I don't even know what to say ... How did this become a classic? Fahrenheit 451 is about the worst book I have read this year, and that would be inI don't even know what to say ... How did this become a classic? Fahrenheit 451 is about the worst book I have read this year, and that would be in comparison with books like Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol and Graeme Simsion's The Rosie Effect! No, wait, the latter would be the worst, but Fahrenheit comes very close.
I guess everyone knows the plot. A distant future in which books are banned and people who have them are considered criminals. Their houses are burned down, and fire'men' start fires instead of putting them out. The theme is fascinating and something I really would have wanted to see explored properly. Instead, this mess is what Bradbury saw fit to give us.
First, the plot doesn't make sense. Why have books been banned? Why are people not allowed to talk to each other? How did this world come to be? Clarisse makes Montag think, but if this is when he really comes out of his regime-induced haze, why has he hoarded books through the years? What was Mildred's suicide attempt all about? There are just random stuff happening because the author wants them to happen. There is no emotion in the narrative, no flow to the story, and absolutely no dimension to the characters. The writing is flowery and pretentious at times completely obscuring the message or the action. Without these unnecessary padding words, the story would be seriously done within 10 pages. The author could have used these words to instead create a more detailed world.
And I have to ask, what's with all these women? Why are they sitting at home in a FUTURISTIC society? Montag accuses Mrs Bowles of having had twelve abortions. TWELVE! What, in a futuristic society that has a programmed mechanical hound and endoscopes (and apparently safe abortions), they have not managed to invent that little thing called the pill? Or condoms? Seriously? The depiction of women in this supposedly futuristic era is simply ridiculous and stereotypical. Why aren't they out there setting fires to books or something? There is really no sense to this.
The biggest fallacy in the ridiculous plot is that there are some amazing inventions that this society has made. The aforementioned mechanical hound is one such thing. It can be fed with all kinds of information, including the smell of people, and it can be sent off to attack them. It's cool. And it happened because of science. Then there is the endoscope or whatever which clearly saves Mildred. Not to mention the highly technical seashell ear thimbles or the wall televisions. All science. So is the author trying to claim that people just kept science locked up in their heads and never put it down? How can people have learned to make these things without books in the first place? The entire story structure falls down here for me.
Another thing that was absurd was that of ALL the books that Montag might have chosen to have copied, he chose the Bible. Really? I rolled my eyes so hard that they almost rolled right out of my head. Wish they had, then I wouldn't have been able to read the rest of this crap. I've nothing against the Bible or those who read it, but really, not the book I would have thought required urgent copying when there are so many other more useful and enlightening books.
Despite the story being ridiculous, I might have considered it worth my time if I actually agreed with the author. But I don't. While I do agree that reading must be promoted, that's where Bradbury and I part ways. He considers mathematics unnecessary to be taught in schools. I disagree. That's silly. He doesn't think universities are important. I disagree. He seems to think that television is a terrible invention and makes people stupid. That's just ridiculous. There are bad books and good television shows. The worst part of Bradbury's ideas for me is that he seems to think that people who are not intellectuals and don't (or can't) read have nothing to contribute to society. That's pretty elitist and insulting. Sometimes, you don't need books to have common sense or knowledge about certain things. Also, not everyone can afford access to books, and not everyone is literate enough to enjoy reading, and not everyone has the time to read books!
In short, I'm not impressed at all. Bradbury is famously said to have written this book in nine days, and it shows. It really shows....more
I read Backman's first book, A Man Called Ove, and found it a short and delightful read. My Grandmother Asked Me to Tell You She's Sorry only hasI read Backman's first book, A Man Called Ove, and found it a short and delightful read. My Grandmother Asked Me to Tell You She's Sorry only has slight glimpses of what Backman is capable. It certainly lacks the charm of his first book.
There is a large cast of characters, each with their own stories and each drawn very sharply, and most important, each is weird in their own specific manner. Elsa, the protagonist, is a seven year old child, who behaves like a 17 year old frustrated teen. She is 'special' and hence gets bullied at school and has no friends. Her grandmother is her only friend but she dies of cancer, leaving Elsa to get on with a treasure hunt, which would lead her to uncover the stories of the weirdos living in the building.
In parallel, we get stories from The Land of Almost Awake, a fantasy creation of Elsa's grandmother to draw her away from her tough life and keep her entertained. It is here that I completely lost interest. The fairy tale stories simply dragged on and on and were not interesting in the least. Elsa discovers that the fairy tales ultimately tied up to the stories of the other characters in the book, but this doesn't make them any more readable. I just skimmed through entire pages and have no clue what was going on in the make-believe land.
Elsa herself is slightly annoying. She is supposed to be very bright for her age, but really, some of the things she does and says is simply annoying. She screams at people and constantly corrects them, which annoyed the heck out of me. And no matter how smart you think your child is, you don't allow her to drive a car! That was just weird. What kind of irresponsible people are these? Granny was even more annoying and really shouldn't have been looking after a child. Can I reiterate I hate child narrators / protagonists? Another thing that put me off the book was 'the boy with the syndrome'. Yes, that was his full name and he was constantly referred to as such continuously. I consider this unacceptable!
The actual story emerging from this mess was quite interesting and had scope, but I had to plod through pages and pages of inconsequential and annoying fairy tales and precocious kids to get to the point....more
If you are thinking of picking up this book, make sure you fall within one of the following categories:
1) People who love horses 2) People who loveIf you are thinking of picking up this book, make sure you fall within one of the following categories:
1) People who love horses 2) People who love reading about insipid love affairs 3) People who enjoy colonialist attitudes and the complete erasure of the existence of the native population
Unfortunately, since I don't fall within the three above criteria, I despised this book. I have never before read such a random and pointless book in my life. Supposed to be the life and times of Beryl Markham, adventuress extraordinaire, the book reduced it to the horses and love affairs of Beryl Markham, prize idiot. It starts off promisingly enough, with Beryl's childhood in Kenya, but quickly deteriorated once she had to get married. For pages and pages, it was all about horses and then, more horses, then horse races, and then more horses.
Once that was done, Denys Finch-Hatton makes an appearance and the most boring love triangle in the history of romance takes place between Denys Finch-Hatton, Beryl Markham and Karen Blixen. Don't bother reading the book - I can tell you all about it. Denys is an asshole who hunts animals and considers Africa "his", goes around having affairs and claims he is a "free spirit". Karen is his main woman, who spends her time pining for him when he isn't around and trying to force him into a marriage when he is. Beryl is impressed with Denys' stupid interest in poetry and slept with him a few times, and goes about thinking there is a "special connection" between the three of them. There, you have the gist of the book in a nutshell.
Then at the last, there are a few pages on Beryl learning how to fly. I suppose we should thank the author for including anything at all that doesn't feature Denys Jerk-Arsehole.
If Beryl Markham were alive today, she would sue the author for defamation. The woman did so many interesting things and forged new frontiers for women. But all that this book discusses is her fascination for some silly man and the illegal immigrants and their boring lives in Africa. The writing is repetitive and banal and nowhere as evocative of Africa as the blurb would have you believe. In fact, this is a romance book of the most terrible kind, masquerading as genuine historical fiction....more
Wow, I am flabbergasted! Is this what people are reading in the name of 'mystery' these days? A boring book, with unpleasant and unrealisticWow, I am flabbergasted! Is this what people are reading in the name of 'mystery' these days? A boring book, with unpleasant and unrealistic characters and an unbelievable resolution. The protagonist is Libby Day, a woman whose family was murdered when she was a child, and she was the one who gave evidence that put her brother behind bars for these murders. Twenty four years later, when she is contacted by a murder club, which offers to pay money to her to help them investigate, she accepts the assignment. So starts a dangerous journey back into the past. An interesting premise, but very, very badly executed.
First, the protagonist is not someone I was rooting for. I didn't need her to be likeable, but she wasn't just unlikeable, she was positively annoying. She is without a single redeeming feature, which would make a dark character interesting and realistic. And is she a whiner! I can't stand whiners. She makes her way through the book, consistently whining from one situation to the other. And not just her, ALL the other characters in the book are also consistently vile, nasty and caricature villains. It's like the author thinks that making people completely nasty is being realistic. It's not. Ever read A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier? It's about a young boy in a war-torn country taking up arms, but it's not relentlessly dark. There are light moments when good things happen, and it's a TRUE story. This is where Flynn really fails in making her novel realistic.
Second, I am not really a fan of graphic violence and nastiness, described in unnecessary detail. Especially, when it's only fiction. I mean, there are 4-5 descriptions of vomiting in the book. would people look at vomit in such detail in real life? It's hardly realistic from any point of view. The author adds scene after scene of violence and depravity merely for shock value. That's just lazy writing. There was a completely unnecessary chapter consisting almost entirely of butchering a cow. Which did not add to the plot at all. Neither did the entire Satanism angle make any sense. Though there was a panic at this time about Satanic ritual abuse, it did not really exist!
The resolution takes place in two parts (view spoiler)[since there are two murderers (hide spoiler)]. One of them follows to a logical, if uninteresting, conclusion, while the other just appears out of nowhere, just tacked on for even more shock value. I am really disappointed that after wading through pages of reading about people throwing up, taking drugs and cleaning up refuse in great detail, this flimsy, unrealistic, tacky ending is what I got!
And my final, but really my most important grouse, what's with Flynn and women making false allegations of sexual abuse? There is a side plot that is tacked on for no reason - (view spoiler)[a young girl makes false allegations of abuse against Ben (hide spoiler)]. Considering that she did pretty much the same with Gone Girl and is an incredibly popular author for some reason, it's worrying what message she is consistently sending across. With ALL the depravity and nastiness among the characters, surely it could have been a real case of abuse? Or is the author one of those who think that 'most' cases of molestation are false? Is she a member of MRA?
There are a couple of positive things. For one thing, the research is so detailed that in a different book, it would have been a real pleasure. She makes plenty of references to real murders that took place, and as someone interested in True Crime, I found that a great addition. Another is that you can see that Flynn has a talent for writing and has great ideas. Too bad, she chose to tell a boring story with uninteresting characters.
I really wouldn't recommend this book, but considering it's such a huge success, maybe I am the odd one out? I certainly think it has some major concerns, and I completely call bullshit on the 'it's realistic!' viewpoint. It's not....more
Where is the woman who wrote classics such as Where are the Children? and You Belong to Me? This book lacks any suspense at all and is about as dullWhere is the woman who wrote classics such as Where are the Children? and You Belong to Me? This book lacks any suspense at all and is about as dull as watching paint dry. I wonder if the creation of the absolutely useless Alvirah and Willy have sapped all of MHC's creative juices, leaving her with nothing interesting to write about.
Betsy Grant, widow of Doctor Ted Grant, is on trial for her husband's murder. At stake are fifteen million dollars, which would be shared equally between Betsy and Alan Grant, Ted's son. If Betsy is found guilty, then Alan would get the entire inheritance. Delaney Wright, a news reporter struggling with her non-issues, covered the Grant trial, but she is somehow convinced that Betsy is innocent. There is no reason whatsoever for Delaney to so firmly believe in Betsy but she does, because convenient schmaltzy plot!
Delaney also keeps weeping about her unknown mother, even though she had been adopted into a loving and supportive family. Enter Alvirah, who I believe the author thinks is the best thing since sliced bread. In my opinion, she is just mouldy and stale bread. Alvirah, with her stupid sunburst pin, and her apparently endless money, goes and distributes bounty like she was some queen of yore, in order to find Delaney's birth mother. It is quite obvious who this birth mother is, and then schmaltzy ending! And let me just mention here that Alvirah is the most annoying character ever created in detective fiction.
Did Betsy do it? Well, obviously not since Delaney believes in her *eyeroll*, but what other suspects are there? There is the son, and there are a couple of doctors with whom Ted Grant used to practice. The solution, when it comes out, is not just obvious, but also pretty convoluted and unbelievable. I can see no reason for Mr/Ms Murderer1 to team up with Mr/Ms Murderer2.
As if things weren't bad enough, there were two other plots that were completely unnecessary to the main story. One was a petty thief who went around stealing things and saw the murderer pulling out in a car. But since his story never stood up in court, it was useless and could have just been skipped. Another was a drug story angle, which was simply pointless.
The story is told through courtroom scenes and interrogations, and I was heartily bored with them. There simply wasn't enough character building, action or suspense to hold my interest. ...more
When people were running away from destruction in 79 AD, after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, they had no idea that 2000 years later they would beWhen people were running away from destruction in 79 AD, after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, they had no idea that 2000 years later they would be famous and the subject of fascination and speculation to many. If you are one of these many, then you need to read this book. Right away!
This book is not about Mount Vesuvius, nor is it about the destruction of Pompeii. Instead, it takes a more positive approach and uses the catastrophe to delve deeper into the life of ancient Pompeii. Because the city was buried under the debris of the volcanic ash, it remained preserved for centuries until finally unearthed by Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre in 1748. Since then, it has been the darling of archaeologists.
The book explores different facets of life in the old city of Pompeii. The chapters are divided into different sections, each one dealing with a different topic. So from politics to entertainment, from social lives of the people to their family lives, Mary Beard takes us through each aspect of life in Pompeii. She brings out the flavour of the city as it was with ease but also manages to help you prepare for the city as it is now.
Beard is not afraid to own that there are many things we do not know. She discusses different viewpoints from different historians and then gives her own opinion as well. She often even ends up playing the devil's advocate. This book forces you to think and analyse along with Beard, and it's fun.
The book is chock full of information about the city just before the eruption. There can be no better guidebook to Pompeii than Pompeii : The Life of a Roman Town. If you plan to visit the ruins of the city, then arm yourself with this book. Even if you are the type who wants to enjoy a trip to Pompeii from the comfort of your armchair, look no further!...more
What a wonderful and eventful life! Whether Beryl herself wrote the memoir or not, it hardly makes a dent in the kind of pride I have in her as aWhat a wonderful and eventful life! Whether Beryl herself wrote the memoir or not, it hardly makes a dent in the kind of pride I have in her as a woman clearing the way for other women to come after her. Ernest Hemingway called her a 'high-grade bitch'. I wonder if he knew that a century later, this would reflect more on him than on her?
So Beryl's life in a nutshell: She moved to Kenya at the age of four and grew up in a farm. She became the first licensed female horse breeder in the world! She became the first woman to fly solo east-west across the Atlantic. And as if that were not enough, she wrote this book! Beryl saw both poverty and wealth, and died an old woman. Incredible! She also had three husbands and a string of lovers, for which many people, including author Paula McLain in her terrible, terrible fictional biography, Circling the Sun, think she should be remembered.
The book is not a linear biography. It's a collection of stories that Beryl thought interesting enough to write about. She included some really random stuff that made for interesting reading. The book covers all facets of her life through small anecdotes, so while it is not a complete biography, I felt I knew the woman well after reading this. Also, let me mention that I loved the fact that Beryl did not think it important enough to include her love life in this book, clearly showing that there were things other than men on her mind.
The author tends to get slightly lyrical about Africa and exoticises the country, but draws the line at doing the same to the people who live there. This is probably because she grew up with the Nandi tribe and her best friend was a Nandi boy. She even reflects on how their relationship changes once they become adults, he becoming the servant, and she the mistress, unable to withstand the force of colonialism. I liked her a bit more for this regret, general colonial attitudes and privilege notwithstanding.
I found it a little difficult to get into the book at first, and I was wary after reading the terrible Circling the Sun, because I thought it was going to be boring. But the writing quickly drew me in, and I began to enjoy the writing. I did get bored in the horse racing parts. It's about the one animal I just can't whip up any enthusiasm for. I am supremely 'meh' about these parts, but that's not Beryl's fault. She tries to keep it short and to the point.
I think this is a wonderful biography of an amazing woman, and more people should read it. Also, DON'T read Circling the Sun. It's pure crap....more
American authors should really just stick to American fiction. This story reads like a modern American teenager throwing hussy fits when nothing goesAmerican authors should really just stick to American fiction. This story reads like a modern American teenager throwing hussy fits when nothing goes her way, only in a Blitz setting. The disconnect between history and character reaction is gaping. Just think, this is similar to a blend of High School Musical and the SS marching down the street in the same plot. It's disconcerting to say the least. Not the least concession was made to the fact that this book was not set in the modern US.
I might have been able to overlook this big fault if there were anything good with the book. The plot held out a promise, which is why I chose the book. But gosh, it SO did not deliver! I am giving the plot away below because I don't want you all to read it and suffer like I did. So, SPOILERS ahead!
Emmy and Julia are two sisters who live in London. Emmy is a shit-faced bitch, and Julia is a lonely kid. Their mother is a single mother and is often absent, trying to provide a good life for them. But Emmy keeps slut-shaming her and thinks of her as a whore despite hogging on the food she brings. As far as I am concerned, the mother is doing her duty towards her children, whether by sleeping with someone for money or not, is none of anyone's business, least of all, the nincompoop Emmy's who is being fed and clothed with this money. Also, it turns out that the mother was not a prostitute, so Emmy made more than a fool of herself. I disliked this character so much that I kept hoping the Germans would drop a bomb directly on her head.
The only idea in Emmy's otherwise empty head is to design stupid wedding gowns. Really? This is a career? In the wartime with rationing, when people were struggling to get basic food rations? According to her, this will make her rich and famous "when the war is over". She sets up an appointment with a big designer for a job, but before anything could proceed, she is evacuated along with many of London's children to the countryside, where she proceeded to make herself unpleasant with prospective foster parents. Finally, the two sisters move in with a woman. Emmy keeps in touch with the designer and gets a date for the interview. So she plans to sneak off with her box of sketches into the night without a thought about pretty much anyone else. Her little sister discovers the truth and naturally doesn't want to be left alone. So she makes Emmy promise that she would either not go or take her along with her. But poor Julia is trusting an unreliable idiot, because Emmy still plans to sneak off leaving a seven year old Julia behind! As luck would have it, Julia wakes up in the middle of the night, and Emmy faces a dilemma. Or at least, she should have faced. But Emmy doesn't give a shit about anyone else, so she takes Julia along with her to London, towards the war! Oh, stupid wedding dresses are so much more important than little sisters!
And then she loses Julia, and her mother dies trying to find her. Emmy is now left to mourn and then she assumes the identity of a woman called Isabel, so that she could keep searching for Julia. But for some strange reason, she continues to keep that name after the war, lies to the man she marries about her real identity and then claims she is too traumatised with the war to give any kind of freedom to her daughter. Yeah, right! It's not really strange because this is what disgusting Emmy does. It's all about her. Then some American woman shows up and Emmy tells her the REAL story that she never told anyone else. Why? Because halfwit Emmy only likes Americans? Whatever.
Julia's part of the story is hurried through and doesn't even make it to a decent narrative. Her entire life story is condensed into a few letters that she wrote to herself as part of her therapy. This is about the clumsiest narrative device I have ever seen in a book. At the very least, Meissner could have told the story from Julia's pov and stuffed the annoying Emmy into a few pages.
Just skip this stupid book about the angst of a stupid girl who basically just brings it all on herself. I must admit I was happy with the ending. Very happy that Emmy doesn't get to design wedding dresses. Ha! Go fuck yourself, Emmy!...more
This one was very enjoyable. Poirot is on holiday (poor chap - never took a holiday that didn't turn into work for him!) and he comes across aThis one was very enjoyable. Poirot is on holiday (poor chap - never took a holiday that didn't turn into work for him!) and he comes across a vivacious young girl who has several attempts made on her life. Poirot steps into the scene but someone gets murdered by mistake. Eventually, the truth comes to light but not before a number of red herrings. The investigation gets more confused because there is a forgery as well.
The plot was great and so were the characters. But what I really enjoyed was the interplay between Poirot and Hastings. This is one of the finest books in that respect. The two of them keep mocking each other, but in a playful manner. The contrast between them also stands out starkly. It's such a beautiful relationship. And I absolutely adored Hastings in this book. He can be so hilarious when he is moaning about Poirot's eccentricities!...more
If you read only one book about twentieth century China, let this be the one. A mish-mash of personal memoir, family saga, history, feministIf you read only one book about twentieth century China, let this be the one. A mish-mash of personal memoir, family saga, history, feminist literature, and global and Chinese politics, Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China covers it all vividly. The book covers the life of Jung Chang's grandmother, her mother, and herself over the course of a China that was constantly changing in response to the changing times and the challenges it was facing.
Chang starts off with her grandmother's story: a concubine to a feudal lord, she managed to escape to freedom with her daughter, Chang's mother, who, in turn, became a rebel and supported the communists. Chang herself appears to be the least rebellious of these three women, but that doesn't detract from her strength in facing the daily challenges of living in Communist China under Madman Mao.
One of the most interesting things I found about this book was how it seamlessly depicted the enormous changes that took place in within a hundred years. While the grandmother was fully immersed in traditional ways and superstitions, this gradually changed over the years. Another thing I really loved about this book is how Chang kept challenging the practice of Maoism by demanding why the status of women had not changed and why they were still subject to the old ideas and customs, despite the communist revolution. I loved how Chang managed to put her finger on the right places and ask the right questions.
While this book is a memoir of one single family, Chang makes the attempt to weave in the broader political and historical issues of the times wherever appropriate. This gives Wild Swans a much broader scope than most memoirs and provides a comprehensive understanding of Chinese history and politics over the last century. I really appreciated this as Chang has obviously taken the time to research many things and has managed to keep a distance between her own experiences and historical facts.
One last question that does remain to be answered: Why has China not eschewed Mao yet? It has been more than forty years since he died, and yet the official stance is one of reverence and deification. The idea apparently is that it would hurt the image of the Communist Party, but I genuinely fail to understand why. The best thing anyone can do is to show Mao in his full idiocy to the masses. But as it stands today, his body is preserved and revered. It's an insult to the entire country. I am not surprised Wild Swans is banned in China, as well as all of the other books by Chang.
If you have even a remote interest in China, Chinese people, Chinese history, or Chinese politics, this book is a must-read!...more
Oh, to be Mark and Delia and lie under the clear sky with only lions for company. That is the stuff of dreams for an animal lover. I feel privilegedOh, to be Mark and Delia and lie under the clear sky with only lions for company. That is the stuff of dreams for an animal lover. I feel privileged to have been taken by the authors to Botswana Kalahari and given a glimpse of the rare world out there, so inaccessible to most of us. So for that, thank you, Mark & Delia!
Mark and Delia (M&D henceforth) were students in the 70s US trying to think of a subject for their Ph.D thesis. Finally, they decided to go to Botswana on a pure whim. They sold off everything they owned to get money for their trip. Once they reached Botswana, they purchased some basic supplies and headed off deep into the Kalahari far away from the nearest civilisation, in a place where even bushmen hesitated to penetrate. Here, they studied the lives of the brown hyenas and Kalahari lions for seven years.
The writing was delightful and detailed. Every problem they faced and every rewarding moment was described with emotional intensity. They developed a kind of bond with the animals without intruding too much into their lives, damaging them, or taming them. I loved the way M&D held themselves off from the animals while still being so close to them that they became a part of the landscape. Life in the camp was not all about cuddly cats either. From worrying about dying of thirst to the risk of bush fires, the wild animals around them seemed to be actually the least risky of the dangers M&D faced for seven years.
One of the main dangers that the Kalahari wildlife faces is from the cattle industry. Because cattle is considered of supreme importance, is one of the biggest industries of Botswana, is run by powerful people at the helm, any danger to them is swiftly dealt with without even taking the long-term ecological problems into consideration. It is not just the Botswana government which is responsible for this, but also other countries and the EEC (at the time), which impose restrictions on the Botswana cattle industry, directly leading to actions that endanger the Kalahari wildlife. When their repeated entreaties went unheard at the local level, M&D decided to publish their findings in international journals and publicise the problem.
Another major danger posed to the wildlife is from the expected discovery of important minerals in the Kalahari. Union Carbide (the same shitty company that was responsible for the Bhopal disaster) had been allowed to prospect in the region, without any regard to the local people or the local ecosystems. African governments in general should be very careful about allowing in foreign companies for these things. Not only are their resources exploited, but also their people aren't too better off in the long run either.
M&D have since been involved in a number of conservation efforts in Africa and around the world. We need governments to sustain their efforts and for the general public to support these initiatives. But in the meanwhile, I recommend reading this beautiful book that will convince almost everyone of the beauty of wild untamed nature....more
That was an excruciating read! I can't imagine why other reviewers are so enamoured of this book! Admittedly, Kingsley was a remarkable woman for herThat was an excruciating read! I can't imagine why other reviewers are so enamoured of this book! Admittedly, Kingsley was a remarkable woman for her time, but she is also a remarkable idiot when it comes to her so-called theories about "the African". By the end of the book, I had completely lost any admiration for this woman who did so many incredible things, but couldn't think an original thought to save her life.
So here are a few gems:
I own I regard not only the African, but all coloured races, as inferior - inferior in kind not in degree - to the white races ...
Both polygamy and slavery are, for divers reasons, essential to the well-being of Africa - at any rate for those vast regions of it which are agricultural ...
It is not necessary to treat them brutally, in fact it does not pay to do so, but it is necessary to treat them severely, to keep a steady hand over them. Never let them become familiar, never let them see you have made a mistake. When you make a mistake in giving them an order let it be understood that that way of doing a thing is a peculiarly artful dodge of your own, and if it fails, that it is their fault.
And as if the racism were not enough, she also brings forth this gem for our edification. I feel certain that a black man is no more an undeveloped white man than a rabbit is an undeveloped hare; and the mental difference between the two races is very similar to that between men and women among ourselves. A great woman, either mentally or physically, will excel an indifferent man, but no woman ever equals a really great man. What a moron!
Going in, I was quite prepared to deal with a lot of racism, and even quite a bit of sexism in the course of the narrative. I was prepared to overlook this. But I was not prepared to get hit over the head with blanket statements on the inferiority of non-white people and females. Nor was I prepared to sit and read for pages and pages of theorising about how exactly the different tribes are inferior to white people and who is better than whom. I wonder who died and made Kingsley god?
The problem with this book, unlike with many other authors of this period, is that Kingsley set herself out as an expert and dedicated almost half of the book to racist theorising, interjected with some choice bits of sexism and nationalism. Kingsley proses on about how best to exploit the area in white people's interests, more specifically British interests. She specifically advocates landgrabbing from the locals because really, what's the harm in it?
English Government officials have very little and very poor encouragement given them if they push inland and attempt to enlarge the sphere of influence, which their knowledge of local conditions teaches them requires enlarging, because the authorities at home are afraid other nations will say we are rapacious landgrabbers. Well, we always have been, and they will say it anyhow; and where after all is the harm in it?
What a fucking joke of a human being! By the end of the book, I thoroughly disliked this woman and wouldn't have hesitated to push her in a river full of crocodiles if I ever met her. But all this apart, the book itself is dry and hard to read.
One main problem is that there is no clarification of terms and concepts that are unclear to us in modern times. For example, the use of the word "Negro" is not clear at all. She uses it in a pretty non-racist sense (I know, shocking!) as a tribe name but it is unclear which tribe it actually refers to. Similarly, she talks about conflicts between European governments that are now merely a footnote in history. An annotated edition would make this book far more comprehensible.
Another problem is that the woman lies to make her stories appear more fun. One example is how she found cannibal remains among the Fan tribe. The Fans were never cannibals but the white people had spread these rumours in order to make it easier to enslave them. This made me question her every story and I couldn't really believe most of her "black people are so funny!" tales anymore after that.
The author's so-called humour began to grate after a while as it was incessant and necessarily included more stereotyping. The narrative also got pretty repetitive as she described the scenery endlessly as well as her adventures of falling and getting up. There is only so much interest in reading about someone falling into a swamp for the nth time. It didn't help that Kingsley believed in verbosity. I don't believe I am saying this but she should have been condemned to tell her stories on Twitter. That would work exceedingly well with her racism anyway!
I am very underwhelmed with this shit. But what do I know? I am neither white nor male nor English. I am just a coloured female dumbo....more
What a complete and utter mess of a book! I had been informed by many reliable sources (including Lucy Worsley in her documentary A Very BritishWhat a complete and utter mess of a book! I had been informed by many reliable sources (including Lucy Worsley in her documentary A Very British Murder) that Sayers was even better than Christie where murder mysteries are concerned. They are all wrong!
This mystery has an intriguing enough premise - a naked dead body is found in the home of a harmless man that everyone automatically knew was not the murderer because well, the Wimseys (mother and son) said so! Lord Wimsey is called on to investigate the murder. At the same time, Wimsey's friend, Parker, is searching for a missing person - a JEW. Mind you, JEW in capital letters. A self made JEW. A good man despite being a JEW. JEW JEW JEW. Got that? All right. For some reason unknown to the reader, Wimsey is insistent that both cases are related. And then I really don't know what happens. Or why. Because it's that badly written. I don't understand how Wimsey even arrives at the conclusion that X is the murderer. The motive for the murder is largely unbelievable and doesn't even make much sense.
The characters are hideous! Peter Wimsey is extremely annoying in every way possible. He puts on an affectation every time he opens his mouth. He tries some weird accent that doesn't add anything to his character or to the plot. He is shallow and annoying and I constantly felt the need to slap him. Hard. Especially when he begins to quote random poetry or starts singing at people who have no clue what he's doing. I have a strong suspicion that Sayers meant it all to funny, but it falls terribly flat. The Duchess is even more annoying, if possible. The entire aura of upper class British aristocracy is shamelessly flaunted as something awesome, without any context to its existence. (And I say this as a Downton Abbey lover!)
I honestly feel bad I started my year with this dud. I don't think I'll be wasting my time on any more Sayers. This certainly is not a classic, whatever else it may be....more
This is one of the best books that I have read this year so far. Steven Martin is an enthusiast of the Chinese opium subculture, which leads him toThis is one of the best books that I have read this year so far. Steven Martin is an enthusiast of the Chinese opium subculture, which leads him to start a collection of opium artefacts and gather more and more knowledge about them. He is one of the major experts in the world on this subject today, and has donated his entire collection to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Unfortunately, his obsession with opium paraphernalia also brought him into close contact with opium itself, and set him on a course of addiction.
This book is a mish-mash of different genres on the subject of opium, each one fascinating from its own distinct angle. A deeply intimate memoir about Martin's struggle with opium addiction, the book also explores the history of opium, not just in China, but around the world. Opium Fiend is also about Martin's passion for collection of these objects, and about other similar collections. In fact, the book is chock-a-block with information on this subject.
Martin's willingness to put himself in the middle of the very unique opium subculture resulted in his rediscovering much lost information on this subject. Much of the knowledge about this practice has been destroyed in China, US, and other countries, when the war on opium began. Martin admits that he might never be completely off his addiction, and there is no permanent cure. He reached out to opium and opium is never going to leave him.
Beautifully written, Martin pours his soul into the book and doesn't shy back from exposing his weaknesses. At times, he writes so poignantly about the lures of opium that I felt quite tempted to try some, despite his disclaimer. Thank goodness it is banned and not easily available! But this is what makes Opium Fiend rise from the run of the mill memoir to a wonderful and fascinating work....more
In the summer of 1968, the murders of two toddlers shocked Newcastle in England. But they were in for a bigger shock very soon. The murderer was aIn the summer of 1968, the murders of two toddlers shocked Newcastle in England. But they were in for a bigger shock very soon. The murderer was a little girl of 11 years, Mary Bell. Gitta Sereny was a journalist covering the case and she immediately got interested in this child who should not be a killer. After all, children are supposed to be innocent. What could possibly have driven Mary to kill?
Sereny contends that some children are not naturally bad. Instead it's their environment that's producing violence in them. She also makes a really brilliant point that most of this abuse is concocted in families and it is high time that families should not be held as a sacred cow at the expense of the welfare of children. Oh my god! I agree so much! I've never heard anyone say this so clearly before. Everyone seems reluctant to separate mother and child, but in this case, it would have been best for both of them.
The author covers the incidents, the investigation, the trial, and a bit of the background of Mary Bell's family in the book. Written only a few years after the trial, Sereny is still fresh with the trauma of the incident and is able to take the reader back in time to feel the horror of those days. It does not cover information that Bell as an adult has come out with - that's in another book by Sereny. A few things stand out for me after reading this book.
- Norma Bell was probably guilty. How is it possible that she was not? As much as I try to find ways to exonerate her, she just looms in the background, impossible to ignore. She was not the instigator but she took part. I suppose that the entire system found this case so distasteful that they were happy to ignore Norma, who didn't stand out in their face like Mary did. But this prevented her from getting a chance to turn her life around, like Mary did. In fact, Sereny does point out that Norma's life went downhill and her obsession with the murders never ended. I found it so intensely creepy that she offered to take a toddler for a walk just a few days after the trial!
- I found it confusing why Norma was allowed to play with Mary, after Mary was caught red-handed throttling Norma's younger sister, Susan. Norma's father sent her off and refused to allow Susan to play with Mary anymore. But why allow Norma then? This makes no sense to me.
- Why was Mary's home life never investigated? It is obvious that she was abused by her mother. Her entire family knew that Betty Bell had tried to murder her daughter four times! But they just sat on their hands and did nothing at all. What kind of jerks are these? They should all have been prosecuted.
Sereny writes well and brings out the salient points. The book is quite interesting and explores different relevant themes. At the end is tacked on an article about the James Bugler case, which I found rather unnecessary. Just because they were both child killers doesn't mean it should be included in a book about Mary Bell. The article was rather interesting but if you knew nothing about the case, then it would be completely useless because Sereny just goes on to discuss the family backgrounds of the boys involved without saying much about the case itself.
Today, Mary is rehabilitated and has not re-offended. It's incredible what can be done with faulty humans with therapy and support. Mary was on her way to becoming a serial killer as a child. Her being caught and detained saved other lives and her own. Anyone interested in Mary Bell should probably also read the next book that came out in the 90s, Cries Unheard. In that one, the adult and rehabilitated Mary talks about her childhood problems and offers some further perspective....more
There has been rarely a fictional work of such complexity when the focal point is colonisation. Most books are either firmly convinced that theThere has been rarely a fictional work of such complexity when the focal point is colonisation. Most books are either firmly convinced that the traditional ways were the best, or they firmly believe that colonisation was the best thing ever to happen, depending on the author's perspective. But Achebe goes far deeper than that, bringing out the nuances of the good and bad aspects of both sides.
This is a brilliant book, written in the oral tradition of African stories and legends. I generally don't like that kind of narrative, but it really suits this book. Achebe is a great writer and I really enjoyed the very subtle sarcasm against malpractices by both African and European cultures. I also love the fact that he focused so strongly on the rampant sexism.
Okonkwo is the protagonist. He is arrogant, warmongering, sexist, and in short, a brute. He is not a sympathetic character. He considers no one else's dignity except his own. In the end, when colonisation happened, he too lost his dignity and his life. His contempt for women is deep-rooted and one of the questions I asked myself was whether if he had been "more like a woman", he might not have been a better person overall and avoided his ultimate fate.
One of the finest things about Things Fall Apart is how immersed I got into the book. It was a wonderful story and it was also beautifully detailed in all aspects of Igbo life. Every single page told a story, and deepened my understanding of this culture. Like with everything else, it had the bad and the good. The question remains, and will never be answered: What kind of progress would have been made with women's rights and eliminating superstition without the missionaries forcing a change in the culture? After all, all they did was to substitute one kind of misogyny and superstition with another.
As a depiction of colonisation, this is one of the best books I have read. The gradual changes to society, the flocking of the disenfranchised people to the church, and the government support offered to the church members against the tribes all contributed to the ultimate fallout. Before one knew it, things had changed and most people would be hard put to actually pinpoint the time when it happened. As Desmond Tutu so aptly put it: When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. That is what happened in this story too....more
I basically started this book so I would have a background before I read the newly released sequel. This is one of those books which are sociallyI basically started this book so I would have a background before I read the newly released sequel. This is one of those books which are socially relevant and so don't get relegated back to the dusty shelves where they belong. It's considered to be an indictment against racism in American society, but I did not find it all that powerful.
For one thing, we look at the entire issue of racism from a white point of view, which basically just skims over the daily humiliations and trials of being a black person in the segregated and racist society of the American South. The Finch family is the primary focus of the book, especially the two children (Scout and Jem), who have no knowledge of these issues, right till the end of the book. The legal case only takes up a small part of the book and while it makes a point about inherent racism in the courts, it really does not dig deep into the issue.
The story-telling is rather lacking with paper-thin characters and no actual focus. The book is divided into two parts and the first part is almost entirely Scout and Jem and their daily lives, which I found pretty pointless. They go on endlessly about their silly games and there is far too much attention given to some mysterious neighbour who doesn't really serve a purpose except to act as a deus-ex machina at the end. The second part is better structured but even here, it is still about the Finch family.
Child narrators almost always have a major problem with lack of understanding of the world around them, which does not work for me at all as a narrative. Looking at the story through the lens of an innocent white girl serves no purpose. She has no clue about the harshness of the lives of black people because she is sheltered, ignorant and innocent. If a child's viewpoint was even required, which I would definitely argue against, why not a black child who would have the right experience. Maybe even Tom Robinson's daughter?
There is not much done in terms of character development, except for Scout herself, and perhaps her brother. But these two should not be the focus of this story because they are really peripheral characters looking at the action taking place around them. Atticus Finch borders on a Gary Stu character. On a more personal level, I could not connect to the characters or to the story except in a few rare instances.
I did like a few scenes, especially the courtroom ones. I found Mayela Ewell the most interesting character in the book and would have enjoyed a bit more focus on her and how she felt about her life and her lies. Scout's development of a relationship with her aunt got me interested in spite of myself. But overall, I don't think this book even does its job properly. I found it hugely problematic that for an acclaimed novel against racism, the black characters aren't developed much or even exist for the most part in the narrative....more
I am not sure what this book was all about. General Zia-ul-Haq dies in the end (which is not a spoiler, btw) and someone killed him. The story isI am not sure what this book was all about. General Zia-ul-Haq dies in the end (which is not a spoiler, btw) and someone killed him. The story is about who killed him - I think. It is also a political satire on Pakistan's crazy political figures. It is about the army - I think. In fact, I don't really know what to think.
The book drives the narrative forward by alternating the stories of Zia-ul-Haq and a lowly army person, and then there is some flashback to some completely different and irrelevant story about some American Colonel, there are sweepers and blind women for some inscrutable reason, there are pages spent on what a crow does, people just jump from one situation to the other, and I think Osama Bin Laden made an appearance somewhere. I have no clue what I just read, and I feel like I have taken LSD.
There were some slightly funny moments in the book, but it was by no means a great book on political satire. Or anything. The book was slightly coherent in the first half, but things just become too bizarre in the second half with everyone doing their own thing. Next time, I think I will just order the illegal stuff the author is consuming, and not his book....more
What the Day Owes the Night is a strong criticism of the French colonisation of Algeria. Seen through the eyes of a young boy called Younes, we travelWhat the Day Owes the Night is a strong criticism of the French colonisation of Algeria. Seen through the eyes of a young boy called Younes, we travel through time with him to see how Algeria copes with colonisation before demanding for independence, which is long in coming.
Younes himself was born to a farmer and lived in the countryside as a child. When his father lost his farms, they had to move to Oran, where they lived in a filthy slum. His father tries to make ends meet, but when things don't work out, he decides that Younes needs more opportunities, and sends him off to his brother to be educated. The book is engrossing and quite heartbreaking at times until this portion, even if Younes' father exasperated me more than once.
Younes is suddenly transported to a life of wealth and privilege and is renamed Jonas. From this point on, the story gets annoying. He makes friends with the French settlers and even takes their barbs about Arabs being lazy and untrustworthy just so that he could fit in. I lost sympathy with the protagonist, but the story also took a maudlin turn as Younes moons over an annoying woman for the rest of his life, an infatuation that colours the rest of the book. It is as boring as watching paint dry.
Then comes the Algerian War of Independence, and Younes has to decide how he 'votes'. But all he does is think about Emilie and cry. As compelling as this section could have been, it wasn't because the author chose to make this a novel about teenage angst (continued into adulthood) instead of a decent historical fiction.
The book also concentrated on the French pied-noir population rather than the Algerians. While one can sympathise with these people, it would have been nice to see everything from the viewpoint of a local. And by that, I don't mean wishy-washy Younes. These French-Algerians loved the country and considered it their homeland; they just didn't like the local Algerians. For me, it was also unbelievable how Younes' uncle and Germaine lived quite happily without one or either facing criticism for their union - from any quarter!
Even though the subject offers an enormous scope to explore interesting issues, What the Day Owes the Night ended up a very superficial story with the focus on an uninteresting romance....more
I can't believe I actually enjoyed this book. It was all about fighting and hunting and living in the rough, and not a single woman in the 250 pages.I can't believe I actually enjoyed this book. It was all about fighting and hunting and living in the rough, and not a single woman in the 250 pages. But gosh, it was riveting!
Hugh Glass was a man who lived life on the edge. This was not due to any need or cash crunch. He just liked it, and soon it became the only way he knew how to live. His father wanted him to become a lawyer, but Glass had other plans for his future. In the end, his father relented and allowed him to pursue his dreams. Glass started his career as a sailor. He later became a frontiersman, hunter, scout, and fur trapper.
Glass was kidnapped by pirates, almost killed in a ritual sacrifice by the Pawnee, mauled by a grizzly bear, survived in the inhospitable land with no weapons and injured, escaped in an Arikara ambush ... But he never stopped and continuously stepped from one dangerous assignment to another.
The Revenant is a novel about Glass' confrontation with the grizzly, and then being abandoned by his colleagues. He survived god only knows how, but he did get back to 'civilisation' and tracked down those who had abandoned him.
I would not call this great literature and the author's writing style was sometimes confusing as he switched from one topic to the other. He also often switched back and forth in time, which didn't sit well with me. But Punke somehow managed to keep my interest alive and I don't remember when was the last time I was so fascinated by a biography, fictional though it is. Punke does provide an author's note at the end where he describes the fictional parts.
I really loved this book and will be looking out for the other books by this author. Hugh Glass is fascinating and I really admire his spunk and his perseverance. But if you asked me, I'd have chosen law school! ...more
Take an interesting story, do impeccable research, then ruin it all with extravagant prose and over-emotional drama – that’s The Tin Ticket. NothingTake an interesting story, do impeccable research, then ruin it all with extravagant prose and over-emotional drama – that’s The Tin Ticket. Nothing speaks more for the need of a good editor than this book. The writing is bad. There are too many adjectives used and after a while one does get tired of the ‘stately Quaker’ and the ‘grey eyed lass’ and would prefer a return to the simpler Elizabeth and Agnes. Also, I know you are talking about a Scottish girl but can you dispense with the ‘lasses’ bit, please? It’s intensely irritating.
On the plus side, the research is awesome. There is also a detailed appendix laying out different documents such as rules applicable to prisoners and records of the women described in this book. The in-depth research is somewhat spoilt by the author claiming that all rich people (except Elizabeth Fry, who is quite obviously a saint!) are horrible bastards and all poor people must be excused for turning to theft. I would have better appreciated a book that based its premise on the fact that the punishments were excessively harsh for petty crimes and not completely excusing people for committing crimes!
The attempts at humour also fall flat because the author’s anger against anything ‘authority’ is so blatant that it gets very annoying for the reader. What’s worse is that you have to be poor, convicted, female AND the author’s protégée to gain her sympathy. Other convicts could be very vengeful and were pretty much ‘low-life troublemakers’. The story also jumps all over the place. It deals with different women but it’s not woven well together. The last protégée of the author was not represented properly. She might as well have been left out.
The ending seemed rushed and while the chapter on the gold rush was really out of context for this book, I enjoyed reading it the most. The sudden rush of the author to finish the book actually made reading the ending so much better than the rest of the book since she had to leave out her flowery emotional crap and focused on facts. Basically this is a highly fictionalised account of female transports to Australia and is well researched but written badly....more
Riley goes back home after her father's death to clear out his house. While there, she gets sucked into the secret past of their family. She discoversRiley goes back home after her father's death to clear out his house. While there, she gets sucked into the secret past of their family. She discovers that her sister Lisa did not commit suicide as her parents told her, but had escaped a murder trial with the help of their father. The story starts off with a lot of suspense and interest but fizzles out in the middle. The end is a disaster, leaving practically every question unresolved.
Lisa's story could have been intriguing, but I found the woman really stupid and annoying. Her story was watered down and everything came too easy for her. After running away, she slept all alone for one night on the beach and one night in a seedy motel, but was whisked away to a fairy tale cottage by a do-gooder immediately afterwards. Her terror should have communicated itself to the reader, but there was none of it, because good samaritans at every step.
Another thing that the author hurried on was the relationship between Celia and Lisa. A couple of meetings and they are in a relationship? The reader never gets the sense of how their relationship develops. Living a lie while building a relationship is incredibly taxing, but there was none of that in the book.
Lisa was also incredibly stupid. The one thing her father had told her was not to touch a violin ever again because her music would be easily recognisable. And the first thing she does is to buy a violin and start playing it. She even joins a band! How stupid can you get? Is this the way you repay a father who risked prison time to help you escape?
I also found the completely uncomplicated love of Lisa towards Riley a tad unbelievable. She was raped and had a child from that incident, and it's all okay because BABY! She was a child herself! How about some conflict of feelings and some tough decisions on how she handled the problems caused by such a situation? And what kind of parents would not try and investigate about the situation when their child is pregnant? I would suspect abuse the first thing, especially since she vehemently denied it was her boyfriend's child. Why didn't these people? I think this part was handled terribly.
The various plots did not tie up well at all. Jeannie and her daughter showed up all creepy and pushy, but it all turned out to be absolutely nothing. Tom and Verniece Kyle were desperate enough to do anything to get the campsite in their name, but in the end, they just faded out of the picture. Danny faded out at the end as well, in spite of him opposing Riley throughout the book.
The end was pretty mediocre. Lisa and Riley meet up and live happily ever after. Really? What about the crime Lisa committed? What about people who could still recognise her? What about exposing a paedophile like Steven Davis, which could even be easily proved? What about ethics? Doesn't anyone have a responsibility to expose Davis, whom the world thinks of as an innocent music teacher brutally murdered by a crazy teenager? Like, anyone at ALL? ...more
Everyone knows all about Mma Ramotswe and her No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. It's delightful, set in Botswana, and filled with the local flavours. InEveryone knows all about Mma Ramotswe and her No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. It's delightful, set in Botswana, and filled with the local flavours. In this book, Mma Ramotswe gets an important client from the government, JLB Matekoni is suffering from depression, Mma Makutsi gets her first solo triumph by solving a case for a huge fee. The bankrupt company is flush again!
My two facourite quotes:
This sad truth was hilariously put - "Women, as usual, were expected to behave better than men, and inevitably attracted criticism for doing things that men were licensed to do with impunity. It was not fair; it had never been fair, and it would probably never be fair in the future. Men would wriggle out of it somehow, even if you tied them up in a constitution. Men judges would find that the constitution really said something rather different from what was written on the page and interpret it in a favour of men. All people, both men and women, are entitled to equal treatment in the workplace became Women can get some jobs, but they cannot do certain jobs (for their own protection) as men will do these jobs better anyway."
Another brilliant piece of observation - "She was a traditionally built lady, after all, and she did not have to worry about dress size, unlike those poor, neurotic people who were always looking in mirrors and thinking that they were too big. What was too big, anyway? Who was to tell another person what size they should be? It was a form of dictatorship, by the thin, and she was not having any of it. If these thin people became any more insistent, then the more generously sized people would just have to sit on them. Yes, that would teach them! Hah!"
These books have to be read to be experienced. Reviews are not sufficient to do justice to their delightfulness....more
Some books should come with a warning on the cover: excruciatingly boring. In Everything I Never Told You, Celeste Ng makes a case for how racism andSome books should come with a warning on the cover: excruciatingly boring. In Everything I Never Told You, Celeste Ng makes a case for how racism and sexism can destroy a family. It certainly can, and the premise is very interesting, which is why the book itself is such a disappointment.
Marilyn is an ambitious young student who desperately wants to become a doctor and escape the humdrum life of a housewife that her mother plans out for her. James is a professor and the ultra-Americanised son of Chinese immigrants who has to face racism at every step of the way. Marilyn attends James' lecture and falls in love with him, gets pregnant and gives up her dreams to have babies like everyone else. Nath, Lydia and Hannah are their children.
The story, as such, is not bad and there is a lot of scope to show how racism and sexism can affect people and impact families. However, none of the characters even appear real, nor do the interactions between the family members. They never actually talk to each other. Marilyn's mother opposes her wedding to a Chinese, and Marilyn never speaks to her again. But we never get to see how Marilyn feels about it. How does James deals with it? How do the children feel about a grandmother whom they have never seen?? How does Marilyn's mother herself feel at this fallout? What about other relatives? Nothing is explained as the story follows a very linear path, missing out many opportunities for actually making an impact. This happens consistently with almost every chapter throwing up many avenues to explore but the author just drones on repetitively on the same themes of isolation and lack of communication.
The characters were flat, and one of them was pretty much useless. The youngest daughter, Hannah, just existed for no reason, except to be ignored throughout the book and later take the place of Lydia. Every time there was a crisis in the family, they just filed it away behind them and acted as if it never existed. Yes, I realise this was the time of stoic acceptance but really, never having a conversation about things that affected you deeply? Even at the end, things automatically 'got better' for no reason and they still won't talk about it, but things will get better because the author told us so and because she finally told us about Lydia's death. Story over, things get better, why explain? But if you don't care to talk about your problems, why the hell would I be interested in reading about them?...more
Once more, Achebe has succeeded in writing a story that had me living in a very different world for a while. Arrow of God is not about the delightfulOnce more, Achebe has succeeded in writing a story that had me living in a very different world for a while. Arrow of God is not about the delightful (not!) Okonkwo nor the honest and upright (not!) Obi Okonkwo. Instead, Achebe has told the story of a completely different family, in no way related to the Okonkwos (can we say that?). It is the story of a completely different tribe with different customs and rituals.
Ezeulu is the chief priest of Ulu, a god that binds six villages together. He takes his duties seriously and tries to do his job conscientiously. Is that enough when six entire villages look to you for their welfare? No, some common sense is also required. In the end, Ezeulu destroys himself as well as his villages, in the process destroying the religion itself. The story has different thematic layers to it, and I am still not sure I grasped them all. Brilliant work, as usual.
The book explores the rigidity of religion and how it can destroy people. If religion is important for some people, then so is flexibility in its interpretation. Another theme is how the missionaries waited like vultures to pounce on the people the moment they were dissatisfied with the rigidity of their own religion, unlikely to understand that they were just exchanging one superstition for another. The blunders of British colonial rule have also been explored. While the British patted themselves on the back on how good a job they were doing for the locals, they were slowly and steadily destroying an entire civilisation, preventing it from progressing on its own in a way more suited to the local environment.
But despite the exploration of all these overarching themes, the core of the book remains the story - as it should be. Much too often authors tend to hammer their point home instead of working on their plots. One reason why I think Achebe is a much superior writer to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, even though I am much more in sympathy with the latter's works because she also includes feminist ideas in her book, which Achebe doesn't touch. I don't think Achebe is a deliberate misogynist, however. I think he just depicted the harsh treatment of women in tribal life accurately.
Arrow of God is a comprehensive look at tribal life after the arrival of missionaries. The characters are rich and vibrant, the depiction of daily life is lush and detailed, and the quirks of Nigerian English fully came across in the dialogues. The dialogues were peppered with African aphorisms, which just made me feel even closer to these people. It is a bit of a hard read because of this but fully worth your while.
I think I would need to read these books again, several times, in fact, to get more out of them. But I'll never read them for the first time again. And that's really sad....more
I already knew a lot about Dadaab, since I had been fascinated by the idea of a refugee camp where people lived for generations and lived, worked, andI already knew a lot about Dadaab, since I had been fascinated by the idea of a refugee camp where people lived for generations and lived, worked, and died there. I was familiar with the horrors of the 1992 civil war which started in Somalia by reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book. And I also happened to watch a very interesting documentary on Dadaab. So I had a good idea about the basics. But Ben Rawlence really showed a deeper and much more intense side of the camp itself.
The civil war of 1992 in Somalia led to the fleeing of a large number of civilians into neighbouring Kenya. Kenyans created a refugee camp for them, which was Dadaab. Everyone believed that the conflict would be over in a few months and the refugees can then go back. With this in mind, governments around the world were generous in helping some of them resettle, while the UN response was handy as well. But as the years passed by and the war raged on, the refugees began to settle down in Dadaab. For many, it was the only home they had ever known. The world began to lose interest and was preoccupied with several other conflicts and the repercussions from those: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and so on. Somalia and Dadaab were relegated to the back-burner.
In City of Thorns: Nine Lives in the World's Largest Refugee Camp, author and journalist Ben Rawlence follows the lives of a few selected refugees and sees the world they inhabit through their own eyes. Some wanted to be relocated to the Western countries, others wanted to go back to Somalia, but there were many who wanted to remain in Dadaab. The camp functioned as a big city in itself and indeed, it was bigger than many of the big Kenyan cities. Over the years, the camp ecosystem has become a huge contribution to the local economy, with even some Kenyan citizens stopping by for the benefits the camp has to offer in terms of free food and health care.
Rawlence has done extensive research and has shown life in the camp from all angles. He gives the stories of the refugees, but he also brings out the viewpoints of the governments involved. The Kenyan government is winning support by committing war crimes and humanitarian crimes on the displaced Somalis with the narrative of 'fighting against terror' - a narrative that has become frighteningly real and pervasive across the globe. Meanwhile, the UN grapples with a number of other conflicts, especially from Syria. The World Food Programme is completely crippled by the lack of funds. The European Union is struggling with the refugees from the Syrian crisis. The Americans are still moaning about 9/11. And everyone has forgotten the Somalis and Dadaab.
In May 2016, the hardline Kenyan government announced its plan to close down Dadaab and send the refugees back 'voluntarily' to a 'stable Somalia' by end of November 2016. It has not happened, but what will happen now is anybody's guess....more
It was a really wonderful idea for bringing out the hidden stories of ordinary German women during the Nazi years and the war. But this should haveIt was a really wonderful idea for bringing out the hidden stories of ordinary German women during the Nazi years and the war. But this should have been done in collaboration with a decent historian and a good proof-reader. This book is totally unreadable because of several reasons, a great pity because these women who were interviewed had genuine voices to add to our knowledge of this period, especially from a psychological and individual viewpoint.
The book barely appears edited. The author mentions that this is due to the different dialects of Germans from different parts of the country. But why is this even relevant? All the jas and achs and nachts and niens just distracted me from what these women were saying. In the interviews of women who were obviously illiterate (or perhaps just not articulate enough), sentences were just left incomplete and I couldn’t begin to understand what they were saying. This is where we needed Owings to step in, but she was too busy passing judgement to bother making the material comprehensible.
Alison Owings is pretty upfront about her not knowing anything about history, leave alone German history or the World War II. Yet she has already decided what is what, and seems to know when someone is lying and when someone is not. She talks a lot of nonsense when she tries to ‘explore’ the historical basis for the Nazi rise. She blames Martin Luther for his works (written in the 16th century, mind you!) for the way Germans allowed Hitler to rise to power and obeyed authority because Luther made a point about citizens submitting to the King because he represents God on earth. Another claim is that the German tradition of fairy tales where heroes did things that ordinary people could not led to people accepting Nazis.
She also waffles on about how Germany was a sexist society in the early days of the 20th century. The rest of the world was a feminist paradise? Another amazing claim is that anyone who opposed the Treaty of Versailles was a Nazi. Because the Treaty of Versailles was soooo good for Germany! Just because the Nazis (who just happened to be German thugs & racists) opposed it didn’t make it a good thing for the citizens. I am not sure where this woman learned history.
She comes across as very arrogant as well. Anything and everything the interviewees say is suspect. A woman describing a decent thing she did at danger to herself is immediately questioned or waived off because it was not as difficult and dangerous as something else. She interviews a Nazi supporter, who immediately is described as thuggish and manly. This just sounds childish to me. Throughout the book, the author’s presence is ever-looming, her snide remarks and off-the-cuff comments mingling with the genuine experiences of the women who actually experienced the Nazi rule in their varied ways.
We, as readers, know what the Third Reich was like already, and we are already aware that some people were complicit and others were victims. What a book like this was supposed to do was to bring out the experiences and ideas of the common German women, so that we could learn not just what they felt but why they felt the way they did, why they helped and why they didn’t, why they resisted and why they didn’t, why they loved Hitler and why they hated him. But since the author went in with deep prejudices, these women and their experiences are not given the respect they deserve. Instead, the author continuously interrupts them and asks them loaded questions and keeps dragging them away from the story of their lives to ask silly questions.
Speaking of silly questions, one of them was Owings asking the interviewed women whether they ever thought of leaving Germany after Hitler came to power. The implication was obviously that if they didn’t, they were somehow complicit in the Nazi rule. Now, I have a few questions for Owings too. Did you ever think of leaving the USA during the Vietnam War? Did you want to leave the US during the Civil Rights movement? How about the US poking their noses in Iran and Iraq – that didn’t want to make you leave? Come, come, at least the recent Afghan and Iraq wars should have made you leave. But gosh, no! You are STILL there! Is it time to send over an interviewer with zero knowledge of history but a strong prejudiced view of everything to judge you now?
I stopped here (halfway through). A woman is describing her experience of being a Russian prisoner of war (a genuinely terrible and heartbreaking experience for her), and is talking about the family members she lost during the war. She was not a Nazi, and she lived in some remote village removed from everywhere. She didn’t deserve this attitude. The author interrupted the flow of the narration to insert this paragraph:
Did Frau Burchert, in relating such grotesque scenes, think about train cars filled with victims of Nazis? The similarities were so stark-a long, fearful, and sometimes deadly journey in crammed, dark airlessness to an unknown destination. And what of the perverted practical disposal of the human beings who did not survive the trip or the fate that followed it? Starved bodies fueling a train, cremated bodies making annihilation camp cabbages grow. Did she consider any such similarities? Furthermore, did she connect Russian treatment of German civilians with German treatment of Russian civilians? Did she connect the planned German invasion of the Soviet Union to her own unplanned journey in the same direction? She did not say so yet.
Reading further would have been disrespectful to these women, many of whom have also suffered. Not finished. ...more
In 1897, the Germans conquered Rwanda. They brought their burgeoning racial discrimination theories to the country and started applying them to theIn 1897, the Germans conquered Rwanda. They brought their burgeoning racial discrimination theories to the country and started applying them to the local population. What for centuries had been not an issue suddenly divided into ethnic differences. The Tutsis, believed to have descended from the biblical Ham, and thus more "Europeanised" than the Hutu population, became the natural favourites to rule Rwanda on behalf of the Germans. The Germans sowed the seeds of racism in Rwanda.
In 1916, Germany bequeathed its erstwhile colony to the Belgians. The second phase of ethnic division started. The Belgians began to measure the heights and noses of people for their "research" by means of a tool called Vernier Caliper. They also issued identity cards to the population, carefully enshrining their ethnicity in stone (or paper, as the case here). Belgium too followed a pro-Tutsi policy, leading to continuous tensions between the two communities.
When Rwanda erupted in violence, no one realised the extent of the damage. It was only later that the staggering numbers became known, and the massacre was classified a genocide. However, ethnic violence had been constantly mounting since the late 80s and tensions had been around ever since the last Tutsi king died and the Hutus latched on to power.
Hatzfeld wrote three books on this subject, this being the second book in which he talks to the killers about their deeds. It's a good idea and had the potential to throw some light on a rather obscure subject since people are still debating why the genocide even happened. But I don't think this book answers those questions completely, or indeed, at all.
Machete Season offers very little insight on why the killers killed. Though the author offers a good explanation of why he chose people who killed together in a group, this also prevented him from gaining better insights on the diverse types of people who killed during the genocide. The group of people said pretty much the same thing and repeated themselves quite often. They squarely placed the blame on the politicians, and indeed, much of the blame lies there, but I did not get much of a sense of soul-searching from any of these guys. This is where this book fails for me. I would totally read a book by any killer who lays out his thought processes neatly for the world to understand this tragedy. But none of the people chosen by Hatzfeld did so.
One of the things that did strike me was that this appeared to be a very male operation. Wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters were mostly left at home to deal with the daily grind and fill the stomachs of those who returned after a satisfactory killing and looting session. Apparently, even the organisers of the genocide told the women to stay home. The men easily blamed the women for wanting more loot and claimed that their wives wholly supported them. What utter bullshit! This in itself shows there is little remorse and even less honesty. I would be very interested to know what all the women in Rwanda think of their male relatives who have killed. Did they even have an opinion? Were they allowed to?
A second thing that came out consistently was how every Hutu had to kill or be killed himself. I don't know how far this was enforced. Was it just in the countryside or in the cities as well? And if this were the case, how far were men who were forced to lift their machetes be blamed for putting their own lives over others? But again, this was not explored in detail.
The most annoying thing about Machete Season was its insistence on bringing up the Jewish Holocaust at every opportunity. This is just another manifestation of colonisation where a tragedy can't be discussed without comparing it to the Holocaust, an European event. I was also flummoxed at how easily Hatzfeld dismissed the Bosnian genocide as not being a genocide because the women were not systematically murdered. Another strange theory of Hatzfeld was that colonisation did not have a big part in the Rwandan genocide. Are you kidding me? Personally, all this made me lose faith in the author as someone who is aware of history in its proper context, despite his credentials.
I think there are much better books on this subject, but I don't regret reading this one because of its unique perspective. I just wish that the sample size were larger and the subjects were explored in more detail and in depth....more
Karen Blixen wrote this book under the male pseudonym of Isak Dinesen. Despite having travelled to another continent and managed a farm all on herKaren Blixen wrote this book under the male pseudonym of Isak Dinesen. Despite having travelled to another continent and managed a farm all on her own, she was obviously not to be trusted to write about her own experiences under the name of a woman!
I enjoyed this book, though the focus of it is rather narrow. It accurately describes Karen's own life and her experiences in Kenya, though she seems quite oblivious of the larger political scenario around her. The writing is lovely, and takes you right over to the place and time, which is always the mark of a good author. The book is less a memoir and more a collection of short stories from the author's life, but this did not detract from the book.
As could be expected, there is a level of racism in this book. It was usually most jarring for me whenever Karen compares the local Kenyans to animals. I found it extremely bizarre as the Kenyans get compared to elephants, mules, giraffes, and pretty much any other animal that she has come across. I am not sure whether this is because she thought it was poetical or she merely thought that Africans were on par with animals. But I certainly did not notice her compare Denys Finch-Hatten, Berkeley Cole, or Delamere to animals. Another thing that was slightly annoying was that she dismissed the harsh lives of some of the tribal women as them being different. But most of all, it hurt me to read about all the hunting of those magnificent animals in what the Europeans had come to consider their playground.
But despite all this, I really enjoyed the book. It is a wonderful peep into a different time when nature still ruled and also offers some insight into how people who were otherwise good in general were lured to collude in the crime of colonialism. I found Karen herself a sympathetic, if slightly oblivious character.
As a classic, Out of Africa holds its own since it has vividly captured a time in history and presents a micro-historical view of one woman's perspective....more
It's a bit too early for a year-end review, but I have finished my target and won't be reviewing more as I will be too busy to devote much time toIt's a bit too early for a year-end review, but I have finished my target and won't be reviewing more as I will be too busy to devote much time to Goodreads. So here goes!
In my around the world book quest, this year also threw out some gems. The Innocent Anthropologist by Nigel Barley was a brilliant and humorous look at a Cameroon tribe that Barley comes into contact with. Another big treat was The Twelve Little Cakes by Dominika Dery, a delightful memoir about life in communist Czech Republic. East of the West: A Country in Stories by Miroslav Penkov was a nice, readable book of short stories set in Bulgaria. I also enjoyed Leo Africanus by Amin Maalouf and The Man Who Spoke Snakish by Andrus Kivirähk, though the latter left me disappointed with the misogyny and the violence.
Less enticing, but nevertheless still informative and interesting were other books such as Three Years Slavery Among the Patagonians by Auguste Guinnard. I learned something about modern slavery in Sudan through Francis Bok's memoir, Escape from Slavery. The Bite of Mango by Mariatu Kamara and Say You're One of Them by Uwem Akpan also provided further perspective into a troubled land, filled with strife and civil war. The Women In Black by Madeleine St. John is a delightful little book about women's lives set in 1950s Sydney. The books that didn't work for me were Black Mamba Boy by Nadifa Mohamed and The Teacher of Cheops by Albert Salvado.
After watching Anne with an E on Netflix, I was driven to read the Anne of Green Gables books. It all started off delightfully and I absolutely loved Anne. That is, until she became a boring housewife with conservative views. So sad this series petered out so badly! I also continue to read Agatha Christie's Poirot series and enjoyed most of the books. I also read the St Clare's series by Enid Blyton in sequence. The older books were still fun and I thoroughly enjoyed them. However, the newer books by Pamela Cox were pretty horrible, and even worse than Blyton with the racism and the stereotyping. I had thought it could hardly be "improved" upon, but Cox managed it easily!
I tried out a few new mystery authors. Harriet Steel writes mysteries set in colonial Sri Lanka, and they are brilliant. Mignon G. Eberhart is good but tends to drag the story in the first half. Will probably not read much of her unless I run out of better authors. Thomas Cook is terribly boring and out of my reading list. As for Robert Harris, the less said, the better!
There were quite a few history books about Britain that I ended up reading as well. The Last Fighting Tommy was a wonderful book by Harry Patch about his experiences as a soldier in WWI. Jane Austen's England by Roy A. Adkins was another delightful read about, well, Jane Austen's England! Book of Fire: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Bloody Birth of the English Bible by Brian Moynahan was also quite informative. I gave all three five stars!
I also have decided to collect all Sahitya Akademi winners. This year, I read two of them: Inside the Haveli by Rama Mehta and Disorderly Women by Malathi Rao, both about women's lives in the near past. I also read and enjoyed My Boyhood Days by Rabindranath Tagore, a short memoir by this brilliant author. I sadly didn't enjoy River of Fire: Aag Ka Darya by Qurratulain Hyder, an author that I had been looking forward to reading. There will hopefully be far more Indian authors in my list next year.
A particular, unexpected gem this year: Tiffin: Memories and Recipes of Indian Vegetarian Food by Rukmini Srinivas. I read it six months ago and still remember this book with pleasure.
Special mention to my husband's aunt, Rohini Paranjpe Sathe, who wrote Of Swans and Songs, a book of short stories set in India. I am delighted to actually know an author!
Sadly, I seem to have spent far more time reading duds than great books this year. It's been overall average but I hope next year would be a much better one, readingwise! And on that positive note, I wish everyone a Happy New Year and a great reading year ahead....more
Loading...
