12 posts tagged “death”
Finishing my second Palahniuk book, I am struck by how many people are shocked by this work. I suppose it did have scenes not usually depicted (the cannibalism springs to mind foremost) but I'd use a word like chilling over shocking.
The book largely seems like an indictment of reality TV. Let's hope that eventually people are not killing and being killed for the sake of one's 15 minutes.
The structure of the novel is interesting. It is a novel about writers who are writing short stories throughout the novel. Every other chapter is a short story "written" by one of the characters. Really, the stories are confessions from each one's past.
The short stories are far more interesting than the novel proper. No less unbelievable, but very memorable.
While Haunted is vastly different from Choke (and one of Palahniuk's more minor novels) I'd say I did draw one more conclusion about the author's style.
He has a talent for making the most far-fetched idea seem, at least, plausible.
The book largely seems like an indictment of reality TV. Let's hope that eventually people are not killing and being killed for the sake of one's 15 minutes.
The structure of the novel is interesting. It is a novel about writers who are writing short stories throughout the novel. Every other chapter is a short story "written" by one of the characters. Really, the stories are confessions from each one's past.
The short stories are far more interesting than the novel proper. No less unbelievable, but very memorable.
While Haunted is vastly different from Choke (and one of Palahniuk's more minor novels) I'd say I did draw one more conclusion about the author's style.
He has a talent for making the most far-fetched idea seem, at least, plausible.
Slate's audio book club did a review of Philip's Roth's Everyman. One of the commentators said that John Updike had tackled "the same issue" in Villages and had done a better job. The issue was a man who narrates his life as a series of sexual conquests.
I really enjoyed Everyman. It was my first experience with Roth and I found the story rather poignant and haunting. Villages was my first experience with Updike as well. Whereas I was able to sympathize with Roth's protagonist, there was nothing to like about Updike's main character who learns nothing by the end and neither has the reader.
I really enjoyed Everyman. It was my first experience with Roth and I found the story rather poignant and haunting. Villages was my first experience with Updike as well. Whereas I was able to sympathize with Roth's protagonist, there was nothing to like about Updike's main character who learns nothing by the end and neither has the reader.
I picked this one up because it was short. Roth is one of those author's that I have on my mental to read list. This was perhaps not the best one to start with, but I did enjoy it enough to want to read some of his other works in the near future.
The book has some themes that I always find fascinating. Can people truly be monogamous? Is it really more satisfying to live an artist's life? Generally, does love keep you safe or help you make mistakes? Is progress connecting us or driving us apart?
At least in this book the answers are mostly negative. The unnamed, main character is dead at the book's opening and then we see his life mainly through his many hospital stays and his relationships with women.
The main character makes many mistakes, alienates those in his life, and doubts himself inwardly. It is interesting to note that his father and brother chose a 9 to 5 lifestyle and were happy all round and physically healthy.
On the flip side, the main character wants to be an artist his whole life. When he retires from advertising he finds that there is little long term pleasure in painting. And he soon feels he has no more inspiration for it. The artist's life is so often romanticized that it was nice to see the "boring" people end up with some happiness, at least this time.
The book has some themes that I always find fascinating. Can people truly be monogamous? Is it really more satisfying to live an artist's life? Generally, does love keep you safe or help you make mistakes? Is progress connecting us or driving us apart?
At least in this book the answers are mostly negative. The unnamed, main character is dead at the book's opening and then we see his life mainly through his many hospital stays and his relationships with women.
The main character makes many mistakes, alienates those in his life, and doubts himself inwardly. It is interesting to note that his father and brother chose a 9 to 5 lifestyle and were happy all round and physically healthy.
On the flip side, the main character wants to be an artist his whole life. When he retires from advertising he finds that there is little long term pleasure in painting. And he soon feels he has no more inspiration for it. The artist's life is so often romanticized that it was nice to see the "boring" people end up with some happiness, at least this time.
As with the last few classic books I have read, I am surprised by the dissimilarity between this book and the ideas of the book in pop culture.
Neither Frankenstein nor his creature are anything alike between film and novel. Frankenstein comes across as shallow and cowardly--at least until it is too late. The scientist reminded me of all those bad horror movies where the female lead is running without thought. Frankenstein needed a plan and he needed to protect his family. Instead, he ran around until he twisted his ankle and fell to the ground.
The "monster" is less like a monster than an exile and an outcast. He is erudite, articulate, and athletic. It took a while to adjust to this "new" image of the creature.
The pop culture images of the creature are actually just the image that the character fights against through the book. It seems Shelley failed to get the point across. Or, we really are more like the humanity Shelley represented in her novel than we would like to believe.
Neither Frankenstein nor his creature are anything alike between film and novel. Frankenstein comes across as shallow and cowardly--at least until it is too late. The scientist reminded me of all those bad horror movies where the female lead is running without thought. Frankenstein needed a plan and he needed to protect his family. Instead, he ran around until he twisted his ankle and fell to the ground.
The "monster" is less like a monster than an exile and an outcast. He is erudite, articulate, and athletic. It took a while to adjust to this "new" image of the creature.
The pop culture images of the creature are actually just the image that the character fights against through the book. It seems Shelley failed to get the point across. Or, we really are more like the humanity Shelley represented in her novel than we would like to believe.
Housekeeping does not have much in the way of plot, but it certainly is haunting. It is rightly considered a modern classic for its beautiful, poetic language.
I love the title of this book too. We have so many underlying notions about that word--many of those preconceptions come up in this book.
I kept thinking of The Secret Life of Bees (a book I particularly loathe) while reading this. In that book the main characters are also females in a situation that is a bit out of the mainstream, but that's where the similarity ends. Housekeeping is powerful where the other book is cheesy. This book deals with loneliness, expectation, and waiting and results in with a life-usually-does-not-give-you-what-you-expect ending. The Secret Life of Bees has an everything-works-out-in-the-end-if-you-just-believe-hard-enough ending.
Generally, books about women with female characters and a domestic plot line are more like Secret Life of Bees. I am glad Marilynne Robinson was able to give us something else.
I love the title of this book too. We have so many underlying notions about that word--many of those preconceptions come up in this book.
I kept thinking of The Secret Life of Bees (a book I particularly loathe) while reading this. In that book the main characters are also females in a situation that is a bit out of the mainstream, but that's where the similarity ends. Housekeeping is powerful where the other book is cheesy. This book deals with loneliness, expectation, and waiting and results in with a life-usually-does-not-give-you-what-you-expect ending. The Secret Life of Bees has an everything-works-out-in-the-end-if-you-just-believe-hard-enough ending.
Generally, books about women with female characters and a domestic plot line are more like Secret Life of Bees. I am glad Marilynne Robinson was able to give us something else.
Wuthering Heights was not at all what I expected again. It happened earlier this year when I read Madame Bovary, but I think I am even more surprised at this one. Just as I walked around after seeing Last Tango in Paris saying, "how messed up are we collectively to begin to think that was a love story?" I can't help but feel similarly. While Wuthering Heights is not as messed up as Last Tango, there is no romance in this book. None. And whatever love is between Catherine and Heathcliff, it's dangerous and unhealthy--apparently not so much for themselves as for everyone else they encounter, however.
No, this book is a revenge tale. And the most disturbing one I have ever read.
And reading it alongside Of Mice and Men only solidifies the notion of "the best laid plans." If only Earnshaw Senior had not picked Heathcliff up from the side of the road...how different the lives of the characters would have been.
No, this book is a revenge tale. And the most disturbing one I have ever read.
And reading it alongside Of Mice and Men only solidifies the notion of "the best laid plans." If only Earnshaw Senior had not picked Heathcliff up from the side of the road...how different the lives of the characters would have been.
Of Mice and Men is about poverty and loneliness. And people have written a lot about both themes. But there is another theme as well. Two guys with nothing in common form a friendship and stick together. Other characters find it suspect because guys usually travel alone from one ranch to another without forming any authentic relationships or bonds.
But George and Lenny, the main characters they know life, even a life of extreme poverty, is a little bit better with a friend. Or, at least, George knows that. The reader is never sure how much Lenny really understands.
As a testament to friendship this book is more than just tragic. It's heartbreaking yet beautiful.
As as aside, this is another book that really should not be taught in high school. It's too complicated for kids to understand. They just haven't lived long enough.
And I wonder how many other Lost fans read this book and image George as Sawyer from Lost. I just couldn't stop doing that. Really, I wonder if his character wasn't at least partially inspired by George's tough guy exterior but heart of gold interior.
But George and Lenny, the main characters they know life, even a life of extreme poverty, is a little bit better with a friend. Or, at least, George knows that. The reader is never sure how much Lenny really understands.
As a testament to friendship this book is more than just tragic. It's heartbreaking yet beautiful.
As as aside, this is another book that really should not be taught in high school. It's too complicated for kids to understand. They just haven't lived long enough.
And I wonder how many other Lost fans read this book and image George as Sawyer from Lost. I just couldn't stop doing that. Really, I wonder if his character wasn't at least partially inspired by George's tough guy exterior but heart of gold interior.
The Book Thief is by no means a feel-good book. It's hard to imagine a book about Nazi Germany could be anything but depressing. Throw in the fact that the book is narrated by Death, and you can understand why so many people say they cried their way through the last part of this book.
When I think about books and movies about the Holocaust I think of the stories being told from the point of view of the Jewish citizens mostly. It makes sense, as they were obviously the ones who suffered the most. But this book made me question that assumption a bit.
The family in this this story are not those in the concentration camps, not those hiding in an attic, not the Nazis themselves. They are just ordinary, average citizens living in Nazi Germany.
I have often wondered what it would have been like to see people being marched to death camps and others being whipped in the streets. How could those people have gone along with it all? Take a pinch of conformity, a dash of fear, and bake it really slowly. That's how it can happen.
Some have said Death as narrator is a bit hokey or pretentious, but really it's rather inspired. Who else could be an objective narrator of such a tale?
When I think about books and movies about the Holocaust I think of the stories being told from the point of view of the Jewish citizens mostly. It makes sense, as they were obviously the ones who suffered the most. But this book made me question that assumption a bit.
The family in this this story are not those in the concentration camps, not those hiding in an attic, not the Nazis themselves. They are just ordinary, average citizens living in Nazi Germany.
I have often wondered what it would have been like to see people being marched to death camps and others being whipped in the streets. How could those people have gone along with it all? Take a pinch of conformity, a dash of fear, and bake it really slowly. That's how it can happen.
Some have said Death as narrator is a bit hokey or pretentious, but really it's rather inspired. Who else could be an objective narrator of such a tale?
The fascinating thing about Madame Bovary is, well, Madame Bovary. Is she a sympathetic but flawed character, or is she a cruel and selfish woman?
Emma Bovary's main problem is that she believes money will end all her problems. But then most people today hold that same false belief.
I think how a person relates to this character says a lot about who he/she is.
It's sort of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of question though.
On one hand, if you sympathize with her you have to admit that you understand such a heightened level of egoism and self-delusion.
But if you don't sympathize with her it feels a bit sexist since it was a repressive, patriarchal class structure that undoubtedly created women similar to this fictional woman.
I'm still trying to figure out what I think of the character of Madame Bovary, but what I found particularly engaging about this book was its narrative form. I bet one could take a whole class on what Flaubert did with the narrative in just this one book.
One thing I can say with certainty is that my heart has never broken so much for a character as it did for the equally flawed Charles Bovary. I wonder what that says about me?
Emma Bovary's main problem is that she believes money will end all her problems. But then most people today hold that same false belief.
I think how a person relates to this character says a lot about who he/she is.
It's sort of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of question though.
On one hand, if you sympathize with her you have to admit that you understand such a heightened level of egoism and self-delusion.
But if you don't sympathize with her it feels a bit sexist since it was a repressive, patriarchal class structure that undoubtedly created women similar to this fictional woman.
I'm still trying to figure out what I think of the character of Madame Bovary, but what I found particularly engaging about this book was its narrative form. I bet one could take a whole class on what Flaubert did with the narrative in just this one book.
One thing I can say with certainty is that my heart has never broken so much for a character as it did for the equally flawed Charles Bovary. I wonder what that says about me?
In college I was taking a philosophy class and happened to watch the movie Trigger Effect. It's not a memorable movie but it stunned me because I was absorbed in trying to understand Hobbes's State of Nature. Suddenly it all made sense. I wonder if some student out there is having the same experience with this book. (The Road is vastly superior to Trigger Effect in case you're wondering.)
But the fact that society is based on two things: people and trust--that's the same message in all three. Of course, that led to all kinds of thoughts about how I live in a place with three main rules: never admit you're wrong, take as much as you can from everyone in every situation, and patience is a vice. And I wondered just how close Connecticut is to full on cannibalism.
OK, my personal nightmares aside, I did find this book haunting. I have been thinking about things--birds and food and aspirin and the general point of life--for days now in a new light.
But the ending...I don't think this book could have an adequate end. There's no point if the characters die, right? And if everything works out in the end it's just a cheesy cliche. I think the author did the best he could in light of this horrible corner he painted himself into, but the ending just didn't quite work for me.
But the fact that society is based on two things: people and trust--that's the same message in all three. Of course, that led to all kinds of thoughts about how I live in a place with three main rules: never admit you're wrong, take as much as you can from everyone in every situation, and patience is a vice. And I wondered just how close Connecticut is to full on cannibalism.
OK, my personal nightmares aside, I did find this book haunting. I have been thinking about things--birds and food and aspirin and the general point of life--for days now in a new light.
But the ending...I don't think this book could have an adequate end. There's no point if the characters die, right? And if everything works out in the end it's just a cheesy cliche. I think the author did the best he could in light of this horrible corner he painted himself into, but the ending just didn't quite work for me.
