Jeff
is currently reading:
|
|
|
|
I read this a while ago now, and found it only so-so. I had been wanting to read Ballard for a while, but I don't know if this was a good choice.
It was very '90s and reminded me a lot of Fight Club, only more European and less interesting, plot-wi...moreI read this a while ago now, and found it only so-so. I had been wanting to read Ballard for a while, but I don't know if this was a good choice.
It was very '90s and reminded me a lot of Fight Club, only more European and less interesting, plot-wise. There was a lot of talk about tearing down the system and violence as a means of artistic awakening, but the setting was kind of dull and awfully aristocratic.
This book would have struck me more powerfully when I was younger.(less)
|
|
|
Last year around Halloween-time I read the two superstar novels of modern horror, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula, each for the first time.
But I would hesitate to call Frankenstein a novel at all. It was interesting, and even ...moreLast year around Halloween-time I read the two superstar novels of modern horror, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula, each for the first time.
But I would hesitate to call Frankenstein a novel at all. It was interesting, and even occasionally poignant. At the same time, it was kind of frustrating, and so circumspect! The book is a product of its time, I guess, and also the product of a teenage chick trying to write something profound and philosophical. Sort of like the Sonic Youth song that talks about a young girl singer "shouting the poetic truths of high school journal keepers."
The main problem with Frankenstein is that it goes on and on about mundane details, and then glosses completely over the most interesting part of the Frankenstein idea, which is the mechanical, physical process of converting unliving matter into something alive and conscious. The "modern Prometheus" tells us even less of how it all works than the real Promethean myth does.
To be fair, the second-most-interesting part of the Frankenstein idea is the perspective of the monster, and Shelley gets into that a little bit. But it is hard to shake the feeling that readers and critics have put a lot more thought into the implications of creating life out of nothing than Mary Shelley really did. It's all, "ho-hum, I created a living monster out of spare organs... but I will just head back to my family in Switzerland and put it all out of my mind. The weather should be lovely!"(less)
|
|
|
Last year around Halloween-time I read the two superstar novels of modern horror, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula, each for the first time. Dracula was better. I am a sucker (ha!) for turn-of-the-20th-century British fiction, ...moreLast year around Halloween-time I read the two superstar novels of modern horror, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula, each for the first time. Dracula was better. I am a sucker (ha!) for turn-of-the-20th-century British fiction, and even though the story is so familiar, I had fun reading the original version. It is creepy and entertaining; some of the details work better in prose than in the dozens of film adaptations. On the other hand, there are entirely too many boring dudes in the book that are all hard to keep track of -- Lucy's fiance, the American Quincy, and a couple of other guys who are all quite noble and chivalrous, and also super diligent about taking notes and recording events on primitive phonograph-style recording devices, sending each other letters, etc. These uninteresting, interchangeable men all detract from the iconic Van Helsing and the unstable Harker. But the book's version of Renfield (and his death) is way cool.
Great book, anyway, though.(less)
|
|
|
When I lived in Poland some years back, it seemed like practically everybody's favorite book was The Master and Margarita. Now that I finally read it, I am not sure why. Maybe it was the religious stuff, or maybe it was just the sexy naked witches....moreWhen I lived in Poland some years back, it seemed like practically everybody's favorite book was The Master and Margarita. Now that I finally read it, I am not sure why. Maybe it was the religious stuff, or maybe it was just the sexy naked witches.
Anyway I found this book more difficult than I expected. I know a fair amount about Russian history and culture, but struggled to work my way through. I had trouble with the tone and the structure of the novel, and gradually came to feel (with a sigh) that this is the kind of book I will need to read twice -- once to get the gist, once to really see what I thought of it. And I will read it again, but it will take me a while to get motivated for it.
My favorite part of the book was not the Moscow part but the biblical-historical sections about Pontius Pilate. It made me want to read more about Pilate (is there much of any real historical information about him?) and about the historical Jesus (of whom I believe there is even less reliable, objective info). I think, basically, I want to hurry up and read Saramago's Gospel According to Jesus Christ.
But yeah, I liked Master and Margarita, too. It just was the kind of book that I would have fared better with if I had known more about it in advance, or had a guide or an edition with more copious explanatory notes. Someday I will read and review it again.(less)
|
|
|
I really loved this book, in some ways more than the previous Murakami book I read (Kafka on the Shore).
Murakami probably infuriates a lot of people. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle hardly makes any rational sense -- it is all about ambiguity and dre...moreI really loved this book, in some ways more than the previous Murakami book I read (Kafka on the Shore).
Murakami probably infuriates a lot of people. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle hardly makes any rational sense -- it is all about ambiguity and dreams. But a lot of real life is based on ambiguous situations and relationships.
Aside from the narrator (Toru Okada aka Mr. Wind-Up Bird), the characters seem to be barely more than fantasies or figments of the imagination. Even his wife Kumiko is hardly a presence, like the missing cat that starts the story going. But a lot of real life is little more than solipsism.
There is a lot going on in this book that relates closely to Japanese history and culture, from the occupation of Manchukuo to Toru Okada's debates over passivity versus striking back at his nemesis and fighting for what he wants. It is hard to escape the symbolism of blinding lights in the sky when it comes to Japan in WWII. But a lot of the thoughts in this deliberately opaque book are universal. I will read a lot more Murakami over the years to come.(less)
|
|
|
This is a pretty fun book that is apparently an adaptation of a '60s movie that updated Tarzan for the James Bond era. This sounds awful but is actually pretty fun; Leiber at his worst is always enjoyable anyway.
What's interesting is that the story ...moreThis is a pretty fun book that is apparently an adaptation of a '60s movie that updated Tarzan for the James Bond era. This sounds awful but is actually pretty fun; Leiber at his worst is always enjoyable anyway.
What's interesting is that the story behind this book/movie -- ruthless Bond-villain-esque Vinaro searching for a lost city in the Brazilian Amazon -- seems to be based on the true story of the Fawcett expedition for the Lost City of Z. Unsurprisingly, Tarzan and his friends, both human and animal, manage to prevent him from conquering a mystical hidden land of peaceful peoples descended from ancient Incas who fled Pizarro to the Amazon.
There is nothing terribly original here, but it is evocative and enjoyable. Leiber could have done a good job updating Tarzan with a slightly more modern style, if he had gotten the green light from the Burroughs estate.(less)
|
|
|
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.
I kind of loved this one as much as the first, but it was so much less "believable." I mean, I am willing to suspend my disbelief about life on Mars, unexplained supernatural methods to travel between Earth and Mars/Barsoom, supernal warriors who ca...moreI kind of loved this one as much as the first, but it was so much less "believable." I mean, I am willing to suspend my disbelief about life on Mars, unexplained supernatural methods to travel between Earth and Mars/Barsoom, supernal warriors who can slaughter thousands of foes, etc, etc. But come on, could Burroughs make Carter any more dense than in the parts where he never suspects that kid is his own son? Plus his naivete around women, who universally fall in love with him, is pretty extreme even by the standards of 1913 role models for kids.
Still, fun!(less)
|
|
|
|
Super cheesy fun by E.R. Burroughs. I always wanted to read this series, and picked up the first two for a dollar each and devoured them. Talk about a hero! No ambiguities with John Carter, the manliest, most heroic, most pure, most naked Earthlin...moreSuper cheesy fun by E.R. Burroughs. I always wanted to read this series, and picked up the first two for a dollar each and devoured them. Talk about a hero! No ambiguities with John Carter, the manliest, most heroic, most pure, most naked Earthling to ever walk the face of Mars. I would have adored these books when I was 12. I still kinda loved them at 33.(less)
|
|
|
|
Kind of so-so Klosterman. This book starts out strong with an essay about interviewing other people. But most of the rest is just casually entertaining, though I loved the bit about Garth Brooks and Chris Gaines.
|