0 COMMENTS

LITERATURE: Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee


This was actually a novel that was assigned for a class at Princeton--contemporary fiction, with the rather remarkable Professor Benjamin Widiss. I cannot fully express the impact that great professors have on students; even if he never knows it, I will be forever grateful to him for listening and for leading me on a fantastic discovery of some works that have since become forever ingrained in who I am as a person (Lolita, for instance). He was also incredibly helpful and kind when it came to advising my decision to switch from the English to Comp Lit department. (He, himself, is an English professor, so imagine how awesome he is to have recognized my desire to explore literature in a realm not his own!)
But, to get on with the review. I certainly recall reading bits of this for the class but, if we're being honest, I'm pretty sure I didn't get a chance to read the whole thing. (Hey, it happens. Especially in college. That's why I'm atoning by reading it now.)

So first and foremost, let's get the obvious out of the way. Coetzee won a Nobel Prize for this book--A FRIGGIN' NOBEL PRIZE!--in addition to the Booker Prize, which is also nothing to thumb your nose at. And yet, I'm not truly sure I agree that this novel is one of the best I've ever read.

On the surface, I think the plot is interesting. It tells the tale of David Lurie, a communications professor at a South African university who hates teaching communications and actually considers himself to be more of a literature scholar. He has an affair with one of his students, the shame of which leads to his ruin and his ultimate disgrace across multiple layers of his life--with his exwife, his daughter, the student, her family, his scholarly circle, etc, etc. Don't lets beat us over the head with the title, eh, Coetzee?

On the one hand, I think there are moments in the novel that present interesting, compelling criticism of human nature, especially with the backdrop of the apartheid in South Africa. I don't want to give away what I consider to be, probably, the acme of the novel, which involves, in a more specific way, David's daughter and her relationship with the African man who works on her property, but, essentially, I enjoyed the sort of awkward tension that builds from that moment, and the way in which Coetzee carefully deals with the broken people that result from the incident. I, in general, am a huge fan of broken characters--there is always something beautiful about them--so I'm totally on board here.

At the same time, while I can probably understand the political reasons for this novel's receipt of a Nobel--its address of questions like racism, rape, segregation, and the fundamental human emotion of loneliness--I also find that this novel is somewhat less profound and more straightforward than I would have liked, all things considered. It seemed to sort of trail along without very much change or development on the part of the narrator. Don't get me wrong, here. I liked the tone and the voice, but, overall, I felt that the hopelessness in the novel is hyper-present in the language, which was, for me anyway, a bit of a turnoff. I can certainly appreciate the sad / lonely / depressed kind of text that I would consider this to be, but I find myself losing interest and getting restless when this hopelessness is present for too long, without any sort of humor or release. Even Lolita, a prime tragedy, is littered with Humbert's jokes, allusions, etc, which all serve to break up the monotony of depression. In Disgrace, I didn't feel as much of that and it sort of made the whole thing very bleak and grey and drawn for me. Perhaps that was Coetzee's intent, but I didn't love the effect.

What I do totally have to respect, though, is that Lurie is one of those characters that you want to hate because he's not exactly a good guy, and yet since the story largely follows him, you sort of start rooting for him by the end. I typically don't like books like that (ahem, Atonement), but in this case it really worked.

At the same time, while I keep listing things I liked, there's something I can't quite put my finger on that kept me from loving this book. Maybe because it survives in a world of complete extremes, and ones that fall irresistibly into the abyss of depression. The student he has an affair with, for instance, would have been legally old enough to engage in the affair without it being some sort of pedophilia, rendering it as less of a big deal than it was made out to be in the novel; two consenting adults, irregardless of their student / teacher relationship are, after all, two consenting adults. The kind that have relationships all the time, everywhere.That being said, rape / accused rape is in fact a very a huge deal, but Coetzee was so ambiguous about whether or not it was rape that that also didn't quite seem to cover why it turned into such a huge deal. To give him credit, it's hard to be ambiguous about something like that, so perhaps therein lies his skill... It felt very much like a bad Humbert Humbert kind of sequence to me, mixed with, perhaps, a paperback novel kind of sex scene--all in all an awkward combination at best.

It's sort of like, the things Lurie does that are supposed to be his undoing don't really seem that awful to me. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but maybe not. I also felt like Lurie's relationships with people are unnatural and forced most of the time. While I get the point of that with his daughter, to some extent through the context of the plot, it feels off to me that 1. Lurie is such an awkward, strange person that it's shocking anyone would talk to him in the first place, and 2. He's simultaneously supposed to be really attractive and all that jazz, but he doesn't seem that way at all to me.

I feel like, maybe, if I understood more about the political climate in Africa, I would have felt differently about this book and would have been even more effected in a profound way by his daughter's plight, which, even without that background was moving and harrowing. Ultimately, though, for my money, I liked the book, but probably not enough to have awarded it a Nobel Prize in Literature; I guess that while the topic might be profound, the literary aspect of it all, the beautiful language, etc, just wasn't there for me as much as in other novels. Coetzee, despite his affairish plot, is no Nabokov.

FINAL VERDICT:
*** and 1/2 out of *****
read more
1 COMMENTS

Currently Reading - Reviews Coming Soon

Just wanted to give you all a taste of what I'm reading now, so you can expect reviews soon. If there's something you want me to read / see / taste / etc, give me a shout and I'll get on it.

Hugs and kisses,
Daria

1. The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova
2. The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason
3. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
4. Nightwatch by Sergei Lukyanenko
5. The Sacred Book of Werewolf (A-Hu-Li) by Viktor Pelevin

These are in no particular order, and yes, I'm actually reading them all at once. I'm a serial reader. Entering a Barnes and Noble is a dangerous undertaking for my checkbook..

Also, Margaret Atwood's new novel the Year of the Flood comes out tomorrow, and as it is a retelling of her incredibly brilliant novel Oryx and Crake, which also happens to be one of my favorite pieces of literature ever, you may as well add that one to the list, too, since I'll be buying it tomorrow :).

YAY BOOKS!

D
read more
0 COMMENTS

LITERATURE: Franny and Zooey by JD Salinger


I initially bought this book because (luck of all luck!) I'd heard good things about it and I happened to be at a bookstore, and it happened to be on sale. One of the joys of my life is when bookstores have sales. And it was sort of a cult classic, particularly around Princeton, as most things that feature it in some way, shape, or form, often are.

So I was reading it, and, after devouring Catcher in the Rye in, like, I don't know, 9th grade or so, I was eagerly awaiting the moment when Salinger would sweep my off my feet and carrying me away to literary la-la-land.

I'd be lying if I told you that I "got" this book. I didn't. I'm not sure anyone would really "get" it. I can appreciate his whole shtick re: enlightenment and zen buddhism and whatnot, but, while I found the characters delightfully real, and, as is typical of JD, blissfully intelligent, I also found them cold and only half-formed in the context of the story.

What I mean to say isn't that they're not full fleshed out; on the contrary, they're seriously fleshy. Fat, even. They've got so much emotional baggage that a Boeing jet would have trouble. But that's precisely the problem for me, here, in this case. We get only a tiny glimmer of the two title characters from their own eyes. We see them from the perspectives of everyone else, even though the story is technically told in third person omniscient. It's just a little frustrating because I found myself reading and reading and waiting for the "AHA" moment that never comes. Another fantastic example of literary blueballing. Oh. Dear.

I guess, ultimately, I'd have to chalk this up to an exersize more than a finished work because it seems just like a very long slice of life rather than a complete narrative. And I really did try to understand this. I'm the first one to admit when I've missed something in literature. But even wikipedia gave me nothing I didn't already know from reading it. So I'm left wondering what exactly the point was. Maybe it's supposed to give me more context for examining the Glass children who apparently appear in more Salinger texts. Or maybe it's Salinger ultimately making fun of the reader for salivating over a relatively long story in which not very much happens.

I like Franny's part for more than Zooey's, mostly because within Zooey's I felt as though I was slipping into the realm of Zooey's insanity, a place I'd really rather not enter.

Ultimately, I enjoyed the vocabulary lesson (JD's always fantastic with words. I learned, in particular, the meaning of the words rancor and obstreporous :)) but found the plot difficult to swallow, and had an even harder time wondering why I should care about the characters, who seem sort of full of themselves, in the first place.

Although, I must concede that if I feel this strongly about a work I don't feel I even understood properly, I can only imagine the way I'd feel if I loved it. Good job, JD.

FINAL VERDICT:
** out of *****
read more
0 COMMENTS

LITERATURE: The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown



Allow me to preface this post by saying that The Lost Symbol is, for better or worse, only the second DB novel I've read. The first one was--I'll give you three guesses--the most obvious of his bunch, and (perhaps this is where for worst comes in) I find it difficult to talk about this book without invoking the tome that is the Da Vinci Code.

Now, in some sense, that's a good thing. The fact that both books are "Robert Langdon" books definitely calls for comparison. Then again, Angels and Demons was also a "Robert Langdon" book, yet I found myself sufficiently satisfied with having just seen the movie on that one. (Not a bad movie, as a matter of fact, though I feel like the surprise would have been lost entirely had I read the book--but, alas, that's to be expected.)

So what to say about The Lost Symbol? First, I guess my big gripe is that I really, really liked the Da Vinci Code. As you can probably guess from this blog, I'm pretty into literary fiction, lyric texts, modern language, blah blah blah. I'm also a girl who likes her action novels. Give me some old fashioned Robert Ludlum Borne Identity kind of thing any day. I really do enjoy a page-turner, and considering that Da Vinci Code was a page turner with a deep, intellectual meaning behind, I was signed up from the get-go. Add to that the fact that the collective American conscious is pretty interminably linked with badass professors like Indiana Jones, and we've got ourselves a combination that's unlikely to fail. And yet, in the Lost Symbol, I think it does fail just a little bit.

First, the beginning got off to a sloth-like pace, especially when compared with the whiz-bang start of DVC. I mean, dude. A museum curator murdered in the Louvre before the end of the first chapter? MONEY IN DA BANK. The Lost Symbol, on the contrary, takes its sweet time. Sure, it starts with Brown's beloved perspective of the evil / misunderstood / plot twist-ridden character, and then floods off to Langdon / other relevant parties, but I just felt underwhelmed. I really had to pull through until we got to the puzzles, which was one thing I think Brown generally does fantastically, especially with regard to pacing and reader interaction. You're constantly trying to figure that shit out right along with his characters, but, again, LS seems to be just a little bit slow on the uptake. I would have love a quicker execution when it came to uncovering certain things.

That being said, I thought the overarching idea in this work of Brown's (if we're comparing to DVC and Angels and Demons re: main plot as it relates to the Church / religion / science / controversy-causing stuff) was actually really interesting. I truly did appreciate all of the consideration Brown included with regard to religion and enlightenment as an ultimate reflection of man's ascent to godliness through use of his intellect. I think it's a beautiful concept, though one that sort of gets him in trouble with the church again if we're taking about men being equal to God and whatnot. Not my fight, but let me just say that I think this is the least propagandish of Brown's novels, and that, moreover, people who take really serious issues with his work need to remind themselves that, as it says in the copyright page of his novels, this is a work of fiction. Frankly, one thing I have to give Brown absolute credit for is his incredible ability to piece together seemingly unfittable works of art, historic locations, obscure encryption tools, and ancient organizations to create a conspiracy tapestry worthy of Henry V. That being said, it does get a little old when the plot is always sort of predictable, and the only reason I find myself reading is to uncover the deciphering of the clues.

On the other hand, I did really enjoy the Neo-science stuff he included, and especially that moment towards the end where Langdon's situation becomes, shall we say, precarious. I thought it was really clever, but also sort of predictable. You can't just **SPOILER WARNING** off your main character and expect a halfway intelligent reader to buy it. Um...really, Daniel?

On the third hand (third hand? hmm...) I just started reading The Rule of Four and am immediately willing to say it will beat The Lost Symbol on my list of good action / thriller reads, because the writing actually flows and feels quick, sharp, and unforced. Some of the scenes in the classrooms with students had me rolling my eyes and holding a stitch in my side. ALL of the students DB describes somehow wind up being like Minkus from Boy Meets World. Anyone? Buehler?

Ultimately, I can't say it was a bad book, because I got through it pretty quick and did enjoy several parts of it. I also can't say that it was a fantastic book, one of those that is the complete package, the way I really did think Da Vinci Code was. I guess, for me, the locale of DC doesn't do very much to add to the "coolness" of it, and the writing wasn't as crisp or fast-paced as I would have liked. I also felt like Brown beat us over the head a little bit with his message at the end, though, I suppose, this message is far more innocuous than others he could have picked.

FINAL VERDICT:
* out of *****
Get it from the library.
read more
1 COMMENTS

LITERATURE: The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger


So, first off, let me apologize for taking so damn long in updating this blog. I have been horrible. But no longer! Now, the only thing that shall impede me is how quickly I can read stuff / experience stuff / see stuff to review. SIGH.

But I don't want to detract any more from Ms. Niggenegger's achievement with talk of my own inadequacies. Why? Because I found The Time Traveler's Wife to be largely stunning, wonderfully woven, and utterly absorbing.

I stayed up all night reading it, unable to put it down. I am a lover of books, and it's rare for me to be able to let go once I'm sucked in, but this was something else entirely. It was one of those unique and beautiful moments where I was reading more for the language than for the plot and was still unable to close the cover and go to sleep. That, I think, is Niffenegger's real secret here--the fact that, while the plot is fine and certainly original, it is her language that propels the reader irresistably forward. It is beautiful. Moving. Timeless.

I thought the story was great and pretty heartbreaking, if we're being honest, although I think there were moments I could have done without--such as **SPOILER WARNING** Henry's loss of limbs at the end, and, likewise, some of the moments of Claire's miscarriages. That being said, I think that Niffenegger does a fantastic job of handling the delicate balance of reality with the sci-fy sort of elements she brings in, specifically when explaining the medical aspects of Henry's condition. I also thought that it was extremely carefully planned and overall a good execution of what could easily have been a. a chic flick (see the movie version for an abysmal sample) or b. a truly sci-fy book. What I love about The Time Traveler's Wife is that, first and foremost, this is literary fiction. For my money, I don't care WHAT an author writes about, as long as they're writing it well, and Niffenegger lives up to every expectation, and then some. I'll be honest; the title alone put me off of this book. It came recommended by a friend, and I didn't start out reading it with very high hopes. But I was extremely pleasantly surprised. The langauge is exquisite, the writing thoughtful, and the plot a worthy mix of suspense, tear-jerkery, romance, fantasy, and beauty. All mixed together with a healthy dose of reality.

I read somewhere (maybe in an Amazon.com bio?) that Niffenegger used to work in a cemetary. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I guess it sort of makes sense to me, the way that she captured the boundary between life and death, and trying to hold on once someone you love has crossed it. That, I thought, was the beauty of her ending, though I'm sure a lot of people might disagree and hate it for its ambiguity, and the way that Claire is always left just waiting for him, despite Henry's wishes. That was the point of view of the friend who gave me the book. My point of view, though, is that the book captures love in its purest form, in a way. After all, if you had the chance to see someone again, wouldn't you wait for as long as it took?

One thing I will say, though, is that I didn't love Claire's interaction with the roommate's boyfriend (I forget his name--something offbeat, maybe?). I feel like her actions with him at the end are unexpected and also, somehow, unrealistic. Then again, is it really realistic that a guy has a genetic mutation that causes him to travel through time? Probably not.

Read the book and see for yourself.

FINAL VERDICT
**** out of *****

Let me put it this way. I liked it enough that I made my Mother buy the audiobook. I just hope we're not listening to it together when all the sex parts come into play. Oy.
read more