4 posts tagged “friends”
This was my second book by Murakami. I picked this one up for two reasons. First it's his most popular book in Japan and the book that created his notoriety. Second, it's the only book he wrote that is straight-forward. He said in an interview that his reason for writing this book was to see if he could write a story without magical realism.
This book gave me a better feel for Murakami. In the future if someone asks which book to start with I'll recommend this one.
As in Kafka on the Shore I had a really hard time believing in the characters (they all feel like the same person to me) and caring for them (they feel two-dimensional).
The part that really didn't work was Murakami, a man, writing about female sexual experiences. It just didn't ring true at all. Just one example: two women had sex with one particular man and it was so good they swore off sex for the rest of their lives.
But, as in the previous book, I did appreciate the overarching story. What would it be like to continually know people close to you committing suicide? Or to continually be involved in three-way friendships?
This book gave me a better feel for Murakami. In the future if someone asks which book to start with I'll recommend this one.
As in Kafka on the Shore I had a really hard time believing in the characters (they all feel like the same person to me) and caring for them (they feel two-dimensional).
The part that really didn't work was Murakami, a man, writing about female sexual experiences. It just didn't ring true at all. Just one example: two women had sex with one particular man and it was so good they swore off sex for the rest of their lives.
But, as in the previous book, I did appreciate the overarching story. What would it be like to continually know people close to you committing suicide? Or to continually be involved in three-way friendships?
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.
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.
This book was not on my list. And I've never read anything by Balzac. So why did I read it?
Besides the fact that I'm easily distracted I had heard that it mentions Madame Bovary in the end and it's a very short book.
First off, the title is awful. It makes sense in the end, but still, it just distracted me the entire time since the story is about two Chinese boys. The book and the seamstress come in about midway.
I was a little offended that the "little Chinese seamstress" was never given a name even though all the other characters were. Perhaps it was a commentary on how the boys saw her more as an object than a person, but I'm probably reaching on that.
Most of the book was superfluous and boring, but the ending was very good. It perfectly illustrated the "dangers" of knowledge. And I'm a sucker for books about censorship.
Oh, and unlike Madame Bovary, the "little Chinese seamstress" escapes from the trappings of family, love, materialism, and sensuality.
Besides the fact that I'm easily distracted I had heard that it mentions Madame Bovary in the end and it's a very short book.
First off, the title is awful. It makes sense in the end, but still, it just distracted me the entire time since the story is about two Chinese boys. The book and the seamstress come in about midway.
I was a little offended that the "little Chinese seamstress" was never given a name even though all the other characters were. Perhaps it was a commentary on how the boys saw her more as an object than a person, but I'm probably reaching on that.
Most of the book was superfluous and boring, but the ending was very good. It perfectly illustrated the "dangers" of knowledge. And I'm a sucker for books about censorship.
Oh, and unlike Madame Bovary, the "little Chinese seamstress" escapes from the trappings of family, love, materialism, and sensuality.
