|
October 10
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
gave
 
to:
1984 (Signet Classics)
by George Orwell
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
read in March, 2000
Colin said:
"1984 has the greatest ending to a book ever.
Long before Big Brother was a floating disconnected term more closely tied with reality TV, George Orwell made the ultimate dystopian statement: Big Brother is watching you. With a social commentar...more
1984 has the greatest ending to a book ever.
Long before Big Brother was a floating disconnected term more closely tied with reality TV, George Orwell made the ultimate dystopian statement: Big Brother is watching you. With a social commentary still relevant today—even if the year isn’t—1984 (written in 1947-48 when Orwell had a severe case of tuberculosis) centers in on Winston Smith, a mundane man working at the Ministry of Truth rewriting historical documents. There are several ministries in the novel, all of which seem to do the opposite of what they’re called: The Ministry of Peace handles war; the Ministry of love tortures people.
It’s all about propaganda. No, not in the way that acne-faced rebels scream about today. Actual propaganda. Winston Smith lives in a government controlled world. Big Brother is on the telescreen at all times, creating a world of over-surveillance where there are brutal consequences for disobedience. Winston seems to be fine with it though. It’s how he lives and he doesn’t have a choice about it. At least he doesn’t think he does. He doesn’t think, period, but then he meets Julia, and a boy meets girl storyline is enough to mess with the tightest of totalitarian regimes.
Good sci-fi has to have good setting, and to the take time to cover all the little details Orwell puts in would make this review far too long. Suffice it to say, Orwell makes this universe feel complete. Though it’s a slow burner, 1984 rises with an amazing crescendo that fires off to a grandiose ending that must be experienced firsthand. Four stars.
...less
"
|
|
New comment on Dorothea's review of
Poemcrazy: Freeing Your Life with Words
reply to this comment
|
|
New comment on Nicholas Merlin Karpuk's review of
Brave New World
reply to this comment
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
read and liked
Nicholas Merlin Karpuk's
review of Brave New World:
"A "Brave New World" is supposed to be humorous, so I found out recently. It's referred to as a satire on Wikipedia, which gives a little extra credence to the claim.
What's odd is that this new information doesn't change my view of Alduo...more
A "Brave New World" is supposed to be humorous, so I found out recently. It's referred to as a satire on Wikipedia, which gives a little extra credence to the claim.
What's odd is that this new information doesn't change my view of Alduous Huxley much at all. He still seems like an out of touch rich kid with notions about the common man that didn't work then and don't work now. The fact that he didn't make a book that even registers as satire seems to indicate that as well, since humor is a empathetic art by nature.
The idea that drugs and eugenics would be enough to create a utopia had me rolling my eyes from the get go. You can't stop people from rebelling and creating problems, even with everything provided they'll still occasionally get pissed off and act out. Eugenics is usually a pipe dream of the rich and arrogant, and in "Brave New World" none of the lower castes are even considered relevant to the story.
One point that I will give him is on consumerism, that criticism had a very effective impact, and is probably more relevant today than when he wrote the novel. Programming people from the cradle to the grave to desire crap they don't need so as to keep the economy going is essentially in practice already. Look at the commercials and merchandising for most kids shows, it's not the future, it's the past and the present.
Alduous Huxley was a good writer with a nice sense of pacing and setting, which is the main reason I gave him more than one star, but I have a deep disconnect with how he sees the world, and for the most part I don't see why this is a revered classic put up next to 1984....less
"
|
|
October 06
|
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
read and liked
Nicholas Merlin Karpuk's
review of 1984:
"It's intimidating to comment on a book that's been the subject of so much discussion. People have been throwing around the term "Big Brother" as long as I can remember, but I've wondered for years how accurate the usage actually was.
I r...more
It's intimidating to comment on a book that's been the subject of so much discussion. People have been throwing around the term "Big Brother" as long as I can remember, but I've wondered for years how accurate the usage actually was.
I read 1984 on audiobook, and I have to admit it felt like cheating. The main issue is there were so many ideas worth remembering that I may be forced to by a hardcopy so I can flip through it highlighting memorable passages.
Most often people mention Big Brother in the context of surveillence, which is really short sighted compared to what Orwell was saying. It's not about the cameras, the cameras are actually a moot point. The government could take you at any time, essentially on a whim, or a suspicion. Cameras were merely a reminder that they could watch you if they felt like it, that they could back up their suspicions if necessary.
There's a bitter relevance to much of the text, because to me it basically an essay on the nature of bullies, and what happens when they're allowed to run any government for too long.
A friend of mine read the book around the same time, and was upset at how bleak the ending was, since the villain of the story essentially wins. The beauty of Orwell's conclusion is that it doesn't allow you to feel smug. All of the protagonists high ideas are bashed into the ground ruthlessly and he's left broken.
You have to create your own counter-argument to Obrien's belief that Big Brother is the correct lifestyle.
My main counter argument is that no matter how bright a despot is, they can not all pick equally powerful successors. All evil men die, and their replacements are often weaker, derivative versions of their appointer. No state of oppression is indefinite by sheer virtue of man's mortality.
That's the beauty of the novel, it demands that you think about what it's saying, it provokes and does nothing to soothe the blow, it doesn't supply answers to its questions, it builds you up, knocks you down, and leaves you to pick yourself up again.
If you ever throw around the term "Big Brother", or are at all concerned about tyranny both at home and abroad, you owe it to yourself to read "1984"....less
"
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
gave
to:
Blindness (Paperback)
by Jose Saramago
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
recommended for: Those who can handle scenes that will make them angry--scenes of rape, abuse, etc.
read in October, 2007
Colin said:
"José Saramago’s Blindness is now a movie stirring controversy for its portrayal of the blind. Immediately I found myself thinking, Didn’t they ever read the book? It has been out for more than a decade. But then I remember that unl...more
José Saramago’s Blindness is now a movie stirring controversy for its portrayal of the blind. Immediately I found myself thinking, Didn’t they ever read the book? It has been out for more than a decade. But then I remember that unless it’s children’s or young adult literature, people really aren’t coming after books anymore. You need to know something exists to take offense to it. So what’s all the hoopla about?
The novel is about blindness, yes, a white blindness that spreads through the city from a single man. Soon the group is quarantined in an abandoned mental asylum, guarded by armed soldiers who will shoot them if they try to escape. No one has any names. They are referred to simply as the doctor, the doctor’s wife, the girl with dark glasses, etc. Thing is, the doctor’s wife can see (but has to pretend she cannot to stay with her husband). Soon though, she’ll wish she couldn’t see at all.
The soldiers are antipathetic to the quarantined. They do not care about the filthy conditions, how the blind stumble over one another in pain, or how the group splits with one side stealing all the food. Though they are blind, the group still rapes and abuses. Is this an indictment of the blind as critics of the movie believe? No, it’s an indictment of the dark side of humanity. That’s what Saramago does best. Further readings of his work only drive this point home more.
Blindness is a bleak novel, but the injustice and wretchedness of the situation is successfully conveyed from the page to the reader, even when they wish it wouldn’t be. One more caveat when it comes to Saramago: There are no dialogue tags (though this style makes a point that if the dialogue is good enough, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it) and commas replace standard periods, so sentences run on for pages. When it comes to Blindness, this style adds to the story, but it certainly takes more effort on the part of the reader. (Be sure to avoid The Double; Saramago’s style fails in that effort.) Still, as a whole, the pieces of a fascinating premise met with skillful storytelling lead Blindness to be worthy of the awards and praise (and subsequent criticism) it has received. Three stars.
...less
"
|
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
read and liked
Nicholas Merlin Karpuk's
review of No Country for Old Men:
"Seeing the movie before reading the book is something I avoid if I'm at all interested in the subject matter. One is going to alter my view of the other, and I'd rather my book reading experience be untainted by images of what the characters look lik...more
Seeing the movie before reading the book is something I avoid if I'm at all interested in the subject matter. One is going to alter my view of the other, and I'd rather my book reading experience be untainted by images of what the characters look like or sound like. In the case of "No Country for Old Men" I saw the movie before even taking an interest in Cormac Mc McCarthy, but after reading the book I was surprised at how little it mattered.
The movie is essentially the book minus a scene or two. The dialogue at times is identical. What this results in is a book that I most likely will never have to reread since I can watch the movie and get virtually the same experience.
In some cases the movie actually improved upon a scene by adding additional atmosphere, or with a subtle tweak to the dialogue.
Making a noir western is not most likely what he set out to do, but that's the best way I can describe the story. People fall into criminal endeavors, make mistakes, and deal with evil men they're in no way prepared to handle. It's like a hillbilly Raymond Chandler story.
One aspect of McCarthy's books that I've noticed in both that I've read is the presence of a character that seeks to emulate god through acts of senseless cruelty. Anton Chigurh, the ruthless hitman from "No Country for Old Men" has a lot in common with Judge from "Blood Meridian". They're both creepy characters, and I'm curious to see if this theme plays out in any of his other books.
The book has good, Spartan prose and an ear for rural dialogue that's unmatched by most contemporary authors. It's a good read, but if you have a DVD player, there's an easier way to approach the material....less
"
|
|
New comment on Nicholas Merlin Karpuk's review of
No Country for Old Men
reply to this comment
|
|
October 02
|
|
Colin McKay Miller
gave
to:
Cloud Atlas (Paperback)
by David Mitchell
|
my rating:
Added to my books!
add my review
|
| |
recommended for: Those who enjoy varying stories/appreciate unconventional structures
read in October, 2006
Colin said:
"David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas is an ambitious effort. Consisting of six separate (though loosely related) stories, written in different styles, each set in a different time and place, all cut-off midway (save the central sixth story told in i...more
David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas is an ambitious effort. Consisting of six separate (though loosely related) stories, written in different styles, each set in a different time and place, all cut-off midway (save the central sixth story told in its entirety), some mid-sentence, to be concluded in the second half of the book, counting back to the first story, David Mitchell unfolds and reforms the novel into a Matryoshka doll of stories.
From historical to humorous to futuristic, the six parts are as follows: 1) A diary from an 1850’s American, Adam Ewing, traveling home on a ship from the Chatham Islands; 2) Letters from a 1930’s broke musical composer, Robert Frobisher, to his friend (and implied lover), Rufus Sixsmith; 3) A 1970’s reporter, Luisa Rey, trying to uncover a nuclear power plant corruption plot that could end in disaster; 4) The humorous misadventures of a present day book publishing Englishman, Timothy Cavendish, trying to escape from the brothers of his gangster client; 5) An interview with a near-future servant clone, Somni~451, about her rebellion; and finally, 6) a tribesman, Zach’ry, in post-apocalyptic Hawaii.
With the varied quality of the six stories, Cloud Atlas falls victim to a problem you really feel when you’re waiting for (or dreading) the conclusion the stories coming: The good ones seem too short and the bad ones seem too long. Unfortunately, the initial story is one of the worst, so the novel begins and ends at a limping pace. Still, the idea of Cloud Atlas is too appealing, too unique, too enviable to not be impressed. Three stars.
...less
"
|
|
|
New comment on Colin McKay Miller's review of
Cloud Atlas
(see all 2 comments)
|
