapter's end. Unfortunately, he is not a good enough writer to carry it off and you can see the strings holding the scenery up, so to speak. Characterization is so lacking that I felt nothing at all when one of the boys was killed, for example. The plot progresses with a slowness verging on tedium.
I reviewed what I wrote here and realized that I haven't read this since high school; I should reread it before writing too harshly critical a review. I had compared Golding with Dan Brown in a previous draft of the review; I now recognize that was very unfair. Golding was a far better writer than Brown can ever be. Perhaps this book suffers from having been so much studied at school....more
Really worthless piece of trash. I am no snob and recognize that there is a place for popular fiction; but this book fails on all grounds. The book isReally worthless piece of trash. I am no snob and recognize that there is a place for popular fiction; but this book fails on all grounds. The book is littered with factual and cultural gaffes, indeed it can be said to be constructed from a series of misunderstandings. The central premise is as ludicrous as the characters are one-dimensional. Almost none of the "facts" in the book are actually true, even down to the most basic statements of geographical location. Dan Brown, I believe, used to be a coach of creative writing, and I shudder to think how awful his classes must have been if this work is anything to go by. From the formulaic writing style to the predictable and yawn-inducing plot, this is less of a book and more of a prop for a wobbly table....more
Salinger's genius as a writer is matched only by his inactivity. A most unpromising idea for a novel (the teen angst of an American adolescent) is rehSalinger's genius as a writer is matched only by his inactivity. A most unpromising idea for a novel (the teen angst of an American adolescent) is rehabilitated by the elan and zest with which Salinger writes. The themes of repressed sexuality and disaffection are handled so sensitively and well that one feels a real connection with Holden Caulfield by the end of the book. Salinger avoids easy answers and trite commentary here, and this is a difficult but rewarding read. All teenagers should read it....more
I've read all of Sedaris's books and I think this is among his best so far. An amusing if slightly insubstantial writer, his intelligence and facilityI've read all of Sedaris's books and I think this is among his best so far. An amusing if slightly insubstantial writer, his intelligence and facility with words make him ideal reading to while away the summer days. Start-to-finish this book took me a shade over four hours to complete and I don't know if I would read it again. It's made up of Sedaris's usual riffs on family, growing up gay in America of yesteryear, travel tales, amusing anecdotes and observations, etc. He also deals with the trials of giving up smoking in Japan. There are some great moments here. Truly he is the Oscar Wilde of the 21st century, with all the good and bad that that implies....more