Absolutely hysterical. After being a bit disappointed with "Carry On, Jeeves," I was pleasantly surprised with "Right Ho, Jeeves." Bertie Wooster and...moreAbsolutely hysterical. After being a bit disappointed with "Carry On, Jeeves," I was pleasantly surprised with "Right Ho, Jeeves." Bertie Wooster and Jeeves remain firmly as my most beloved literary characters
While the Jeeves Stories are typically quite formulaic (darling Bertie Wooster getting himself 'in the soup,' ensuing chaos, and the inevitable brilliant resolution by Jeeves), Wodehouse is a master of true English humor. Both the outright and subtle humor of his writing makes all Wodehouse writes a multi-faceted comedy. Really brilliant.
Unlike other books available (for the Jeeves stories), this is basically a novel. ("Carry On, Jeeves," "The Inimitable Jeeves," "Thank You, Jeeves," etc are collections short stories).
Consistently hilarious; very much a demonstration of Wodehouse in his top form. (less)
Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out was not what I had expected it to be. The book itself is a collection of first-person accounts from indivi...moreWhy We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out was not what I had expected it to be. The book itself is a collection of first-person accounts from individuals who, in some capacity or another, were previously involved in the Muslim religious community. I expected a comprehensive, globalised, overview of the atrocities perpetuated by Islam the world over; essentially, a macro-view of Islam's role in world politics, coupled with discussion of individual experiences in the religion and ideology.
There are about twenty individual accounts. Some are written better than others; the introductory five are really the most well-written in the entire book.
It is necessary to contextualize my review, because my personal politics dictate to me how I feel about this book. As a self-identifying atheist, I am comfortable with directly addressing the uglier aspects of religious and theological thought.
This is very much a book where one finds what one is looking for: individuals who are stringently anti-Islamicization are going to find more fodder for their beliefs, while those who belief Muslims are marginalized will find support for that, too.
Upon its release, Why We Left Islam was regarded as extremely controversial, because all of the testimonies brought forth are less than favorable. Most recount sheer barbarism in the name the religion: excessive misogyny, physical abuse, and sheer terror are all consistently perpetuated upon the writers. Each experience in the book is written by separate individuals, yet they maintain the same themes: subjugation of women, tunnel-visioned ignorance, and blind hatred towards the West.
Thoughtfully approaching this book is absolutely imperative. It is an important book to read, because it presents a different viewpoint than is generally propagated in Western media outlets. There is a lot of difficulty, particularly in our 'free' society, in critically exploring faith (Islam, particularly, in light of the 'touchiness' to its links with global terrorism)
Certainly, the threat to Western values of freedom (of speech, thought, belief, religion, conduct (generally), etc,) are clearly endangered by the influx of Islamic values into Western Europe (and to a lesser extent, America). Much like Pim Fortuyn's politics, "tolerating the intolerant" presents a very dangerous situation. How can European and American countries compromise prized values, in an attempt to 'tolerate' a religion that will not rest until the rest of the world is converted, subjugated, or killed? ...There aren't easy answers to the issues that arise in multicultural societies, and the problems are only going to increase in the coming years.
Notably, too, is that WND (WorldNetDaily) books published this collection of essays. WND is known for being a conservative news site, and they have published numerous other books exploring the 'darker' elements of Islam. The book is critical of Islam, but such criticism is not without merit. Clearly the editors of this book are aware how dangerous it is to promote and release such a title. Similarly-written books about Christianity, Judaism, etc, do not face the violent backlash that this book has driven. (less)
Admittedly, I don't usually read books like this, but found Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea to be an overall entertaining collection. The first...moreAdmittedly, I don't usually read books like this, but found Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea to be an overall entertaining collection. The first four essays were, far and away, the 'best' in the collection. Until reading this book, I had no familiarity with Handler.
Totally underwhelming and inconsistently hilarious. Admittedly, the parts that were funny really were fantastic. However, Chelsea Handler glosses over and re-arranges life events in order to align them just so - and thusly make whatever anecdote she's recounting work like one of her performance jokes.
Everything works just a little too well for these to be legitimate essays. Rather, the book reads like an ongoing stand-up routine with more detail added.
Overall, it's a good effort: Handler isn't the best writer (and is occasionally downright dismal), but her stories are generally amusing. (less)
It is necessary to acknowledge that Nietzsche's complexities, both as an individual and as a philosopher, are difficult to contain within one volume....moreIt is necessary to acknowledge that Nietzsche's complexities, both as an individual and as a philosopher, are difficult to contain within one volume. Indeed, scores of works have been written about each individual aphorism of his; to discuss in any depth or serious consideration in such a small volume is, fundamentally, laughable. But, one must start somewhere, and while 'How to Read Nietzsche' is not an ideal starting point for an individual, it is an excellent companion to Nietzsche's own works, or as a follow up to a more basic introductory text ('Introducing Nietzsche' is excellent for one's first Nietzsche reader).
That said, the effort and scope of this book is laudable, and even occasionally remarkable. Pearson divides 'How to Read Nietzsche' into an introduction (laying the most basic framework for Nietzsche's works, life, ideas) and ten chapters. The ten chapters deal (loosely in chronological order) with main philosophies and ideas propagated throughout Nietzsche's canon.
What makes this book excellent is the ability for each of Pearson's chapters to serve as stand-alone commentary on concepts from Nietzsche's works. The chapter on, say, eternal recurrence is an excellent introductory examination of Nietzsche's ideas. One could then read Nietzsche's writings on the subject, and then return to Pearson's commentary.
This is an excellent intermediate text for any individual looking to explore Nietzsche's major philosophical works, and the points contained therein. As a companion to Nietzsche's works, Pearson's commentary offers some straightforward insights and interpretations. Certainly after reading this, one could feel comfortable reading and discussing some of Nietzsche's works (ideally in the Kauffman translation, to be noted).
As with any philosophical (religious, political, etc,) commentary, it is necessary to approach the information contained therein with a mix of caution, interest, and apprehension. What Nietzsche's written and espoused has been necessarily interpreted through Pearson's own experience and knowledge. While the author doesn't come off as necessarily biased or particularly groundbreaking (his interpretations of Nietzsche's major ideas seem fairly straightforward and traditional, which is definitely preferred in an introductory or intermediate text), he does provide the sound basis for developing a deeper understanding of, and intellectual comfort with, Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy.(less)
Hannah Arendt wrote in her book 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' that our modern conception of evil is /banality/; the ubiquitousness of violence, degradation,...moreHannah Arendt wrote in her book 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' that our modern conception of evil is /banality/; the ubiquitousness of violence, degradation, and disrespect for human life is what roots humanity in evil. It is Arendt's version of evil that arises in Ledig's 'Stalin Front': the mechanization of death is the most insidious, and disturbing, part of the story.
There is much to be said for "The Stalin Front." Superficially, it is a war story between the Germans and the Russians (told, either notably or not, by a German) during the battle of Pedrova, a hill outside of Leningrad. Whether to be attributed to Hoffman's translation, or the ambiguity of Ledig's own writing, it is frequently difficult to discern about which side one is reading. With the exception of an occasional 'tovarische' or italicized German or Russian phrase, there is little allusion given to the particular 'sides' in the war.
The mutual hatred between the Russians and the Germans is evident to any student of history. Regardless, there is no politicising the war (and the clash of ideologies and governments). Much like Junger's 'Storm of Steel,' the various political components underpinning the war are virtually ignored in lieu of the focus upon the day-to-day survival of those engaged in the war. There are some small bits of compassion between the two sides, and throughout the story it is evidenced how much the larger the battle is than each individual soldier and officer engaged in it. The overwhelming bureaucracy prevents units on both the Russian and German side from making proper decisions, while units remain at the mercy of their (oft far-removed) commanding officers.
Inherently, there is an amount of violence to be expected of any book regarding war. Ledig's written violence is unequivocally one of the most severe and consuming that I have personally encountered in literature. Despite the incessant barrage of brutality, there are slivers of each character attempting to preserve whatever dignity he has left despite (or, perhaps, in spite of) the circumstances.
Hoffman's translation is clearly painstakingly completed: much of the idiomatic phrases and similes are translated (in closest approximation) to their English counterparts. Some of the writing is jilted, which is either Ledig's writing, or Hoffman's translating. The difficulty, of course, is that there are no other translations of 'The Stalin Front' available at present time, and one is left with Hoffman's by default. Much of the prose is really quite beautiful, but sporadically, some remarkably stilted line or paragraph ekes its way into the work.
Similar books to explore, of course, include other works involving generally apolitical war exploration. In using the term apolitical, there is the expectation that the book is, itself, not a political manifesto of some particular ideology or viewpoint. The book's theme itself may speak a philosophical, ethical, or moral view, though without espousing a pointedly political viewpoint. As such, Ernst Junger's 'Storm of Steel,' Dalton Trumbo's 'Johnny Got His Gun,' and (of course, the perennially recommended war favourite), Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front' are written in a similar vein. (less)
The main problem with this work is the confusing nature of the storyline. Weil clearly has the grandest of ambitions, and it is obvious that he is a c...moreThe main problem with this work is the confusing nature of the storyline. Weil clearly has the grandest of ambitions, and it is obvious that he is a capable, strong writer. The ideas for a remarkable story are certainly there, as is the character development - from the Jewish families, Nazi officials, and Czech citizens. The subtle nuances of each individual struggling to survive in Nazi-occupied Prague bring striking humanity to the most inhuman times; Weil manages to portray each individual character as complex, driven by myriad desires and emotions.
There are heavy allusions made towards certain members of the Nazi party - clearly Speer and Heydrich play substantial roles, though they are never really mentioned by name, only by behaviors, physical descriptions, and commentary on their positions in the Czechoslovakian Protectorate. The Czech characters are human, and trying to bump along and maintain their livelihood in light of the occupation.
In many ways, the complexities of the characters is reflective of contemporary postmodern literature. For a subject matter that is frequently a magnet for absolutist thought and behavior (one side being "all bad," the other side being "all good"), Weil deals thoughtfully and provocatively with the two 'sides' to the Nazi occupation. Neither side is portrayed absolutely: there are moments of kindness on both sides of the conflict. The complexity, however, can become an overriding theme in character development - a behavior not uncommon in 'Mendelssohn is on the Roof' - and prevents true character depth from developing throughout the story.
Some of my favorite writing of the book is included when one of the Nazi leaders (presumed, and heavily implied to be, Reinhardt Heydrich) thinks about the importation of German cultural behavior to Prague. The juxtaposition of his thoughts on Beethoven during the purges of the Nazi party members are remarkable, despite being basically absurd.
Weil's poetic descriptions of the beautiful city (which I have loved so well) are fitting and appropriate: they avoid heavy handedness, while still grasping at the deeply emotional connection many feel with the beauty, and cultural traditions of, Prague.
'Mendelssohn is on the Roof' becomes frustrating because clearly Weil has an excellent story idea. The Nazi occupation of Prague is not nearly as frequently discussed or explored through literature and history as many other aspects of World War II, so Weil successfully avoids cliche and triteness; he is able to bring a fresh outlook to a subject that has been, to some extent, overplayed and wrought with rigid intellectual and emotional behavior.
Weil is obviously confident in his ability to create a remarkable foundation for a story (he is extremely successful), but doesn't excercise control over how, precisely, to incorporate underlying themes and character leitmotifs to effectivelly *tell* the story.
Throughout the novel, it's evident that the author is straddling the line between trying to create a magical realist story (a la M. Kundera's tradition) and telling a linear, simple story of survival amongst Prague's residents. Either methodology would have worked equally well, but the indecision about literary methodology - which carries through to the end of the book - sporadically outshines the story's incredible potential as a masterpiece.
Overall, the work is quite excellent, but not without its flaws. Much like the characters of 'Mendelssohn is on the Roof,' the storytelling itself is courageously ambitious. However, Weil's storytelling wavers without a decisive literary behavior. (less)
The premise is very interesting: a young women decides that her standards for dating are too high (and thusly leading to her overall unhappiness and l...moreThe premise is very interesting: a young women decides that her standards for dating are too high (and thusly leading to her overall unhappiness and lack of love). She decides that, for a year, she will abandon all of her ideals and simply say 'yes' to every man (and woman!) who asks her out.
The problem with the books premise is, of course, a sort-of catch-22. In one sense, The Year of Yes is empowering to read as a single woman: to see another woman throw caution to the wind for love and happiness. In many ways, the book is essentially a celebration of 'singledom,' a way to let loose and disregard social expectations and simply date. However, the book also drives home precisely the message it tries to initially eschew: one can only be happy when 'paired' with another, in the most socially conservative of ways (monogamous, heterosexual, etc, etc).
Of course, the ending is predictable - and the author learns from her experience, grows as a person, finds true love, blah blah blah. By the time I was halfway through, her humor and charm had become stale (I mean really, how many Rilke jokes can you make? How much more can one drum-up their intellectual alienation? ...Puh-leeze), and most of the book read like a circuitous gossip rag. (less)