Delirium

Hm.
I'm conflicted.
On the one hand, I was always eager to pick this book up while I had it. I stopped reading anything else I had. So, that says something about the writing & narrative.
But, I felt (like I do with so many YA works) that it was offbalance. I couldn't put a finger on why, but I read a few reviews of the title on goodreads which helped me. The world itself and the reasoning for the "cure" did not make sense. They ban love, but see the point in maintaining other remnants of society? Why have a family unit? It seems absurd.
Also, like so many other YA novels, I felt like there was far too much romance and not enough substance. Now, I understand that love was a huge part of the plot, but I want more! I want to know the character without her love. However, the parts with Alex were well-written and believable.
Will I read the rest of the books in this series? Nope. The ending was so predictable and maddening that I won't bother.

___

I'm reading Hourglass now, and while the narrator is witty and engaging, she's far too focused on her love interest! Now, I will admit to feeling how she feels when placed by a certain person, but my head isn't a novel that's supposed to appeal to an audience! I hope that there's more to this book than, "omgggg this Michael guy is a qt."
We'll see!

Recent reads!

The Kind Diet (nook edition)

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (can't find picture...)
The Secret Garden (nook edition)
Sunlight & Shadow
Rivalry: A Geisha's Tale
Too Loud a Solitude
Dracula (nook edition)

Currently reading:
Delirium!

Man Walks Into a Room

A book better suited for someone of another mind. Or, perhaps, perfectly suited for me: for I do not forget what I should, and invented what should have been buried.
Samson was not someone you rooted for. Anna, his forlorn wife, and Donald, his aged pal, were the only sympathetic characters in this debut novel. Having read The History of Love first, I will say that Krauss shows range. I will also grant that she can write some moving passages and stir up some uncomfortable emotions - but that is not enough to fill an entire book. I feel like she had a few points she wanted to make, and quickly chose characters and a plot to bring her ideas to life. Which is fine, but one needs substance to back up ideas, and Man Walks Into A Room very much lacks that. Now, I understand that Samson stands for something else, but guess what: I didn't care. The loss and loneliness, the bigger picture, just wasn't expressed well enough.
Very much a rough draft. Also, I'm not sure why, but in her books I've caught the same error: suppose in place of supposed. What's going on here, editors?

How to Talk to a Liberal

She looks so smug, doesn't she? Well, Ms. (heh) Coulter certainly has reason to be. She's a best-selling author, noted columnist, and well-known for her TV and radio appearances. Coulter stirs up controversy just as easily as a fat man inhales sandwiches.

Now, my knowledge of her is limited to this 2004 title. I have not been exposed to any other opinions she may have, so I'll admit that I may be a bit ignorant to some of her other beliefs. But I have to say...I don't hate her. Do I think her belief in Christianity is ludicrous and shows a lack of reasoning? Of course. But her columns featured in this book show an otherwise intelligent, articulate, quick-witted person who is eager to expose any weakness she observes. And I absolutely respect that.

As far as the content of this book, the columns ranged from the time of Clinton's impeachment to the Bush-Kerry election. While I won't comment on her views, I will say that this was a worthwhile read. Sometimes her desire to malign an 'enemy' gets in the way of her efforts to impugn; but that's her style. You don't read Coulter's columns to just get the facts. You do it for the humour, and perhaps to get more than a little peeved.

Paper Towns

So I'm obviously behind right now, but I wanted to write this because I've just finished this and I want to review it while it's relatively fresh in my head. I don't read many YA novels anymore, which I see as a good thing, but I'd heard lots of good things about this book from various hangouts on the internet/spots I frequent. I saw it at the library and figured why the hell not.
I started it sometime around 6 yesterday, and read on and off throughout the night, taking time off for some Napoleon Dynamite viewing, hell yeah. I finished around 2 am, happy with the book, and remembering what it was like to have just been starting it. That innocence that I didn't want back, that primordial me. The plot was much different than I expected (I'd been expecting some fantasy elements), yet it was deeper and better than I thought it'd be, and I laughed at some of the passages like I did when I watch the office. The characters were lovable and realistic and reminded me of people I almost knew; of ideas that I used to say hi to. This book made me realize that exactly--that people are just ideas. It reminds me of what my freshman english teacher had told us, about no one ever knowing someone else's heart, think that came from hawthorne.
This is a book to read if you're unsure of your path, if you're contemplating making a clean getaway (heheheh) or thinking about someoen you used to know. The prose (I detest that word) was very easy to get through, but not oversimplified. I didn't *feel* like I was reading a YA novel, and that's what I loved.
You know throughout the book that the journey of introspection is ultimately going to be the more important trip, but you're still hooked, staying in that minimall with Quentin, dreading rats and breathing in Margo.
I adored the literary references, or at least the ones that were made obvious to me (haven't had time to do any kind of deeper analysis here), like Walt Whitman, whom I read in my senior English class years ago. was this what you could call an "i-novel"? I'll look it up.
I'd recommend this to Kerouac fans (though I still haven't finished on the road...) and those who expect a little bit more of their bildungsroman. Green apparently has more works, so I'm going to check them out and read them in between my frenzied 1001 whateverthatwordisicantthinkofrightnow. I'm not going to put up quotes anymore unless I really want to, and maybe I will for this one. Not sure yet. I wasn't especially in love with Margo, but maybe because I see the other side of her, that a "guy" wouldn't see? The not spontaneous and beautiful parts, the quiet parts when you're alone and no one knows you and wouldn't dare call your soul by its name. She's like a sister that I've known all along, and just don't get how people are still drawn to her, but she's my sister so I somehow just *get it*.
The almost running into cows and crying and giving up was poignant.

--jaja, I wrote that around 3 am. I fixed some mistakes, but I'm sure I missed some, and I'm going to just use this because the phrases I used make me laugh.

So it goes...

Slaughterhouse-Five!

I originally got started with Vonnegut on the recommendation of an on-line...acquaintance? I was forewarned of his eccentric style and unconventional themes, and was told to start with Slaughterhouse-Five. I didn't, and read Cat's Cradle instead, and Breakfast of Champions and Sirens of Titan soon followed. I finally picked up Slaughterhouse-Five, expecting a master-piece. Well, that's not quite what I received.
It's a rather quick read, which I think is part of the problem for me. I wanted more of the story, though I'm thinking now that the point really isn't with the plot but more the ideas behind the work, which is something I should know by now, after reading some of his other novels. Perhaps I was over-hyping the book; I expected some sort of time-travel epic (ugh, I hate that word now, thanks worthless internet nerds!) and instead got a concise story with a distinct aftertaste. I'm told that this story is one of the great anti-war reads, but I'm not quite sold on that claim.
Yet, I did enjoy it. For instance, the repetition of "So it goes" found a fan in me. Vonnegut's simple style belies his universal and terribly important themes. However, I feel that his ideas are better realized in Sirens of Titan, a favourite of mine. Though not just focusing on war, it had a much bigger impact on me than this book did.
Another selling point! What I often find so annoying in other works is not to be spotted here: unnecessary information. Vonnegut gets straight to the point, though perhaps not chronologically. He doesn't waste words, and every paragraph is an investment to your pleasure and enlightenment. Even the books I've liked least (Cat's Cradle) were worthwhile.
Ultimately, I'd recommend Slaughterhouse-Five just as my friend did. It would surely be an excellent litmus test for whether one would enjoy Vonnegut's style. I've many of his works left to read, so I may change my mind about some of what I've said here. But I think the basic ideas will stay the same: this is a necessary, enjoyable read, but definitely not the only work one should read of this wonderfully imaginative author.

Quotes:
"Another time Billy heard Rosewater say to a psychiatrist, "I think you guys are going to have to come up with a lot of wonderful new lies, or people just aren't going to want to go on living."
"One thing was clear: Absolutely everybody in the city was supposed to be dead, regardless of what they were, and that anybody that moved in it represented a flaw in the design. There were to be no moon men at all."

American Pastoral

American Pastoral.

My opinions aren't quite clear to me when it comes to this book. Usually I can definitively say where I stand with a text, but American Pastoral challenges that notion. The first third of the book, I felt, was uninteresting. Perhaps because I wasn't aware of the narrator and his life (as this was the first novel I'd read by Roth), who knows. But I didn't feel drawn to read by the story as it was playing out. I'm not one for reminiscing on times lost, at least on a grand level like that. Memories interest me when they are tragic- not when they consist of growing up in "innocent" America. This doesn't mean that the text was inherently bad; it might speak of my generation's inability to relate to the experiences of our parents. Either way, only when the plot progressed and the focus left the narrator and his stories did I become more interested. The character of Seymour (I rather dislike saying "The Swede", pardon me) was one my sympathies fall on, which I'm sure was the author's intention. Innocent, hard-working and reliable, Seymour embodied the American ideal of the "Every-man", which was pushed upon him by his immigrant parents. Watching his life get better and better, while knowing that it was soon fall apart was difficult: it was hard not to root for him. As he agonized over what moment has caused his daughter's downfall, one gets the sense of just how grand was Merry's act. Though my sympathy dwindled toward the end with twists that were revealed, I still, after completing the book, felt for Seymour. How can I not? Society has trained me to love the "Good-boy" Archetype, which is very much what Seymour is--just an embodiment of all the hopes and expectations of the time. With the wars and seemingly disappearing innocence, that type was needed more than ever. It satisfied a need that I'm not sure still exists today.
What also interested me, other than Seymour's psyche, was Merry and her life. At first I was disgusted with her (partially her appearance; sorry!) and her actions. How could she find fault with the deaths in Vietnam and then not only condone but commit murder herself? Whining at the dinner table and being just the little rebel with your friends does nothing, just as terrorism achieves nothing. I originally picked up this book because it referenced another work I'm familiar with, Franz Fanon's Wretched of The Earth. Without getting side-tracked by my opinions on that, I'll just say that I took issue with her logic: Colonialism in Algeria differs greatly from any of her perceived enemies. Though, that's not to say, that I am a supporter in any way of War or America's actions in regards to foreign policy. I just found her rather naive. Yet, as she changed into a Jain, I related much more to her plight. Jainism, especially ahimsa, has always been an interest of mine. Enthralled I was by Seymour's (read: America's) take on Merry's philosophy. I take much of my personal beliefs from the religion, so I found myself an opponent of his reactions. Yet, I saw very much what this father did: how every thing was a passing phase for his monster. Merry also functioned as the antithesis of the American dream and Seymour himself, and perhaps to Western culture and values.
I suppose I can sum up my personal reaction much more succinctly. I would not re-read this book. Going through Seymour's mind, while interesting, was arduous. I did not particularly enjoy any passages or feel them resonate with me; but they were something I'm glad I came into contact with. I questioned my own beliefs and struggled with my own notions of what truth really was. For that reason, this is a book worth reading.


Thoughts while reading:

16/June/2010- I'm around page 175 right now. At first it was hard to get into. I'm just not that enthralled by baby boomer memories, which I suppose I should feel bad for admitting. My interest was piqued, however, when the focus shifted from the narrator's old pals and the way things used to be, and onto "The Swede" and how his life fell apart. The language is simple but not juvenile and Roth's insight into Levov's psyche is what is keeping me reading. He doesn't seem to hide anything, and I'm hooked on the honesty. I'm laughing a bit at Merry's feelings, which I'll expound on when I finish.

Quotes:
"Yes, alone we are, deeply alone, and always, in store for us, a layer of loneliness even deeper. There is nothing can do to dispose of that. No, loneliness shouldn't surprise us, as astonishing to experience it might be. You can try turning yourself inside out, but all you are then is inside out and lonely instead of inside in and lonely."
"There is no protest to be lodged against loneliness-- not all the bombing campaigns in history have made a dent in it."