Torres, Edwin: Carlito's Way
Torres, Edwin: After Hours
Robertson, Gavin: 1000
Pelzer, Dave: A Boy Called It
King, Stephen: Apt Pupil
Fukuyama, Francis: The History of Man
Buchan, John: The 39 Steps
King, Stephen: The Shawshank Redemption & Rita Hayworth
Calvino, Italo: Invisible Cities
King, Stephen: IT
Swift, Jonathan: Gulliver's Travels
Dickens, Charles: Hard Times
King, Stephen: The Gunslinger
King, Stephen: The Stand (uncut)
Attenborough, David: The Life of Mammals
Homer: The Odyessy
Darwin, Charles: The Voyage of the Beagle (unfinished)
Tolkien, JRR: The Silmarillion (put down)
Defoe, Daniel: Robinson Crusoe
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
Saturday, June 01, 2002
Dickens, Charles: Hard Times
Except maybe Shakespeare, is there an author more famous than Dickens? How many other authors have been immortalised through the adjectivisation* of their name? I think that really must be the definition of fame and celebrity; the adjectivisation of one's name; Marxism, Newtonian, Cartesian, Leninism, Dickensian. Kafka almost gets there, with Kafka-esque, and a number of philosophers and sociologists do, but few storytellers (Clancian, Grishamian? Come on!).
Hard times is set in an imaginary industrial, British any-town. Like many of Dickens' books, it focusses less on the elite, and more on the lower-classes, I'm sure this must be a reason for its popularity. It observes the discourse and interactions that emerge from circumstance. Hard times is not richly plotted nor overly complex, it is a linear plot but crafted with such care that each paragraph is like a poem in itself. The characters are rich, realistic and individual with such traits as to make them believable. There exist three environments in literature, the now, the then and the alternative. The then, or the historic, is rendered with such detail and accuracy that you really feel like you are observing these places and people rather than a pithy echo.
I feel it is often easier to empathise with those whose plight is more desperate which often amounts to those down on their luck. In turn, it is frequently the case that 'down on their luck' is synonymous with having little money. This is part of Dickens' magic, he gets to the raw nerve, talks to you on a one-to-one basis. Him and I understand the same things, that's what I like. Perhaps this is why people often compare Dickens to King, though this may be doing Dickens a disservice (Steinbeck would fit the bill better in my opinion), it is clear how the comparison is made.
I think in the future when reviewing Dickens' books I will have to start on the basis of the plot, much like comparing King's books, the style should be taken for granted. In that case by self-comparison, this is not one of Dickens's greatest, the plot is not outstanding, the characters only marginally memorable. But, still a classic book.
*I don't think this is a word, but the English language is not that prescriptive!
Hard times is set in an imaginary industrial, British any-town. Like many of Dickens' books, it focusses less on the elite, and more on the lower-classes, I'm sure this must be a reason for its popularity. It observes the discourse and interactions that emerge from circumstance. Hard times is not richly plotted nor overly complex, it is a linear plot but crafted with such care that each paragraph is like a poem in itself. The characters are rich, realistic and individual with such traits as to make them believable. There exist three environments in literature, the now, the then and the alternative. The then, or the historic, is rendered with such detail and accuracy that you really feel like you are observing these places and people rather than a pithy echo.
I feel it is often easier to empathise with those whose plight is more desperate which often amounts to those down on their luck. In turn, it is frequently the case that 'down on their luck' is synonymous with having little money. This is part of Dickens' magic, he gets to the raw nerve, talks to you on a one-to-one basis. Him and I understand the same things, that's what I like. Perhaps this is why people often compare Dickens to King, though this may be doing Dickens a disservice (Steinbeck would fit the bill better in my opinion), it is clear how the comparison is made.
I think in the future when reviewing Dickens' books I will have to start on the basis of the plot, much like comparing King's books, the style should be taken for granted. In that case by self-comparison, this is not one of Dickens's greatest, the plot is not outstanding, the characters only marginally memorable. But, still a classic book.
*I don't think this is a word, but the English language is not that prescriptive!
Wednesday, May 01, 2002
King, Stephen: The Gunslinger (Dark Tower I)
The Gunslinger is the introduction to King's epic seven-volume Dark Tower series. Spanning almost three decades, the whole series is a serious investment. When I picked up the Gunslinger, book number five (Wolves of the Calla) was just in publication, or thereabouts. There was considerable hype around the series. I wanted to know what the fuss was all about.
The Gunslinger operates in a skewed alternative-world. Writing this review almost four years after reading the book, I remember very little. This is odd, but I think in part due to the sparsity of the novel. King's vision evidently stretches well beyond the boundaries of this short story, which cannot be considered outside the series. The Gunslinger relies very much on being part of a series, it is not a novel or novella, it does not set a solid foundation for the series, rather it is very much like the first chapter of a book; an introduction I guess. But it is intriguing, I am told by Dark Tower experts that there are numerous references to other books, mainly the Stand, but also the Talisman and Black House, and a number of others (referencing like that is something I really do like). The Gunslinger reminded me very much of David Lynch films; quite odd and absurd and it had my curiosity held. Now, I don't like series, I like to get to the end - I watched the first five series of Sopranos and got annoyed when I found out there was more! I never got round to reading book two - The Drawing of the Three. But since the series has been completed I have bought collectable copies of all seven books. The illustrations, varying throughout the series and including Darrel Anderson and Michael Whelan, are really unbelievable and draw me deeply into the series - it is something I just have to read, a world I have to experience. But the investment in time is huge, and I have to think about this!
The Gunslinger gives a taste of the world dominated by the Dark Tower. At this point, I cannot imagine where the plot will go or how the Gunslinger fits into the story - in fact, all I know is that I long to read it. And I'm sure I will start with the Gunslinger once again. I have the feeling that this is the type of story I will like - something which I imagine I will need to share. I just pray there is some poignancy therein; I mean there has to be - such an epic - would it be a waste to just tell a story?!*
*I will answer this when I come back, I'm inclined to think that it will not be a waste - stories are beautiful thinks, our ability to tell them defines us as human beings!
The Gunslinger operates in a skewed alternative-world. Writing this review almost four years after reading the book, I remember very little. This is odd, but I think in part due to the sparsity of the novel. King's vision evidently stretches well beyond the boundaries of this short story, which cannot be considered outside the series. The Gunslinger relies very much on being part of a series, it is not a novel or novella, it does not set a solid foundation for the series, rather it is very much like the first chapter of a book; an introduction I guess. But it is intriguing, I am told by Dark Tower experts that there are numerous references to other books, mainly the Stand, but also the Talisman and Black House, and a number of others (referencing like that is something I really do like). The Gunslinger reminded me very much of David Lynch films; quite odd and absurd and it had my curiosity held. Now, I don't like series, I like to get to the end - I watched the first five series of Sopranos and got annoyed when I found out there was more! I never got round to reading book two - The Drawing of the Three. But since the series has been completed I have bought collectable copies of all seven books. The illustrations, varying throughout the series and including Darrel Anderson and Michael Whelan, are really unbelievable and draw me deeply into the series - it is something I just have to read, a world I have to experience. But the investment in time is huge, and I have to think about this!
The Gunslinger gives a taste of the world dominated by the Dark Tower. At this point, I cannot imagine where the plot will go or how the Gunslinger fits into the story - in fact, all I know is that I long to read it. And I'm sure I will start with the Gunslinger once again. I have the feeling that this is the type of story I will like - something which I imagine I will need to share. I just pray there is some poignancy therein; I mean there has to be - such an epic - would it be a waste to just tell a story?!*
*I will answer this when I come back, I'm inclined to think that it will not be a waste - stories are beautiful thinks, our ability to tell them defines us as human beings!
Monday, April 01, 2002
Attenborough, David: The Life of Mammals
The Life of Mammals, as a title, does not evoke the same dry, scientific, taxonomic, encyclopaedic impression as most other natural history books. Neither does the content. This is a beuatifully produced book rich in colourful illustrations and text. Sir David (I have no problem calling him by his appointed title!), as always, presents the subject of natural life with an enthusiasm and style that highlights what beauty and intrigue exists in nature. He avoids the human problems that plague the subject (environmental damage, evolution etc.), instead choosing to offer the reader an insight into a world so rarely viewed.
Each chapter refers to the corresponding TV episode and Attenborough selects the most unusual and intriguing behaviours and nuances each particular species exhibits. The colour photographs compliment the text well. Often I found myself reading about a certain mammal, visualising the particular focal point (e.g. catching prey) only to be presented with a wonderful image on the following page! A highly recommended read and another achievement for Sir David!
Each chapter refers to the corresponding TV episode and Attenborough selects the most unusual and intriguing behaviours and nuances each particular species exhibits. The colour photographs compliment the text well. Often I found myself reading about a certain mammal, visualising the particular focal point (e.g. catching prey) only to be presented with a wonderful image on the following page! A highly recommended read and another achievement for Sir David!
King, Stephen: The Stand (unabridged)
The Stand is King's first epic (the other being the Dark Tower series). Originally published in 1978, some 400 pages were removed as Doubleday were dubious about publishing such a lengthy book. However, in 1990 they chose to republish an unabridged edition (1400 pages if I recall correctly). Quite a smart move on Doubleday's part in the long run - most long-term fans have a copy of both!
Anyway, onto the book. As usual King introduces each character with such a depth of backstory that you would swear that you could easily bump into Stuart Redman at a gas station in the Deep South. The difference with this book is King has allowed himself a little extra room to tell their stories fully. And this is what appeals to me most about this book, it is not a single-story, nor a bunch of interrelated tales, rather it is an episode of a post-apocalyptic world, experienced from every angle. Something encouraged by the sparsity of population. So many areas of life are explored, so many terrifying perspectives are daubed with King's to-the-point writing. It may essentially be an ultimate good against evil plot, but much more is included, pertinent points are addressed and the darker side of humanity is put on a platform and given voice. The scale of the novel maps neatly to the scale of the book's background (America - from the West to the East) and, unlike a number of King's books, the ending is paced well and hits just right.
Rarely touted as one of King's masterpieces, it always appears to exist outside of King's bibliography, as if raised to a height where competition cannot reach. Perhaps, quite rightly so. This book is a world apart, few authors succeed in writing such a world, it is too large a challenge and takes years to plan. Has King pulled it off? Well, yes, if judging against King himself. It does not compare to some other epics; it isn't the Lord of the Rings of Horror (I imagine the Dark Tower series may be). But what is important is that it is an epic in King's style, a style I think is all too often associated purely with horror, and, although this is his realm, his style is what is important. If you're a King fan, then you will like this book. King is not the literary king (although there are very good examples of such work), but he is the master storyteller. Nobody would be better suited to a campfire telling stories!
Anyway, onto the book. As usual King introduces each character with such a depth of backstory that you would swear that you could easily bump into Stuart Redman at a gas station in the Deep South. The difference with this book is King has allowed himself a little extra room to tell their stories fully. And this is what appeals to me most about this book, it is not a single-story, nor a bunch of interrelated tales, rather it is an episode of a post-apocalyptic world, experienced from every angle. Something encouraged by the sparsity of population. So many areas of life are explored, so many terrifying perspectives are daubed with King's to-the-point writing. It may essentially be an ultimate good against evil plot, but much more is included, pertinent points are addressed and the darker side of humanity is put on a platform and given voice. The scale of the novel maps neatly to the scale of the book's background (America - from the West to the East) and, unlike a number of King's books, the ending is paced well and hits just right.
Rarely touted as one of King's masterpieces, it always appears to exist outside of King's bibliography, as if raised to a height where competition cannot reach. Perhaps, quite rightly so. This book is a world apart, few authors succeed in writing such a world, it is too large a challenge and takes years to plan. Has King pulled it off? Well, yes, if judging against King himself. It does not compare to some other epics; it isn't the Lord of the Rings of Horror (I imagine the Dark Tower series may be). But what is important is that it is an epic in King's style, a style I think is all too often associated purely with horror, and, although this is his realm, his style is what is important. If you're a King fan, then you will like this book. King is not the literary king (although there are very good examples of such work), but he is the master storyteller. Nobody would be better suited to a campfire telling stories!
Friday, March 01, 2002
Homer: The Odyssey
Translated by T E Lawrence.
Not many books can live up to a title as profound as this one. It conjours up not mere adventure, rather a journey of epic importance. The episodes within this story are well known, they are some of the oldest and most creative ever imagined; their survival through centuries, indeed millenia are testament to this. However, it's not the events that I remember this book for, it's the writing. This is not to denegrate the influence this book has had on literature and story-telling, rather to highlight the value that translation and interpretation of a text has on its enjoyment. This is the only translation I have read, but I have glanced through others, including some modern interpretations, they each bring their own angle to the story. T E Lawrence (of Arabia) colours Ulysses and the whole cast with a particular aesthetic. Each word has its place in the sentence, each word is required, each sentence is vital. I like that in writing. I like tight sentences, otherwise it just seems a little 'fluffy'. The style is almost 'classical' Dickensian; if Dickens had translated the Odyssey, it would have sounded like this. I have never read a book so slowly. I have tried various different reading techniques, but when I am enjoying something, I savour each word. With a piece like this, it is only fair to give each word its full value. This is something that has been crafted, not spat out by a group of ghost-writers. It is a classic text, the highlight of a fading genre.
Not many books can live up to a title as profound as this one. It conjours up not mere adventure, rather a journey of epic importance. The episodes within this story are well known, they are some of the oldest and most creative ever imagined; their survival through centuries, indeed millenia are testament to this. However, it's not the events that I remember this book for, it's the writing. This is not to denegrate the influence this book has had on literature and story-telling, rather to highlight the value that translation and interpretation of a text has on its enjoyment. This is the only translation I have read, but I have glanced through others, including some modern interpretations, they each bring their own angle to the story. T E Lawrence (of Arabia) colours Ulysses and the whole cast with a particular aesthetic. Each word has its place in the sentence, each word is required, each sentence is vital. I like that in writing. I like tight sentences, otherwise it just seems a little 'fluffy'. The style is almost 'classical' Dickensian; if Dickens had translated the Odyssey, it would have sounded like this. I have never read a book so slowly. I have tried various different reading techniques, but when I am enjoying something, I savour each word. With a piece like this, it is only fair to give each word its full value. This is something that has been crafted, not spat out by a group of ghost-writers. It is a classic text, the highlight of a fading genre.
Tuesday, January 01, 2002
Tolkien, JRR: The Silmarillion
(edited by Christopher Tolkien, I believe)
Since my rediscovered interest in fiction, I had finished every book I had started - an ethic trickled down from my parents to finish a job started. A work colleauge had recommended the Silmarillion (and every other Tolkien-inked word), so I got a copy and commenced with a now familiar enthusiasm.
I was not immersed. It was interesting, and stretched the boundaries of Tolkien's Middle Earth as depicted in LOTR. Missing gaps were plugged, and things hinted to in LOTR and the Hobbit were fleshed out in a history as detailed as our own Earth's. But it lacked character. All it's depth in description could not compensate for what it lacked in plausability. The warmth was gone. In a sense, this was a history book, written a long time after the event, lacking the kineticism of Tolkien's stories.
Perhaps this was Christopher Tolkien's hand at work, I am not sure. I by no means wish to apply any negativity to the work Tolkien Jr has done to the scattered remnants of Tolkien Jrr's notes; indeed a great public service has been performed to those with a sense of longing following completion of the great trilogy. I have also tried to remain objective, and not to draw parallels with LOTR, but it is difficult. At the end of the day, the Silmarillion is not a story book, and should not be approached as such. It is an encyclopaedia, glossary and history, and reads as such. It is for the hardcore fans, and to me offers neither enjoyment or reflection. A shame as I am sure many a story could be crafted from the structure defined by this book, unfortunately the master-crafter no longer plies his trade.
Since my rediscovered interest in fiction, I had finished every book I had started - an ethic trickled down from my parents to finish a job started. A work colleauge had recommended the Silmarillion (and every other Tolkien-inked word), so I got a copy and commenced with a now familiar enthusiasm.
I was not immersed. It was interesting, and stretched the boundaries of Tolkien's Middle Earth as depicted in LOTR. Missing gaps were plugged, and things hinted to in LOTR and the Hobbit were fleshed out in a history as detailed as our own Earth's. But it lacked character. All it's depth in description could not compensate for what it lacked in plausability. The warmth was gone. In a sense, this was a history book, written a long time after the event, lacking the kineticism of Tolkien's stories.
Perhaps this was Christopher Tolkien's hand at work, I am not sure. I by no means wish to apply any negativity to the work Tolkien Jr has done to the scattered remnants of Tolkien Jrr's notes; indeed a great public service has been performed to those with a sense of longing following completion of the great trilogy. I have also tried to remain objective, and not to draw parallels with LOTR, but it is difficult. At the end of the day, the Silmarillion is not a story book, and should not be approached as such. It is an encyclopaedia, glossary and history, and reads as such. It is for the hardcore fans, and to me offers neither enjoyment or reflection. A shame as I am sure many a story could be crafted from the structure defined by this book, unfortunately the master-crafter no longer plies his trade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)