|
July 26
|
|
April
gave
 
to:
Atlas Shrugged (Paperback)
by Ayn Rand
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in July, 2008
April said:
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.
The book in a nutshell is arrogant, naive, outdated, and so inherently flawed that I don’t know how to begin. That Ayn Rand is for big business and small government becomes fairly obvious from the start, and if it were only about that, I’d be writing a kinder review ... because some of her ideas make sense.
For instance, that competent people could get fed up with incompetent people making unreasonable demands on them that they’d just drop everything and leave? I get that. I’ve been one of those fed-up people, and in companies bought out by incompetents, smart people either leave in disgust or get fired for stupid reasons, resulting in a brain drain, which could be bad for a company. This happens on a small scale, however, and to a limited degree, contained within the company and affecting only a fraction of the staff.
Yet Ayn Rand takes this small universal phenomenon and applies it to the entire world, and not just to a limited degree but taken further so that the U.S. is practically demolished--all travel, communication, order, and power grids destroyed, supposedly by incompetence--before the competent folk come back to rebuild, which is ridiculous because it ignores so much involved in the lifeblood of a country, its culture, its economy, and its legal processes. And it ignores human psychology. Even if we all subscribed to the Randian philosophy, I somehow doubt that we’d all let the world go to hell--people starving, rioting, disappearing, dying, and structures collapsing into rubble--just to make a point with those who oppose us. It seems unreasonably cruel.
So why is it that Rand’s characters would run to save a blast furnace but not millions of starving people?
I understand how the author feels about charity--in some respects, I feel the same way; I much prefer giving to those who are as deserving as they are needy, would rather avoid enabling those who by indulging in bad behavior might abuse other people’s generosity, and find it a touch distasteful when people outright solicit me in the name of charity--but I fail to understand how her characters can wholly ignore the needs of society and not only completely withdraw their contribution to the economy but also actively and deliberately set out to kill the economy through piracy and destruction. It stinks of vigilantism, where people outraged with the lawbreakers set out to break the laws themselves, all in the name of justice, like stooping to the level of murderers and looters by killing and stealing from those who kill and steal. Only comic book heroes get to do that, so like Rand’s heroes seem. I know that was her intention, but I don't have to like it. The book vies to be heavier than the yellow pages, and yet she has heroes I would have preferred to meet within the very slim and colorful volume of a comic book. It doesn’t seem right.
What bothers me most is that her heroes are flawless by her standards, her villains wholly lacking in any virtues. She makes a lousy devil’s advocate because she fails in presenting the other side of any argument in a convincing way. When one of her heroes gets into a debate with anyone, the hero is always articulate, deliberate, reasonable, rational, and completely unflappable, however much like religious fervor his needlessly long speeches might sound--whereas the opposition always stutters, blusters, whines, complains, and gets utterly confused or bemused by the hero’s arguments. None of the opposition’s arguments make any sense or are any good, and not only do the motivations behind their actions seem forced, but the stupidity of their motivations also seem forced, as if in order to make her protagonists the epitome of rational thought, Rand must remove all traces of rational thought from her antagonists.
In war, a good general thinks like the enemy, anticipates his moves, and wins by besting the enemy’s thoughtful strategy with his own. In Atlas Shrugged, however, Rand does away with the whole Know Thine Enemy concept and instead says, “Let’s just assume the enemy is abysmally stupid,” and then goes from there ... the implication being that anyone who disagrees with her philosophy must be lacking in common sense, so it takes her no effort to defend her views. Her dissenters might actually have valid points to make, but who is she to entertain that fact? She has so much conviction in her own beliefs, why bother with anyone else’s? It’s like being a medieval general in the Children’s Crusade. We have the might because we have the right. Never mind the reality.
Which is? The kind of laissez-faire capitalism that the author so obviously espouses is not the best way. Russian-born Rand barely escaped communism, so I presume that because she saw one political extreme work badly, she went for the other extreme. Her hero John Galt preaches that it’s evil to compromise, so I can only assume that Rand would see any moderate view between the two as a BAD thing. Never mind the proof that history has provided that the middle ground works better than the extremes.
Another bothersome bit about this book was that the heroes had all the incentive and energy to destroy everything that they had worked so hard to build and then to rebuild elsewhere as much of what they had just destroyed. They also had the patience and certainty to wait out the long years of all this activity, until the culmination of all their hopes and goals. All that, and YET, they couldn’t be bothered to work towards having the kind of government they wanted WITHOUT all that destructive behavior. They are, after all, prime movers--wealthy, intelligent, capable, and powerful--but they can’t team up to lobby against income taxes and for deregulation? They can’t form a political party, win offices, propose and pass laws that would be beneficial to them? Come on. Really?
They spout this work-to-make-life-easier philosophy, but their actions contradict their creed. Galt differentiates between the looters who want to destroy and die and the producers who want to produce and live, and yet here are these heroic producers, actively destroying every productive endeavor in the country, most especially their own. What twisted logic. What hypocrisy. Like the child who cries, “If you won’t play my way, I’ll take my ball and leave.”
Then there’s the unrealistic way that the heroes respond. Three men are in love with Dagny Taggart, and she sleeps with each of them in turn--yet not one of the three are jealous of the others; in fact, they all become close friends, each admiring the others. And not one of the prime movers is angry with the others who left everyone in the outside world high and dry. Only briefly is Rearden angry with d’Anconia over the copper ore, but then he comes around and forgives him for it, then goes further and thanks him for it. Not one of the businessmen blames or resents the others for leaving the country to crumble and for making their own struggle difficult. If they had all stayed put and campaigned for power, they all might have won without destroying the country first. But not one of them asks, “Is all this necessary?” Instead, they blame the “looters” for the country’s dystopian state, never for a moment considering what their own actions might have contributed to it.
Another puzzle? The suicide of Mrs. James Taggart. Mrs. Taggart is of the same mind as Dagny ... and yet she fears her own shadow. If people who subscribe to Rand’s views have so much self-esteem and a will to live, why does Mrs. Taggart bow to her husband, doubt her own opinions and judgment, and then go off and kill herself? It makes as much sense as the prime movers having so much self-esteem that instead of fighting for what they want in the outside world, they go and hide in the mountains.
Yet another puzzle? The villains’ reaction to Galt. Taggart hates him instantly, though he’d never met him before. Rand justifies it, but such a hatred can only be personal, and Galt is a stranger to Taggart. Up until they capture him, he’s been nothing but a name in a rhetorical question. So where do they get the idea that Galt is anyone great? By his radio speech alone? Galt had left the world before he made his bones, so he hadn’t actually proven himself to them. He might have invented a wonderful motor, but it was never patented, sold, and used in the outside world. So all they had was Galt’s word, and from that alone they want him to save the economy. Does that make sense?
For villains with no self-esteem, they sure had the gall to think they could run the country well. For people who preached self-sacrifice, they sure held on to the reins of power with an obstinacy that screamed, “Mine! Mine! Mine!” In my experience, people with no self-esteem, who speak against selfishness, tend to defer such power to others, but perhaps I misunderstand. 30 long chapters full of circuitous and repetitive explanations tend to muddle things. Oh, the inanity of “Existence exists.”
Particularly cringe-worthy was the rescue operation, where the heroes’ social engineering stunts to save Galt consisted of lame arguments that actually stymied the guards. That had as much authenticity as a James Bond villain taking the time to tie Bond up in some elaborate death trap while revealing all his evil, deadly plans.
I did enjoy Rand’s literary style and narrative descriptions. It’s wordy and over the top, but the book was visually rich. I could easily see the world that she built. I just couldn’t understand it. A challenging book, if somewhat tedious.
Finished reading July 25, 2008....less
"
|
|
July 23
|
|
April
is currently reading:
The Margarets (Mass Market Paperback)
by Sheri S. Tepper
bookshelves:
currently-reading
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
|
|
June 29
|
|
|
|
|
April
gave
to:
Biting the Sun (Mass Market Paperback)
by Tanith Lee
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in June, 2008
April said:
"Upon reading the first chapter, I realized that I'd read this before, though I couldn't remember much about it -- that was probably close to about 20 years ago, when I devoured so many books in a week that the stories all bled together.
I kept rea...more
Upon reading the first chapter, I realized that I'd read this before, though I couldn't remember much about it -- that was probably close to about 20 years ago, when I devoured so many books in a week that the stories all bled together.
I kept reading though, and at first the Jang slang kind of bothered me. Memories of Clockwork Orange made me a little resistant to the use of made-up words where everyday words would have worked just fine. But Tanith Lee kept the number of strange words to a minimum and provided a brief glossary at both ends of the book.
The world she introduced me to was a little strange at first, but the world-building is so nicely done that I accepted it more and more as I read, and towards the end I felt I knew the world well enough to render it or live in it.
There are religious themes -- heck, the almost-reference to Eve and the Garden of Eden is plainly displayed on the cover, so the reader is prepared up front to see them. The concept of souls, or life sparks, of immortality and reincarnation -- they're all there. But I especially love the twist this book makes of the Genesis story, where the main character is cast out of the cities into the desert, and she creates the Garden herself. The casting out is technically a punishment but also becomes kind of a godsend because it presents a life-affirming challenge after such a meaningless life in a utopia where one never really dies or accomplishes anything and people can easily change their genders and bodies.
Some notes: the book is in first person point of view, and while the main character is predominantly female, she is also sometimes a male. More important, her name is never mentioned. I have no clue what the main character's name is! But she ends up with exactly the one I'd hoped she'd end up with.
I'm glad I got to read this book again.
Finished reading June 29, 2008....less
"
|
|
June 27
|
|
April
gave
to:
Stardust (Paperback)
by Neil Gaiman (Goodreads author!)
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in June, 2008
April said:
"I'll admit that I like this Neil Gaiman book a bit better than the first one that I read, American Gods, but I still don't understand why the author has such mass appeal. Before I go into my reasons why, here's a disclaimer: I saw the movie version o...more
I'll admit that I like this Neil Gaiman book a bit better than the first one that I read, American Gods, but I still don't understand why the author has such mass appeal. Before I go into my reasons why, here's a disclaimer: I saw the movie version of Stardust first, and it is against that which I compare the book.
To begin with, I had a hard time connecting the eye candy of the movie with the book's narrative description. Gaiman's descriptions are almost spare for the genre, and where he does elaborate, it feels either a little generic, vague, or confusing, which becomes even more apparent when there are more than a few characters in any one scene. For instance, when the Lilim are introduced, he describes six witches, and even after having seen the movie and knowing that three of those witches are actually the reflection of the other three, I still had a hard time following what was going on because he keeps the description of each witch and their surroundings at such a minimum that it's very easy to get all six figures confused. The scenes in which the living and the dead princes are in the same room were also confusing for me, though again I knew from the movie was what going on, and it was for the same reason. I could not easily distinguish one character from another or keep their names straight. This for me can make for some forgettable characters.
It is easier to follow when there are fewer characters in a scene, but even then I could wish for clearer descriptions. Gaiman sometimes withholds names of characters until you barely even need them any more, so pronouns and phrases such as "the little hairy man" give kind of a generic feel. Or sometimes Gaiman will give a well thought out name to a character and then barely develop him past the initial scenes, like with the sky ship's captain, who was ten times more developed in the movie version than in the book version. Ironic, considering that the book's somewhat developed "little hairy man" (whose name I think is Charmed) isn't in the movie version at all.
Story-wise, I prefer the movie version. The beginning moves more quickly and gets to Tristran's part of the story almost right away, and the ending is more exciting and satisfying. The book's ending was actually almost anti-climactic; it feels like a proper fairy tale ending with a poignant note added to give it some character, but next to the movie ending, it sort of fizzled. However, I do like that the slower beginning gives a better look at the how and the why of the setting as it does at Tristran's parents.
As for the middle, there were scenes that I felt the author merely glossed over, as though he never actually got past the outline or synopsis stage in those areas. They felt almost like montage scenes where there shouldn't be any. Tristran's and Yvaine's time on the sky ship is a good example of what I mean, which actually I wouldn't have minded so much in that particular instance if Tristran's scenes with the little hairy man weren't light years more detailed. There was an opportunity during the sky ship traveling to show the two main characters really starting to care for one another much more deeply than before.
But all in all, I liked the story. I love the concept of a man falling in love with a fallen star, and I found that a lot of the heart of the story was original. I just think that the execution of the story could have been much better done, the characters a little more interesting; it felt a little unfinished to me, not as well developed as they could have been.
If I hadn't seen and loved the movie so much, I might have given this one less star than I give this now. [Edit: I've removed the extra star.] I don't know. I can't help but feel that the movie's imagery provided the book with a visual aid of some kind, thus giving it a boost.
I'm willing to try another Neil Gaiman book just to test this theory. This time I'll stick with a book I haven't already seen in movie form.
Finished reading June 26, 2008....less
"
|
|
June 02
|
|
April
gave
to:
Tree Huggers (Paperback)
by Judy Nichols (Goodreads author!)
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in June, 2008
April said:
"This book turned out better than I expected, and now I'm really beginning to like this genre, where the main character is an amateur sleuth. The main character here is a single (just divorced) mother who has just taken a job as a reporter at a small ...more
This book turned out better than I expected, and now I'm really beginning to like this genre, where the main character is an amateur sleuth. The main character here is a single (just divorced) mother who has just taken a job as a reporter at a small newspaper, and somehow she finds herself in the middle of a murder mystery.
I especially liked the format of the entire story -- it alternates between newspaper clippings and story chapters, and each newspaper clipping is always somehow related to the chapter that follows.
Another thing I liked, there weren't any obvious red herrings or obvious clues. I could tell that the murder suspect was wrongly charged, but that was about it. I suspected maybe one or two characters, but I turned out to be wrong, and in the end, when I did find out, my first thought was, "Of course!"
There's also a little bit of romance to sweeten the deal and a little bit of law and order drama, and the relationship between the main character and her ex is realistic. All in all, a pretty well-balanced story that ends exactly the way I like.
So this book turned out to be a nice surprise for me.
Finished reading June 2, 2008....less
"
|
|
May 26
|
|
April
gave
to:
Half Wed Moon (Paperback)
by Mara Lee
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in May, 2008
April said:
"Again, though my work is in this genre, this is not my usual reading fare, so my rating may seem a little harsh. But this is just not the sort of story I generally set out to read.
This book in particular might have been more to my taste if it had...more
Again, though my work is in this genre, this is not my usual reading fare, so my rating may seem a little harsh. But this is just not the sort of story I generally set out to read.
This book in particular might have been more to my taste if it had more cinematic description in the narrative and less dialogue. Much of the description that was in the book was vague or generic, with words like "beautiful" or "stunning" used with the sense that they should be taken for granted. There are quite a lot of powerful Alphas in this book, and they and all the rest of the characters tend to be somewhat loquacious for my taste. I favor the strong and silent Alpha types, the intriguing characters with smooth, quiet surfaces and very deep and troubled waters, but there aren't any such characters in this book. Every character says a whole lot more in a situation than I think I personally would have done.
Also, the words the characters speak seem to be a mix of a stilted formal style and a more crass modern vernacular, which was a little disconcerting for me. I know what the author was trying to do, illustrate how old the vampires or the fairies are, but it needed more consistency or focus. Plus, the rhythms and syntax didn't seem to be very well defined in each of the characters so that one character's line could have easily been another character's line.
The main character Danny seemed unwavering in her prickly, angry, brash, and irritated attitude that I found it hard to like her and couldn't understand why anyone in the story did. She was always contrary or insulting, always inciting conflict, and yet people either lusted after her, were amused by her, or were indulgent with her. I know she was meant to be a kick-ass heroine, but she often bordered on being a ball breaker.
As for the story itself, the first half of the book is focused on the fact that Danny's brother is missing and that she must find him. But once he is found and he goes away again, he is never mentioned again, as if all the angst Danny went through over his initial disappearance is long forgotten. So I felt the ending lacked that bit, and that lack only made it obvious that the missing brother was merely a device to get Danny to go from one pack to another, then to a vampire's area and to the land of the Fae.
That said, I think there's a lot of potential here. Even with the spare descriptions, I can imagine the visuals the author must have had in mind while writing this, and they're reminiscent of the movie Underworld, in a way. And now that I've read this book, I picture a different face for the heroine as well, something more fitting than the one I've put on the cover -- maybe not quite so clearly Asian but maybe more Eurasian, and maybe not quite so sweet and soft but maybe with a harder, more serious and steamy expression.
All in all, an interesting story idea.
Finished reading May 25, 2008....less
"
|
|
May 20
|
|
April
gave
to:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Paperback)
by Ken Kesey
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in May, 2008
April said:
"I'd never read the book or seen the movie, but I've seen very brief clips or still photos of Jack Nicholson playing the main character, so when I finally read this book I pictured Nicholson as McMurphy from the start, except that as I continued to re...more
I'd never read the book or seen the movie, but I've seen very brief clips or still photos of Jack Nicholson playing the main character, so when I finally read this book I pictured Nicholson as McMurphy from the start, except that as I continued to read, he became bigger and more redheaded. Other than that, I had no expectations. I knew that the story takes place in a mental ward but not much else.
The story charmed me as it unfolded, and I loved that it was narrated by the Chief, the silent observer for most of the book before he became an active participant -- which was a really big point in the book; most of the characters went from being passive rabbit-like victims reacting to their surroundings or cowering quietly in their corners afraid to live ... to being proactive men who lived life with courage and heart. Their change uplifted me, so much that the deaths that occur in the book couldn't bring me back down; their transformation was worth the price, and I think that's why McMurphy did what he did. He did it for all of them.
That's why I think this book is beautiful. Just beautiful, down to the core and the very soul.
I especially love how the antagonist, the Big Nurse, is not in any real sense portrayed as evil incarnate. Her motivations and background are laid out in such a way that you can sort of understand things from her end -- she simply doesn't realize how sinister and abusive an effect she has on people and probably really thinks she does a lot of good in her patients' lives.
My only pet peeve is all the "would of" and "could of" grammar. The Chief, despite his issues, strikes me as a fairly intelligent man. Intuitive and observant, only he could understand the real McMurphy, and the way that he describes his environment, the other characters, and all the events can sometimes be so poetic and apt, so striking and telling, that you can't help but believe that despite all appearances, the narrator is a very smart man. And yet he says "should of" instead of "should have".
I understand that it's the author's choice to use the vernacular in the narrative, to illustrate the Chief's voice, and honestly I had no problem with it except for just those three phrases. This being a classic, it perpetuates the bad grammar in schools, and I've seen this incorrect usage in everyday writing so often, used by people who should know better, that it just jumps out at me and annoys me.
Still, that was the only negative for me.
In every other way, the book was perfect and sweet.
Finished reading May 19, 2008....less
"
|
|
May 10
|
|
April
gave
to:
The True Story of Hansel and Gretel (Paperback)
by Louise Murphy
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
recommended to April by:
Minn
read in May, 2008
April said:
"To date, this is the best retelling of a fairy tale that I have ever read, and I've read a couple of very good ones. The author takes the story of Hansel and Gretel and sets it against the events of World War II and the Holocaust, and it's just brill...more
To date, this is the best retelling of a fairy tale that I have ever read, and I've read a couple of very good ones. The author takes the story of Hansel and Gretel and sets it against the events of World War II and the Holocaust, and it's just brilliantly done.
It starts very briefly with the witch, who is not really a witch. She's a woman of Gypsy blood, but the villagers call her a witch. Then we're introduced to Hansel and Gretel, whose names aren't really Hansel and Gretel. They are two Jewish children fleeing the Nazis with their father and their stepmother, and they're left in the dark forest and renamed Hansel and Gretel by their stepmother in order to save their lives. The forest is an actual forest in Poland, very old, dark, deep, and mysterious. The witch's cottage is actually a hut, and inside is a baker's stove and oven.
The biggest difference between the fairy tale and this novel is that the witch has no ill intentions toward the children whatsoever. She takes them in, cares for them, and protects them in whatever ways she can, in such a way that you could almost forget the original tale and how it went. Almost.
There are scenes that will recall you to the events in the fairy tale in an almost revelatory and surprising way. I've actually smiled a few times to see the author's rendition of a familiar story, despite the horrors described.
And yes, there are horrors. A lot of them.
Hansel and Gretel, the fairy tale, is in itself a rather horrific tale, starting with the parent's abandonment, continuing with the witch's terrorizing the children, and ending with the witch's fiery fate. This novel is no different and in fact might even be more horrific because the deeds done in the book are based on reality.
But, like the fairy tale, the story is told in such a matter-of-fact and almost detached sort of way that it seems unreal, like ... well ... a fairy tale. The author uses a omniscient point of view with regular head hopping, which actually works incredibly well because the reader isn't too close to any one character and no one character can see most or all of what happens in the book. Scenes are described almost with no emotion whatsoever, which somehow makes them even more powerfully evocative.
In fact, I found some chapters very difficult to read because of the emotions they wrung from me, like the chapter in which a character named Telek must do his duty to save some of the villagers' children from being taken away. I had to grip my head and rock myself for comfort as I read.
I would rather not write much more about the book as I'd like people to discover the story themselves, so I'll end with this:
This book is a definite keeper.
Finished reading May 10, 2008....less
"
|
|
May 03
|
|
New comment on Natalie's review of
American Gods
(see all 8 comments)
|
