Persuasion

Ok, so those of you who know me will know I'm something of a Jane Austen fan. For those you who don't: I'm something of a Jane Austen fan. Well, that's that cleared up - review over, right? No? Oh, alright then... I picked 'Persuasion' because it's proabably my favourite Jane Austen novel - well that or 'Emma'. Or 'Pride and Prejudice'. So, I picked 'Persuasion' because it's one of my three favourite Jane Austen novels...

I like an awful lot about 'Persuasion', though oddly the heroine isn't particularly one of them. I mean, she's ok, but she's just a little bit wet - though not quite as wet as "Mansfield Park"'s Fanny. By contrast, the hero may well be my absolute favourite Austen hero. He's just that little bit more human than Darcy, making him more attractive as a person. I've always felt that Darcy, for all his merits, couldn't have much of a sense of humour, but Captain Wentworth clearly has a strong sense of the absurd.

I enjoyed the way 'Persuasion' was written, as I felt it was slightly more mature than her other novels, probably due (at least in part) to the greater age of her heroine. This, by the way, is a growing attraction for me, as I have a sneaking suspicion that Ann Elliott is the last of Austen's heroines still to be older than me. Which is terrifying.

Well, what else can I tell you? The writing is witty as always, Ann is very sweet (if a little excessively so at times), Frederick is dashing and terribly exciting and the villains are exactly as villainous as they should be! If you like Austen, you'll like it. If you don't like Austen - well, there must be something wrong with you. I'm sorry, but you had to know sometime...

Lord of the Flies

OK, for those of you who have mentioned this blog's slight positive bias, this should restore the average (and then some!). Now, I should probably tell you that I first read this book when I was eight, which may have coloured my opinion of it somewhat, but I hated it. I did try it again later, in the pursuit of fairness - I still hated it.

I know this is not the conventional opinion and I'm sure people will take me aside and explain to me exactly why it is that I "haven't understood the novel". Those people needn't bother. I get it, I really do. I understand that it's an allegory and a commentary on human nature; that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Let me explain why. Firstly, it's just morbid. Human nature may well work like that, it is certainly possible and people do commit atrocities all the time, but that doesn't mean I want to spend hours of my life dwelling on it. I know the message is far more effective if he uses children, but it also makes the whole thing extremely disturbing.

Secondly, I actually disagree with the point of the novel. I don't think that people will revert to their animal natures if left alone. Why should they? You see a similar attitude to the world if you look at Blake or Rousseau (although they obviously hit the opposite end of the spectrum and believe we would all be angels). Why is it that all of these people seem to forget that we are left alone?

After all, the rules constraining us didn't just appear! Humans have been around for about half a million years - organised society has only been around for about 5000 years. People didn't just wander around randomly killing each other, we wouldn't have survived until now if they had!

Ok, rant over. There you have it though, in a nutshell - I think it's unrealistic and needlessly morbid. Well-written, yes, absolutely. If you don't mind the former two, give it a shot. But it's not for me.

Cause Celeb

Well, here we are - another Friday, another blog! (I realise that I could have written that sentence on any given Monday or Wednesday as well, but today happens to be Friday. So there). So, 'Cause Celeb' - for those of you who don't know, this is Helen Fielding's first novel and is really rather good! I'm often wary of the first novels written by authors I admire, as they're so often disappointing, but this one lived up to my opinion of her.

Admittedly, it didn't quite reach the heights of 'Bridget Jones', but that's a little like complaining that 'Emma' isn't as good as 'Pride and Prejudice' - it may be true, but both are so good, it's hardly relevant. 'Cause Celeb' is the story of Rosie Richardson, who heads off to be an aid worker in Africa, primarily to escape a broken heart.

While she is there, crisis hits and she has to re-involve herself in her old life to save the day! That sounds awful, but I promise it's not. Fielding is very amusing and as observant as usual, pinpointing the common motives behind 'altruism' slightly uncannily (don't believe me? What was the last altruistic thing you did? Why did you do it? Honestly? See?), without necessarily condemning the good resulting from such actions.

Rosie is charming and rings very true - she's the kind of girl you'd like to have a coffee with. She's fun, intelligent and interesting, but not so perfect as to be intimidating. Oliver, the breaker of Rosie's heart, is very well drawn - attractive enough for us to understand why Rosie dates him, but horrible enough to be convincingly destructive (emotionally speaking).

I really enjoyed reading this and it cemented my opinion of Helen Fielding as one of the best comedy writers of our time (if not one the best writers of our time). Absolutely worth a read.

The Children's Book

Hmmm, I seem to be going through a phase of writing about books about books at the moment (don't worry if you didn't understand that sentence - you just aren't quite bright enough to keep up obviously. But that's ok. I'll still talk to you). A.S.Byatt is one of those authors people keep telling me I must read, so after some years of this, I wandered to a Waterstones in search of 'Possession'. They didn't have it (oddly), so I picked 'The Children's Book' and read that instead (having paid for it, obviously - what do you take me for?).

And the verdict? I liked it. I think. Probably anyway. Let me explain. It is certainly an engaging story (or several engaging stories), filled with likeable and less likeable characters whose stories are interesting and compelling. I enjoyed all of the children's stories and found their characters fascinating (Tom was possibly the least interesting, though I don't think his story could have ended any other way).

I found Olivia a little distasteful, though I suppose one was meant to. Otherwise I was a fan of the characters. I found there were some sections which were rather dull - the ones where she rambled on about the England of the time. I felt that I didn't care all that much about England as whole, just about England as it affected her characters. I also thought she was a little rough on liberal middle class families and the effect they have on their children.

Those problems apart, it was good. The ending was truly touching and, though I probably should have seen it coming, I didn't (but then I'm dense like that). All in all, it more or less backed up the general opinion of her work!

Lipstick Jungle

I'm afraid I've just had an interview today, so I'm not able to handle anything more complicated than a slightly trashy chick-lit type novel. Which is precisely what 'Lipstick Jungle' is. It was written by Candace Bushnell (of 'Sex and the City' fame), so I thought I'd read it, on the basis that it would probably be something like SATC (the novel, I mean, not the show).

It isn't really. I mean, it's ok. There's nothing majorly wrong with it, but it's lacking the bite that SATC has (again, I emphasise that I am talking about the novel, which is very different in feel to the show). It deals with three very feminist women in New York, trying to advance their careers and the obstacles they face. Which, on the face of it, is fine.

The plot is fairly light and deals with their romantic troubles as well as their personal and professional issues reasonably entertainingly. The problem is just that it doesn't transmit the same sense of the city that SATC did. It doesn't really have any soul. Essentially, I felt that Bushnell had achieved success and was now doing it by numbers.

I also found the constant 'feminist' references rather irritating. I should explain that I consider myself a feminist. I absolutely believe that men and women should be treated equally. Unfortunately, that isn't what Bushnell seems to believe. Her characters act as though they believe women should be considered to be better than men and treated as such, which I would say is every bit as unfair as the reverse.

They re constantly complaining about how men don't understand things 'because they are men' or how people are only treating them poorly 'because they are women', when in fact the character in question clearly treats everyone poorly, male or female. I would say it's a fairly entertaining novel, very good for those occasions when your brain just won't work, but also a bit annoying and not particularly interesting.

The Book Thief

So, it's been a while, huh? I'm afraid my excuse is travel (again), but I promise I'm not going off on anymore holidays for the forseeable, so I'll be here. In England. In the rain. Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, right, the book... I've seen this novel in the children's section of various bookshops, and I have to say, I don't really think it belongs.

That's not to say that it isn't fit for children, just that it is suitable for adults. It's about children, yes, but as anyone who's ever read 'The Lord of the Flies' will tell you, that doesn't mean it's for children. (Just an aside: if you're waiting for me to write a review of 'The Lord of the Flies', I should warn you, you'll be waiting for quite some time. I read it last when I was 8 - so when I say it's not suitable for children, I mean it - and any review would require me to reread it. Which I don't intend to do. Ever. Sorry.)

So, by now you're probably thinking that I haven't read the book at all and am hoping to distract you by saying rude things about classics... I promise, I have. Several times, in fact, which means, I'm afraid it's another positive review. I really liked this novel. It's set in Nazi Germany, which gives it the requisite amount of darkness with minimum effort. It isn't too dark and doesn't leave you despairing of humanity, though I did cry.

The only complaint I really have is that, while the basic conceit (a story narrated by death) is good, it sometimes gets a little irritating, as he will insist on telling how it ends. I don't mean that in a foreshadowing, hint-y kind of way, I mean he actually tells you. Luckily, he's a good enough writer that the end still comes as a surprise, but it can be annoying. Otherwise, I like the characters, I enjoyed the plot and his writing style is, by and large, very likeable.

Decline and Fall

I picked this one more or less at random, because I'd read and enjoyed 'Brideshead Revisited', so I figured there was a decent chance I'd like this too. Ok, now that I've prepared you for a negative review, I'm going to disappoint you. Well, sort of. You'll see.

First things first, did I enjoy it? Yes, yes I did. It was really fun to read, very entertaining and terribly funny. Are my feelings about it a hundred percent positive? Not exactly. On the one hand, it is, as I just mentioned, a very funny, very readable novel. Paul Pennyfeather provides the only logic in the book and, like all good heroes (though of course Waugh tells us Paul isn't really a hero), is bland enough for everyone to feel they can identify with him.

So far, so good. The circumstances leading to Paul's sending down are hilarious and the characters he meets as a result are fascinating - my personal favourite is Peter Beste-Chetwynde, the world's oldest fifteen-year-old. However, some of the attitudes evident in the novel are rather unsavoury, and I found that tainted the experience somewhat.

For instance, when we first meet Margot Beste-Chetwynde, she has with her a black American boyfriend, who is referred to in unpleasant terms, not only by the characters, but also by the narrator. Now one could argue that the characters are intended to be ridiculous and are being mocked by Waugh, but the narrator certainly isn't. I'll admit that acceptable terminology has changed since the '20s, but it does date the novel and give us an insight into Waugh's less pleasant views.

His treatment of Jews, though brief, is of a similar vein, though possibly worse, as it is a casual comment coming from an otherwise amiable character, rather than studied ridiculousness. This aside, I enjoyed the story greatly and fully intend to read more of Waugh's work - it's just a shame he was so obviously of his time.

Immortality

Before this, I hadn't read any of Milan Kundera's works and had the vague feeling that they were probably the kind of serious novel people read in coffee shops to make themselves look like intelligent people (what do you mean you don't do that? Is that just me then? Oh dear...). Having read 'Immortality', I'll admit that I was wrong (well, not about people reading the books in coffee shops - for all I know, he's the number one coffee-shop-author). They (or at least the one I've read) are not serious books.

Yes, 'Immortality' deals with serious concepts, but not in a serious fashion. I was kind of expecting to be bored and was anticipating a dreary couple of days forcing myself to read a novel that was worthy, but uninspiring. Luckily for me, I experienced nothing of the sort. It was witty and entertaining and I read so fast that I was disappointed to come to the end.

Do I agree with Kundera's conclusions? Well, I don't know. If I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure that he actually comes to any definite conclusion - he seems simply to enjoy throwing around ideas. I have to say, I'm not entirely sure I would call this a novel - its purpose is not that of most novels. It follows a line of story, certainly, but I wouldn't say it has a storyline. If you see what I mean. If you don't I can only suggest that you read it, after which you will.

Kundera is exploring what it means to be immortal and why we are so attached to the notions of life and continued life, using the many characters who appear in the novel (I don't know what else to classify it as, so novel it shall remain) to do so. I particularly enjoyed the tales of Goethe and Bettina, which are essentially completely unconnected from the greater story.

I felt that Kundera was most sympathetic towards Agnes, though I found her a little cold. Saying that, no other character (except possibly Goethe) was spared his ridicule, making it very hard to take any of them seriously. I really enjoyed reading this, and would happily do so again. It's serious, yet funny, intelligent, yet accessible. Definitely try it.

Acting Up

Ok, this one is serious trash. By which I mean it's some hardcore holiday reading material. It isn't 'light, but well-written', it isn't in any way new, challenging or different. It is just easy. But then, I am on holiday, so it's totally appropriate for me to be reading it.

It basically follows the plot of 'Pride and Prejudice' (if you don't know the plot of 'Pride and Prejudice', I would suggest you start by reading that), with a modern framework and characters. Our Elizabeth is one Jasmin (Jazz) Fields, a journalist, whose sister George (Jane Bennet) is an actress. They audition for a charity performance of 'Pride and Prejudice', to be directed by a Mr. Harry Noble (Darcy), an actor who is Hollywood royalty.

Jazz takes against him from the start, and the rest is pretty obvious, with the play serving as an excuse for their interaction and various characters in her life replacing the ones from P&P we know and love (though Mrs. Bennet is replaced by her mother, who is nothing like her).

Now, where to start? I think I'll begin with what was right with it, then move into my rant... Well, Harry Noble is a good character - he obviously follows along the character lines set up by Austen for Darcy, but with some more modern twists. Similarly, George and Jack (Mr. Bingley) are very nicely drawn characters, sweet without being impossible or Pollyannaish. Finally, the plot is familiar and always fun to relive, so I rather enjoyed that.

Ok. So what is wrong with it? Well, Jazz for one. She's no Elizabeth Bennet, that's for sure! Where Lizzie is confident, she is conceited, where Lizzie is witty, she is rude and where Lizzie is forthright, she is brash. She is a fundamentally irritating character, who is too engrossed in her own wonderfulness to notice that anyone else could be even slightly interesting. She essentially disowns her flatmate for daring to want to join a gym, is furious when said flatmate abandons her for a man, then proceeds to end the novel by doing just that to the flatmate.

The author too frequently references the play, pointing out the parallels between the original and her own novel, in evident assumption that anyone reading it is too stupid to work it out themselves. Finally, and most annoyingly, it just isn't very funny. It should be, but the jokes are all obvious or poor, weakening the narrative voice (which isn't bad otherwise) considerably.

The Post-Birthday World

This recommended to me with the words "I want to see what you think of it - my friend and I disagreed." Having read it, I can absolutely understand the confusion over what exactly one feels about this novel. It was written by Lionel Shriver, whose work I've wanted to read for some time now (I keep seeing copies of 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' in bookshops, and vaguely feeling I should read it), so I was happy to oblige.

The novel itself is a sort of written version of 'Sliding Doors' - we start a conventional a story and then our heroine has a choice (to kiss a man or not to kiss him) and, depending on which option she chooses, the story splits. In one she leaves her long-term boyfriend for this man and in the other, she stays, feeling smugly virtuous.

We then follow both storylines, as they diverge owing to the many minutes decisions associated with the big one, giving us the chance to decide which was the better option - what would you have done? Now, I have to admit I had some problems with it. Firstly, Shriver doesn't go to too much effort to hide which of the options she believes to be the best, thus skewing the result somewhat (I won't tell you which she preferred, it'd spoil the story).

Secondly, she does actually cheat. The idea is that, all else being the same, we should investigate how this one act can change someone's life. But (here is the problem) she doesn't leave all else the same. One thing happens (again, I won't tell you what that is) in one story which, for no apparent reason, does not happen in the other. Why? Because Shriver wants you to pick one story over the other, I assume - there is no other possible reason.

My final problem was the attitude permeating the novel. It seemed to suggest that, no matter what you decide to do, you lose. Life sucks, game over. I realise this is supposed to show realism and a awareness that the world isn't perfect but, while I agree that it isn't perfect, I don't believe that you're screwed no matter what you do. Why should I? Even if it's true, why would I want to live my life with that ringing in my ears? Let me at least pretend it's possible to be happy!

Don't get me wrong - the novel is beautifully written and extremely readable. It just depressed me slightly to read this novel, which I felt could be brilliant, only for the attitudes behind it to ruin it for me. (I also took issue with the heroine's "post-feminist" view that all she needs to make her happy is a man. If it were me, I'd have dumped them both. But if I say that, it turns my final problem into my penultimate problem instead, so I won't.)