Halfway Through and a Non-Booker Book

Just a quick mid-book blog for "Schindler's Ark" because I promised I would. Caveat - I am tired, and may be slightly incoherent.

I'm very relieved by how clear and concise Keneally's prose is, considering how dark the subject matter is. I'm not closing the book puzzling over what the author is trying to say, although I am shaking my head (and maybe wiping some tears) over the state of humanity. Which, for me, is much better! I understand that some people really enjoy the intellectual challenge of deciphering an author's meanings - but I would rather just be engaged by the story, thank you very much!

Even factoring in the emotional brutality, and the unfamiliar German/Polish/Jewish words and names, I've been pleasantly surprised by how easily it flows. I'm finding the short chapters are helping me to set reading goals, which means I'm reading more than I would in a novel without chapter breaks. For example, I know two chapters will take me approximately thirty-minutes, so if I'm going to read for an hour before bed I'll be reading four chapters, instead of just reading until the most convenient story break arrives.

So, I am engaging emotionally with the story (really, how could you not?) and I am enjoying the writing style. Again, I'm only half-way through the book, but I think I'm going to be especially fond of it.

This week I also finished 'reading' a non-Booker book, Christopher Farnsworth's "Blood Oath", which was a lot of fun! When I'm knitting I usually watch TV, but I tend to miss most of the action on account of watching my hands. So I've been trying audio books while knitting, the theory being I won't miss anything and I'll be able to quench my thirst for genre fiction without taking reading time away from the Booker's. Because, let's be honest, Twitter already gets a quarter of my daily reading time. At least. Even though this audio book was only 10 hours long, it took me 42 days to get through it. Obviously I don't knit often enough!

So, yes, "Blood Oath" was fun - a spy thriller with a vampire hero, totally new concept for me! Most vampires I encounter are of the sexy variety, and even though Cade isn't as blood thirsty as one would hope for, he also is not 'touchy feely'. I enjoyed the back story especially - I happened to be listening to that portion while reading "Rites of Passage", so my brain created some lovely nocturnal crossed wires. I kept hoping Golding's parson would turn out to be a vampire, but no such luck. Anyway, if you enjoy your vampires with snarky yet lovable sidekicks, check out "Blood Oath" - I'm certainly looking forward to getting my ear buds on Farnsworth's next two volumes!

Happy reading!

Beautiful Heartbreak

I seem to be underestimating the shorter novels, much to my detriment. Although I finished reading my last book on the 19th, and I was carrying "Hotel du Lac" in my bag from the 20th on, I didn't start reading it until Monday morning! Three whole days of lost reading because I looked at the page count and thought, 'I can knock that out in one evening'! I just finished it on the bus home to tonight, so I'm feeling a little disappointed with myself.

That having been said, I did enjoy this novel and I'm already planning to read a few more titles by Anita Brookner. I struggled a bit getting into the story the first couple chapters, as I found her choice of language more refined than what I am accustomed with, to the point of being challenging. I was feeling very uneducated, which was compounded by the dialogue exchanges en francais - even though I am Canadian and took 6 years of French, my French is very weak. By the third chapter I had relaxed enough to accept that even though I wasn't familiar with some of the words, I still understood the general meaning, and the magic of story-telling took over.

I saw a lot of myself in the character of Edith Hope, and I find that a bit depressing. She's a romantic (in addition to writing romance novels) who has been disappointed in love although she seems very content with her life. After an out-of-character scandal, her friends have packed her off for a holiday of undetermined length at the eponymous hotel. It's the end of the holiday season so the hotel is nearly deserted, although there are a handful of equally depressing women still in residence who make good use of Edith as an audience. In less skilled hands this might have been a very depressing story, as it's mainly about broken hearts. As it is, I found it beautiful, empowering (there's a bit of a feminist vibe), and endearing. Yes, still heartbreaking, but that's life outside a romance novel!

I took a look at the descriptions of a few other titles by Brookner, and it seems she often uses 'exile and return' in her stories of individuals maturing. Even though Edith almost makes the same error during her exile which led to it, as she returns she seems to have gained acceptance for herself as she is, which gives her more strength and conviction. She's a very modern female hero, and I quite like her. In fact, I can think of a few girlfriends I am going to recommend this novel to!

Next up, I'm going to back-track and read Thomas Keneally's "Schindler's Ark" - hopefully I will have the fortitude to give you a mid-book blog!

Happy Reading!

What Is The Moral? Show Me!

I finished reading J.M. Coetzee's "Life and Times of Michael K" on the bus into work this morning, spent all day ruminating on it. I liked a lot about this novel, but not all of it. It's definitely going into my re-read pile.

The story is, of course, that of the eponymous Michael K, a 'simple' gardener living in South Africa during apartheid who makes a journey across the country while trying to stay under the radar of the authorities. The country is in a state of civil war, and anyone without the proper paperwork or a fixed address is summarily imprisoned in a work camp of some form. Through this world walks Michael K, who only wants to honour his mother and tend his garden.

The novel is divided in three parts, the first and last being in Michael's point of view, the third being a camp official's first-person view of Michael during a period of incarceration. I was really enjoying the story up till the first division, but after that I found it took on a tone of self-analysis, which I always find irritating. When an author feels the need to explain their story during the story - well, I just think that means they're doing something wrong. I firmly believe in the "show, don't tell" school of storytelling. If it weren't for that, I'm positive I would've loved this novel.

To me, this story was about innocence and freedom. Although all the supporting characters believe Michael to be feeble minded, I didn't see him that way. I think he has a social innocence as a result of his isolated up-bringing, which keeps him emotionally separate from the civil unrest. There is also, of course, the much larger theme of freedom - the cycle of imprisonment and liberty repeating and emphasized by Michael's seemingly unconscious protest. It's a fascinating study, and worth a read for that if nothing else.

Another feature of this novel that really struck me was the total lack of reference to race. For a novel set in South Africa during apartheid, dealing with civil unrest and military actions, it is striking in it's absence. It gives Michael's story an air of universality - this could be any man, in any country, where the powers that be have decided they know how best to take care of people. It's chilling, in that sense.

Tomorrow I move on to Anita Brookner's "Hotel du Lac". For tonight, however, I think I am going to savor the image of Michael tending his garden. In sunlight.

Happy reading.

I Tried To Like It, and Now I Am Cheating

I finished reading Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" last night – it took me 13 days, but it probably deserved another two weeks of my time to really savor it. If you're planning on reading it I strongly suggest taking your time with it, maybe just a chapter a day. Otherwise you may find, as I did, that the style or "form" of the writing becomes really annoying. For the past five days, every time I picked up the book I said (often out loud, so I endured mockery) "I'm going to finish this book today, because if I have to it again tomorrow I'll..." Well, now I'm done, and I'm so relieved that if I weren't writing this I would be reading something else. Anything. Cereal boxes. Anything. Gosh, I feel like I'm panning this book, which is really, truly not my intention. I guess I'm just a bit disappointed. I expected, hoped, to be really blown away by the Booker of Bookers and instead I found it was a slightly irritating but ok novel.This seems deeply unfair, because I actually liked the novel. I did not love it but I did like it. The premise is super interesting, and the sentences are often gorgeous. It's going into my re-read pile as I honestly believe another look could make me fall in love with it. I can see why people love it - but right now I don't. The story is narrated by one Saleem Sinai, starting with his grandparents courtship and going right through to his own death (I maintain this is not a spoiler, as he tells you right out that he’s dying) and encompassing the history of India. Saleem was born at midnight as India became an independent nation, the premise being that they are psychic twins whose fate is intertwined. In addition, there were a thousand other children born during that first hour of independence and they all possess some magical abilities. It’s a very cool idea and I'll admit that I kind of wish a genre author had written this book to give more weight to that magical element. I feel I was tricked out of a really cool fantasy story and given historical fiction instead. Not that there's anything wrong with historical fiction, but that fantasy idea was so good, I feel it deserved a better treatment.
Beyond that, I had a couple of other issues with this novel. As I mentioned, the form, the style of Rushdie’s writing, his beautiful looping narrative and elegant sentences – well, they got really annoying. Even though the sentences are beautiful, and the descriptions are lush and deeply textured, I found myself echoing the character of Padma, begging just please come on and tell the story now, I need some action no not more political history! People, action, character motivation, please! It was driving me crazy. Saleem starts to tell a story, then stops himself and goes back because that story comes later - I mean, it's a good tease once-in-a-while but when it's every other chapter (and that's being generous) it gets to be a bit much. By which I mean totally freaking annoying. Although, I suspect (hope) that my irritation is a result of reading the book so quickly (lol!) and if I were to have spaced it out a bit more I may be enjoyed that technique. However, for this read through, it was super annoying. I also found that I really didn't have any emotional connection with these characters. There are a lot of characters, a lot of horrible things happen, there are horrible deaths, but none of it mattered to me - because, to me, it felt like none of it mattered to Saleem. Even when he's saying how angry he is, or how much he loves someone, they are just words. I don't believe any of it. The exile and amnesia segment, where there should be a different emotional pitch to the story, is only different because Saleem jumps between a first person and third person narrative. The narration is too passive, considering it is first-person. I felt alienated from the story. I don't know, maybe that was the intention, to showcase the alienation from society. Maybe this is another case of me just not getting the Art. As I said, I really liked the premise of the magical Midnight Children, but my grasp of Indian history and the politics of the 1960’s and ‘70’s is pretty weak, so I may not be the target audience on this. It could also have a lot to do with the idea of the oral tradition, of which that looping narrative is also a part. I’m not entirely sure, but it did take the edge of the pleasure of an otherwise interesting novel.I’ve been following another blog the past couple weeks, www.thinskinofculture.blogspot.com – and he’s making me feel like the slowest reader in the world! A book a day?! I can see that with a children’s book, but there is no way I could finish a book like “Midnight’s Children” in a day! So, to compensate for my feelings of inadequacy, I’m going to try to finish two books this week. Wish me luck! Also, I'm skipping ahead chronologically, because I don't feel like trying to read “Schindler's Ark” this week. I suspect it's going to take me more than the allotted 7 days, and I also suspect it's going to be an emotionally heavy read. So, I'm temporarily jumping ahead to a couple of shorter novels, starting with “Life and Times of Michael K.” by J.M. Coetzee and then “Hotel du Lac” by Anita Brookner. I feel like I’m cheating by skipping ahead, but the only real rule for my little challenge was to finish all the books within one year.

Happy reading!

Why I Am Afraid Of Salman Rushdie

Today's post is not strictly Booker related, but it does directly affect my reading, so please bear with me!

This weekend, I discovered something distasteful about myself: I want to be liked. Now, that's not such a huge revelation, I realize most people want to be liked, but I've always considered myself to be firmly in the "I don't care what people think about me" camp. I want to be that aloof, independent person, and I'm trying to reassess my self image now that I know I'm not.

What happened was I had a new book to read, and two-and-a-half free days in which to get a good solid start on it before my work week, but I only managed to read four pages of it. The book, of course, is Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" - by all accounts a superb novel, one of the greatest English-language novels of the last century, and one I was quite looking forward to reading. So, really, what was the problem? Why was I finding Anything else to occupy my time with to avoid reading? I actually resorted to doing laundry! Admittedly, I didn't stoop to doing dishes, but if there weren't so many hockey games on I'm sure I would've gotten sudsy!

At first I thought I was afraid of Salman Rushdie, afraid that the genius of his writing would prove too much for my feeble mind and the novel would leave my weak brain a quivering mass of gelatin. It's actually not too far from my actual fear, and may yet be proven true (if you don't hear from me again, send flavour crystals in mourning - everybody likes a jello salad!) but I hadn't even given the book a fair chance to intimidate me properly! Why couldn't I even start the book?

Then, a comment from a friend highlighted my true worries. She told me she loved "Midnight's Children", and something in me twinged and I thought, 'but what if I don't?' What if I don't love one of the greatest novels of our time? What if *gasp* I hate it? Even worse, what if it fails to touch me at all? Is it possible that I am in some fundamental way damaged by my years of devouring genre fiction, so much so that I can no longer appreciate a masterpiece of literature? And, if so, what will people think of me? My friend who loved it, the customers at my book store, all of you, perhaps even Mr. Rushdie himself - what would you think if I don't love it? I couldn't start reading, for fear that I wouldn't like it and therefore people wouldn't like me.

It's all a bit absurd. I don't want to care whether people like me, and I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out why I think anyone else would really care if I don't love this novel. But I do, on both counts.

Which brings me to something another (brilliant!) friend of mine once told me. 'All the mean things that you worry other people are thinking about you are just reflections of the mean things you think about other people.' Ouch. Its true, though. I know I'm disappointed when a friend doesn't like something I love, even more so than if they don't bother to read it at all. I guess I see them as being just a little less cool, because they're a little less like me. How vain am I, right? But it's true. It's ugly, and I don't like any of it, but it's my truth. Now that I'm aware of these thought patterns I'm going to combat them, because that's a person I really don't want to be.

I'm nearly a fifth into "Midnight's Children" now, and I'm enjoying it. Mr. Rushdie has a good sense of humour, which always wins my heart in a book. His style is very elegant also, with story elements looping back on themselves building up the narrative. So, I like it. And I'm trying not to care if that makes me 'cooler' or not.

Happy reading!

Like Re-Reading A Book For The First Time

I hope everyone has had a pleasant holiday season. What with holiday knitting, hockey, obligatory feasting, and spending time with family - all of which was fantastic! - I only just managed to finish reading "Rites of Passage" last night. Which means in the past two months I've only read four books! I'm feeling a bit scandalized. So, I took another look at how many books I have left (36!) and how many days I have to reach my goal, and I am now left with approximately 7 days per book rather than 8. It still feels do-able. I just can't celebrate Christmas again during the next nine months. I think I can manage that, too!

Alright, you're here to watch me struggle with literature, not basic math concepts, so let's get on with it!

I loved William Golding's "Lord of the Flies". I thought it was a great book, with a well-developed, if slightly dark, theme of societal collapse within a closed group resulting from a bullying mentality. Great book. I haven't read it in probably fifteen years, but I was thinking about it quite a bit while I was reading Golding's "Rites of Passage" the past few weeks. It's the same theme, just with a grown up cast, a bit less action, and less suspense - they're on a boat, so there's no waiting for rescue. I actually never even considered that the boat may not make it, even though there are plenty of things that may happen to a ship at sea, I just never felt any real threat to the vessel.

It's a well-developed story, a touch of mystery, and the essence of the voyage was well invoked. However, the theme was so obviously the same as in "Lord of the Flies" that I figured out which roles everyone had been cast in about a quarter into the novel and therefore knew what to expect from the rest of the story. There's nothing really wrong with that, except that I had no impetus to keep reading other than to simply finish the book. I wasn't waiting to find out what happens next, and that's always a bit disappointing. It's a good read, but I would've liked a bit more anticipation. I did struggle a bit with some of the word and language choices, but it did give the novel a more authentic flavour.

My next book it Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" - I'm kind of excited for this novel! I've heard such great things about it, and it's the winner of not just the Booker but also the Best of the Booker - so, the best novel of all the Booker prize winners! No pressure, right?

By the way, I still have not finished my holiday knitting. Men's sized Dr. Who socks take longer than I anticipated!

Happy Reading!