Book review: The Blair Witch Project by Peter Turner (2014)

Part of a book series that examines important and influential horror films. A short read at 95 pages. I've commented on Pete's UK based site I Love That Film for a few years now, which is how I heard about the publication of his first book. He is currently working on a found footage horror PhD.

The book is well-researched and he relies on multiple sources at his disposal. Clearly he is passionate about The Blair Witch Project and could talk about it for hours. Perhaps due to budgetary reasons, the publication lacks new interviews with the cast and crew of the film. The middle section of the book became a little too bogged down in academic technicalities, these paragraphs about camera movements and so forth may only appeal to the ardent horror fan.

The opening third of the book is the most entertaining and accessible, with insights about the production of the film. For example that the iconic framing of the top half of Heather's face (see book cover above) was a happy accident as the actress had thought she had shot her entire face. The most surprising revelation to me was how the directors actually directed from afar. They left milk crates with supplies and notes at location spots, which you can read more about in the book. Another interesting revelation is the dialogue is improvised, the actors should be given more credit than you'd think. The last third about the representation of women and the film’s marketing/reception/legacy is satisfying as well. Enough time has passed so comparisons can be made to other found footage films.

An enjoyable read, which has given me a new appreciation for The Blair Witch Project and how it was made. If the goal was to persuade me to rewatch the movie, then the book succeeded. Recommended for those interested in the film.

Books read in 2015

I finished 9 books in 2015. Here are my brief thoughts on those.

Non-fiction:

Are We Not New Wave?: Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s by Theodore Cateforis (2011)
Interesting chronology from late 1970s until early 90s. The author mentions a wealth of bands from the 80s, which to me was the main attraction about reading the book.
I enjoyed bits and bobs about how New Wave can be seen in an oppositional stance to the traditional dominant rock. New Wave with its synthesizers, rudimentary musicianship, and androgynous fashion. Popular heavy metal bands in the mid 80s such as Mötley Crüe perceived themselves as making real music compared to the synthpop bands. When rocks acts like Van Halen, Rush and Bruce Springsteen began using the synthesizers the distinction between rock and pop became blurred.
I'm not sure you can really make these clear distinctions, as every band is different, but it's a way of examining the music of that time.
Later chapters I skimmed over, which explore in detail the impact of groups such as Devo, the B-52s, The Knack, and Gary Numan, In the chapter about Talking Heads, Cateforis is quite critical of the way David Byrne promoted Remain in Light (1980). Adam & The Ants are criticized for borrowing African music for their album and keeping all the profit for themselves.
Overall, the book is a tad repetitive, but momentarily interesting.
Rating 3.5 out of 5

This Book Will Make You Calm by Jessamy Hibberd and Jo Usmar (2014)
Co-written by a clinical psychologist and journalist, this self-help book has a number of platitudes, such as tidying up, eating a healthy diet, exercise, getting enough sleep, and so on, but also interesting parts as well about dealing with stress and anxiety. You don’t have to read the book from cover to cover. I liked the part about negative automatic thinking. Making assumptions too quickly.
How your stress is very dependent on your interpretation of an event. I think the authors are right that questioning your immediate reaction is a good idea. You have to give other people the benefit of the doubt. You may put too much emphasis on one particular character flaw and overlook other aspects about that person. Hibberd and Usmar urge us to distract our worried thoughts by playing a game, doing a crossword, listening to music, exercise, reading positive quotes, and so on.
Rating 3 out of 5

Novels:

On The Road by Jack Kerouac (1957) (full review)
A semi-autobiographical classic. The book seems to endorse the reckless and impulsive “on the road” lifestyle as a method to gain experience and live life to the fullest, yet also acknowledges living that way can be hurtful to those you are irresponsible towards.
Sal and Dean are always running away from problems, or seeking something new. Not dwelling very long, with a short attention span. You could argue what they are doing lacks purpose.  Dean (real name Neal Cassady) was beloved for his ability to inspire others to love life. Sal knows Dean and Marylou are getting him into all sorts of trouble, but Sal misses the excitement when he is alone.  Inspiring the reader to go on road trips is a big reason why the book has endured. The book does drag in places, yet there are a number of great passages I will treasure, such as when Remi Boncoeur helps Sal get a job at a barracks in San Francisco, and a fast-paced trip in a Cadillac limousine.
Rating 4 out of 5 

Hunger by Knut Hamson (1890) (full review)

Considered a classic of Scandinavian literature. A stream-of-consciousness account of a starving writer who roams the streets of the Norwegian city of Kristiania (Oslo). Loosely based on the author's own impoverished life before his breakthrough in 1890. Transports you back to the 1800s, so I felt I was actually there. You get under the skin of the main character who has both a tragic and a humorous side to him, not necessarily how he sees himself, but how others perceive him. The story is about stubbornness and pride. Wanting to be independent and not rely on family and handouts, however difficult this may prove to be. This is an admirable quality and I did feel sympathy for his plight. So undernourished that he starts doing illogical things. Since it’s told in the first-person, we don’t know if he is a reliable narrator, is he imagining events, could parts of the book be hallucinations? Is he going insane? To me both film adaptation and novel are unforgettable. I've decided to rate the book without considering the controversy in the later years of Hamsun's life, which I don't think is relevant in judging the worth of a book published 50-60 years before WW2.
Rating 4.5 out of 5 

The Little Friend by Donna Tartt (2002) (full review)

Described by The New York Times as a young-adult novel for grown-ups. As with The Secret History (1992) by the same author, momentarily I stumble upon passages I connect with. It is slow and tedious in places, and I felt cheated in regards to the murder mystery, but ultimately a rewarding read which I am happy to have had, especially in how it took me back to childhood. This may not have been exactly what the author intended for me to take away, since I read in an interview she was making commentary on the Deep South. While Tartt's sophomore effort is well-written, and with life-like characters I cared about, the actual narrative for me is not quite strong enough for it to achieve greatness. The author manages to create a believable world I could get lost in, and beautifully renders the inner life of her main character, but at the same time the novel is overlong and self-indulgent. As another reviewer wrote, Donna Tartt “may reveal a determination to succeed on her own terms, however much these prove frustrating to the reader.” Despite these reservations, I look forward to reading more of her work. I'm moving chronologically, so The Goldfinch (2013) is next.
Rating 3.5 out of 5 

Carrie by Stephen King (1974) (full review)
A coming of age horror classic. Stephen King’s debut as a novelist and became a bestseller. You can interpret the novel autobiographically as Stephen King dealing with traumatic experiences from his youth. Carrie White is a teenage outsider and the story about bullying and teen rebellion feels timeless. The other girls are so cruel and their harsh words are just as bad. Carrie’s determination and stubbornness to stick it out for years is admirable. Others would have changed school. Yet King doesn’t just portray her as a victim.
Her mother Margaret is fanatically religious and domineering, wanting Carrie to pray and stay away from boys. Carrie is fighting for her independence. Anyone who has ever had an over-protective parent or was bullied may feel a kinship with her.
While it is empowering, the story is controversial, and could be taken the wrong way, encouraging violence, and has a negative view of religion. When it came out was one of the most frequently banned books in school libraries. Holds up well, especially the beginning and ending. A modern day fairy tale which deserves its cult classic status. The story reminds us we are all capable of terrible acts.
Rating 4 out of 5 

Short Story Collections:

The Thing Around Your Neck by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2009) (full review)
Adichie is an award-winning female Nigerian author and lecturer. She is perhaps most famous for her novel Half of a Yellow Sun (2007). Adichie’s aim is not just empty entertainment, she wants to show us how Africans think and behave, and how westerners act towards Africans.
This collection of short stories deals with women being oppressed by oppressive men, corruption, injustice, prejudice, African views of the American dream, etc. I was introduced to the Nigerian way of life that I wouldn’t otherwise have been subjected to. I’m sure there are nuances I didn’t catch because of the cultural differences.
Her main characters are often Nigerian females, and you could argue Adichie is reluctant to portray her narrators in an unsympathetic way. If you are male and read it from cover to cover you may feel the book is too misandrous. Of course the goal is to give empowerment to women and promote change, which I am in favor of, but for me the weakness of the book is it’s generally too one-sided and lacks subtlety. Adichie is a writer who writes what she knows, and it's clear that her own personal experiences have influenced her stories. You can’t fault her intent, presenting the problems Nigerian women face, and the author has many insights to share.
Rating 4 out of 5

A Thousand Years of Good Prayers by Yiyun Li (2005) (full review)
A multi-award winning debut fiction work. Yiyun Li grew up in Beijing and came to the United States in 1996. Consists of a collection of ten short stories about life in modern China and Chinese Americans in the US.
I like the observations about how the rigid system in China sometimes causes unhappiness among its citizens. However the writer’s anti-communistic critique of the regime is too repetitive, so while interesting, the book is a bit monotonous thematically. I do think the messiness of life is handled well by the author, which is not necessarily specific to China, but universal.
My experience of reading short stories is that it’s quite demanding, because you have to keep starting from scratch after a few pages. Worth a read if China and its people interest you. Certainly a brave publication in a country that is notorious for its censorship. Although China is changing, it's still shaped by its traditions and recent history.
Rating 3 out of 5

Poems:

Selected Poems by Jorge Luis Borges
Worth a look. Not as strong as his short stories.
Rating 3 out of 5








So those were the books I read and reviewed last year. Have you read any of them and what did you think? What were your favorite reads of the last 12 months?

Book review: Carrie by Stephen King (1974)

Spoilers may occur. This review is intended for those who have seen the film(s) or know the book.

I was intending to share this post in October to coincide with Halloween. Better late than never.
A coming of age horror classic. It was Stephen King’s debut as a published novelist. The paperback became a bestseller. In 1976, Brian de Palma directed the movie with Sissy Spacek as the lead, which is still considered among the best King film adaptations. The novel is relatively short at only 200 pages. Written in an epistolary form, using newspaper clippings, transcripts of court depositions, passages from science journals, letters, and excerpts. This fragmentary approach works surprisingly well.

You can interpret the novel autobiographically as Stephen King dealing with traumatic experiences from his youth. Although he insists Carrie is based on a composite of two girls he observed while attending grade school and high school.

Carrie White is a teenage outsider and the story about bullying and teen rebellion feels timeless. The other girls are so cruel, holding her head under water when they swim at summer camp, placing a grass snake in her shoe at school, putting peanut butter in her hair. The harsh words are just as bad.

Interesting how King at one point puts himself in the shoes of the bully, who is in denial. On page 11 she pictures a neon sign in her mind saying “we don’t mean any harm”. I wish King would have taken this aspect a little further.

Carrie’s determination and stubbornness to stick it out for years is admirable. Others would have changed school. Yet King doesn’t just portray her as an infallible victim. Carrie is capable of cruelty. A small boy calls her names and afterwards she knocks over his bike and feels happy about it. Later in the novel she takes revenge to another level.

Carrie's mother Margaret White is too controlling and protective. Carrie is becoming an adult and answering back. Calling her mother a whore for giving birth to her and her mother locks her in a closet. Another time she throws tea at her daughter. Margaret seems to be losing her mind. Carrie’s mother was allegedly a victim of a rape and Carrie is quite frightened of her. Margaret is fanatically religious and domineering, wanting Carrie to pray and stay away from boys. Carrie is fighting for her independence and the right to make her own choices.

Carrie has telekinetic powers and reading made me curious if it’s simply hocus pocus or if there are any actual cases of it happening. Telekinesis is an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to move objects without physical interaction.

Like a superhero Carrie has to learn to use her abilities for good rather than revenge. Like we all do, try and do good instead of bad. You can’t blame Carrie for wanting to retaliate though. Considering all the pain she has put up with it feels justified. Anyone who was ever an outcast or was bullied may feel a kinship with her. The story reminds us we are all capable of terrible acts, whether you are a bully or a victim, and no matter if you have special powers or not. I see the book as a cautionary warning.

Clearly the prom scene is the most iconic part. I think the movie pulled it off in a slightly more intense way, although King does a good job of describing Carrie’s discomfort with her body and being among those who tease her, and the aftermath of the incident is more fleshed out in the book.

The novel is raunchier than the movie and was considered controversial at the time. The story could be taken the wrong way, encouraging violence, and has a negative view of religion. When it came out was one of the most frequently banned books in school libraries.

The book isn’t perfect, a bit implausible a 16-year-old would not know what her first period is or what a tampon is for, especially at that late age when other girls at school already would have talked about it. Even more implausible, her mother thinks the pregnancy is cancer. Even for a brainwashed religious fanatic that is hard to believe.
I could have done without the animal killings when the group go and collect the blood. That scene was wisely not included in the movie.
My interest in the book lessened in the middle section when the teenagers are preparing for the prom and so forth. The supporting characters behave like regular teenagers do, but are difficult to distinguish from each other as they behave similarly. I couldn’t tell them apart and this is especially noticeable if you put the book down and return to it a week later.
The conclusion of the movie is flashier with the house collapsing, but only fleetingly taps into the suffering of those left behind. Whereas the book goes for a psychologically haunting ending with the townspeople traumatised and a warning that the events could repeat without proper action taken.

Other reviewers describe the story as a modern day “universal fairy tale”. The menstrual blood signifying coming of age and thus leading to mother-daughter rivalry. Another wrote that King “expertly captures the daily fright fest that is every teenage girl's nightmare--high school.”

Despite my minor quibbles, the novel still holds up well, especially the beginning and ending. Deserves its cult classic status.


Rating 8/10


Have you read anything by Stephen King? What did you think of Carrie the book/film?

Book review: On The Road by Jack Kerouac (1957)

I’ve attempted to write the review with no major spoilers.

About being young, restless and searching for adventure. The journey sometimes more important than the destination, hitchhiking and meeting people on the road, giving the narrator (who is a writer) lots of experiences and people to write about. A time capsule to a particular period in the 1950s. In the novel, Kerouac defined a new rebellious, counter-culture generation known as the beat generation. The media buzz surrounding the book sent countless kids on the road.

Sal Paradise narrates the story, he is friends with unpredictable Dean Moriarty. To some extent both of them are drifting around America, sowing their wild oats. The book is an autobiographical account of the author's own life. Fearing libel suits, Kerouac and the pubishers changed the names to pseudonyms.
Viking Press demanded major revisions prior to publication, and many of the more sexually explicit passages were removed. I read the original novel from 1957, but there is also a longer unabridged scroll version, which was written in 1951 and was released in the 2000s. The scroll is essentially nonfiction, a memoir that uses real names.

At first Sal hitchhikes by himself. Later he journeys with Dean and others. They are always running away from problems, or seeking something new. Not dwelling very long. In some respects this short attention span mirrors today's youth culture. Sal reflects on page 113: “I like too many things and get all confused and hung-up running from one falling star to another till I drop. This is the night, what it does to you. I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion.”

You could argue what they are doing lacks purpose. Saying yes to plenty but not really committing to anything serious. Perhaps the reason they keep moving is because staying in the same place they would become bored and realize what they are doing is futile, partying, going to bars, stealing cars, having random sexual encounters, doing drugs, etc.
Old Bull (aka Old William S. Burroughs) on page 131 asks them why they travel and they have no answer. Page 121: “We were all delighted, we all realized we were leaving confusion and nonsense behind and performing our one and noble function, move. And we moved!”
On page 105 Sal says: “This can’t go on all the time – all this franticness and jumping around. We’ve got to go someplace, find something”. A journey of self-discovery. As a critic noted, the characters are "replacing the ladder of success with the freedom of the road as primary measures of male identity."

 Ann Charters writes in the introduction that Sal’s point of view is comparable to that of Nick Carraway, who befriended and observed Jay Gatsby. Page 120: “Dean had every right to die the sweet deaths of complete love of his Marylou. I didn’t want to interfere, I just wanted to follow”
Kerouac has admitted he studied The Great Gatsby (1925), and it "had shown him the value of inventing a sympathetic narrator to tell the story of an American hero who fled his past to embrace what he imagined was the freedom of his future."

Acquaintances tell Dean he is irresponsible and has “absolutely no regard for anybody but yourself and your damned kicks”(page 176). Sal knows Dean and Marylou are getting him into all sorts of trouble, but some friends are better than no friends, and Sal misses the excitement when he is alone. Dean (real name Neal Cassady) was beloved for his ability to inspire others to love life.

I didn’t jot down all the references to music, except the song Sweet Adeline. To be honest the passages about listening to jazz bands I didn’t find that interesting. I guess it was more fun to have been there than to read about. Ann Charters describes jazz in the introduction as "symbolizing the source of American freedom and creativity. Like Dean, Sal is passionately immersed in jazz, an ardent admirer of Billie Holliday, Slim Gaillard, George Shearing, Lester Young"

In one of my favorite sections (part 1, chapter, 11, page 53-71), Sal goes to San Francisco. Here his friend Remi Boncoeur helps Sal get a job at a barracks. The events really comes to life and the situations are memorable. It’s quite different to the rest of the book, as it doesn’t take place on the road.

Another favorite passage of mine (part 3, chapter 8 and 9, page 203-216) takes place on the road, a fast-paced trip in a Cadillac limousine from Denver to Chicago. It’s undeniably thrilling, told in a way so I couldn’t stop reading.

The book seems to endorse the reckless and impulsive “on the road”  lifestyle as a method to gain experience and live life to the fullest, yet also acknowledges living that way can be hurtful to those you are irresponsible towards.

Today considered a classic. The Modern Library ranked On the Road 55th on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.

Rating 4/5

Agree or disagree? Have you read On The Road? 

Book review: Hunger by Knut Hamsun (1890)

Considered a classic of Scandinavian literature. A semi-autobiographical stream-of-consciousness account of a starving writer who roams the streets of the Norwegian city of Kristiania (Oslo). Loosely based on the author's own impoverished life before his breakthrough in 1890. Transports you back to the 1800s, so I felt I was actually there. You get under the skin of the main character who has both a tragic and a humorous side to him, not necessarily how he sees himself, but how others perceive him.

An example of the tragi-comic humor can be found on page 6 when he stands in line for a job in the fire brigade and is passed on due to wearing glasses. He then tries again without glasses and the fireman recognizes him and smiles.

The story is about stubbornness and pride. Wanting to be independent and not rely on family and handouts, however difficult this may prove to be. This is an admirable quality and I did feel sympathy for his plight.
He tries to maintain an outer shell of respectability, self-destructively giving away what little money he has, but doesn’t know if he will have enough food from one day to the next. Writing articles and selling his belongings in order to eat and pay the rent. Having no support system except his writing, and it begins to take its toll on him physically and mentally.

Thematically it’s about the side effects of isolation and malnutrition, and the various degradations of the main character. The narrator has an overdeveloped sense of personal worth, sometimes feverish from lack of food, other times contemptuous of humanity. So undernourished that he starts doing illogical things. Since it’s told in the first-person, we don’t know if he is a reliable narrator, is he imagining events, could parts of the book be hallucinations? Is he going insane?

American writer Paul Auster argues in his 1970 critical essay: "it would be wrong to dismiss the hero of Hunger as a fool or a madman. In spite of the evidence, he knows what he is doing. He does not want to succeed. He wants to fail. Something new is happening here, some new thought about the nature of art is being proposed in Hunger"

The 1966 film adaptation (which I reviewed here) managed to include most of the key scenes and tap into the bleakness and humor of the novel. The parts that were left out include him sleeping in a jail and being scared in the dark, and also when he lives with a family who reluctantly let him stay despite him running out of money.

To me both film and book are unforgettable. I've decided to rate the book without considering the controversy in the later years of Hamsun's life, which I don't think is relevant in judging the worth of a book published 50-60 years before WW2.

Rating 4.5/5 



Have you read anything by Knut Hamsun? What did you think of Hunger the book/film?

Book review: Torture the artist / Joey Goebel (2004)

Really enjoyed this novel, which has an interesting concept. Will be added to my favourite books! Could be the best writer you’ve never heard of! Don’t be put off by the title, there is no physical torture on display, only mental. I love the artwork on the front cover, you don’t see something that original and imaginative too often.

Without giving too much away, the 265 page story is about Vincent, an aspiring writer. Harlan Eiffler, an ex-musician, who is disgusted by shallow entertainment, poses as Vincent’s manager, and nurtures his career. Harlan works for New Renaissance, an experimental organization, who emphasize artistic quality over commerce. Harlan is requested to secretly manipulate Vincent’s life and cause him to suffer, so that he will always have inspiration to create art. It’s easy to care about the deceived main character Vincent, but at the same time could the manipulating really be worth it and what about free will? Is the best art born from pain?

I kind of agree with the author Joey Goebel that there is way too much brainless entertainment being forced upon us these days, and his comments on celebrity are intriguing. This book was hard to put down, and will probably appeal to people who like myself enjoy alternative /independent / original material, and mostly loath formulaic mainstream entertainment. He puts into words something we have all questioned at one time or another. For example, are we making the right choices when it comes to what we consume?


The novel has some good music and film references to look out for. For example we get to hear what each character’s favourite musician, TV-show and movie is. The book also contains some funny dialogue and bizarre anecdotes, such as Shirley Temple taking anti-growth hormones! The overall atmosphere and style is fairly similar to Chuck Palahniuk, of FIGHT CLUB fame. Torture the artist is also provocative and controversial, but isn’t as violent.

Joey Goebel is fairly obscure, but a talented and uncompromising American author. Torture the Artist I think deserves a wider audience and more recognition, which is why I am recommending it.

Book review: A Separate Peace / John Knowles (1959)

No spoilers. This was a good coming-of-age novel, and short at only 200 pages. The first 50 pages is some of the best fiction I’ve read all year! The beginning contains that special summertime atmosphere I loved in the movie Box of moonlight. And the final page still gives me chills thinking about it. The middle part of the book didn’t impress me as much and could have been better. The last 50 pages or so were an improvement, and better than the middle section.

The setting is an American boarding school for teenage boys during the 1940s. Events are narrated by Gene Forrester, the insecure, conscientious, nerdy and bookish main character with a fragile identity. Gene’s best friend is Phineas/Finny, athletic, out-going, confident and popular, a natural leader, loves sports, but is academically inferior to Gene. The story is mostly about Gene and Phineas’s differences and how their friendship evolves during a memorable summer and year they will never forget.

On the surface they appear a mismatch, but they each offer something to the other which they themselves lack and maybe are jealous of. Is Gene an unreliable narrator? You could argue Phineas was never the superhero Gene imagined him to be. Some claim Gene cannot express his jealousy, because Phineas has always been kind to him, and gives Gene the friendly push, which Gene needs. This jealously and frustration is portrayed as something internal. Gene also suspects that Phineas games and rebellious attitude are an attempt to derail Gene’s studies? Gene feels torn between academic expectations, and loyalty to his friend. For much of the novel Gene seems to regard Phineas personality as full of contradictions: “who seemed to love the school truly and deeply, and never more than when he was breaking the regulations”. Some have indicated in other reviews that Gene was weak and secretly loathed Phineas, but I’m not sure I agree with this. This ambiguity is part of the appeal. The friendship to me is mutual. I would even go so far as to say Gene at times secretly wants to be Phineas. The book questions what friendship is. Something everyone can relate to.

Perhaps Knowles didn’t need to include so many descriptions of nature. Another weakness I found was the lack of interest in girls among the teenage boys, which is a little odd given their age. Some reviewers claim there may be a homosexual subtext in Gene and Phineas’s relationship, I seriously doubt this. It’s more about an inner- and outer- war and peace. World War II has just begun, but the Devon students are removed from its hard realities, and can therefore accept or reject it as they choose. The possibility of being drafted looms in the air. I thought the war elements are comparable to young US soldier’s dealing with feelings towards the recent Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I think it’s an anti-war novel. At the same time, Gene is fighting a war within himself, he appears to leave behind his old and innocent ways, and create a new and more mature self. To me, the book seems to question if Gene would in fact prefer to go back to his old self.

This is a deceptively straightforward book. The actual storyline is simple, Gene looking back on his schooling 15 years earlier, but to me the atmosphere and confused adolescent emotions are the strengths of the book.

I’ve read in a critical essay that Gene the boy is too close to his own experiences to understand them properly, and Gene the man is too removed to express effectively the vitality that characterizes adolescence, but between them they succeed in dissolving the limitations of conventional first-person narration. According to the author John Knowles, man can only know himself through action; he learns about life by acting on it, not by thinking about it:

Page 1:

“school looked like a museum, and that’s exactly what it was to me, and what I did not want it to be. In the deep, tacit way in which feeling becomes stronger than thought, I had always felt that Devon School came into existence the day I entered it, was vibrantly real while I was a student there, and then blinked out like a candle the day I left”

The name Phineas is linked to Greek mythology. I’ve read that the Greek view of Phineas sports is a competition against oneself, a healthy struggle in which you measure your capacities without ego, fear, or hubris. This is particularly evident in the swimming scene. Phineas is also the name of an angel in the bible, and Phineas acts as a guardian angel towards Gene.

A thirty-something male narrator looking back on school life and the main theme of guilt is a little similar to Donna Tartt’s “The Secret History”, which I reviewed in 2010. I probably should have read “A separate peace” when I was younger. Having said that, this is the sort of novel you can easily re-read looking for clues, as the main character’s behaviour can be tough even for adults to understand.

Selling over nine million copies, it was one of the most widely read American novels after World War II. Like several other book recommendations on my blog, it’s based on John Knowles’ own experiences growing up, and comes across as a very personal debut novel. A little-known and judging from reviews inferior sequel was released in 1981 called "Peace Breaks Out".

The title “A Separate Peace” is very interesting, and open to interpretation. Is it about moulding your own separate personality within a group? Do the two main characters achieve some kind of peace? Or should we read the title as a reflection of the safe haven boarding school cut off from the violent war abroad. The title is derived from a quotation in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms in which Lt. Henry states, "I had made a separate peace," with his adversaries in World War I.

If you like old-fashioned American coming-of-age tales with a memorable and introspective narrator like boyish girl Frankie Addams in Carson McCullers' warm-hearted war time novel "The Member of the Wedding" (1946), or confused Holden Caulfield in “The Catcher in the rye” (1951), “A Separate Peace” is for you. All three of these books in my opinion are stronger for internal monologues rather than the actual storytelling; they all explore bored adolescents trying to figure out who they are. Another classic coming-of-age novel you might want to check out is Betty Smith's A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1943), which is one I haven’t read.

If you enjoy reading about teenage angst and male friendship, “A Separate Peace” is a recommended read. The book gets extra points for the characters ability to stay with me afterwards. One of those books, which reveals itself in hindsight.

8/10

Further reading

Film review: Dinner with friends (2001)

This is an interesting and insightful film, but you wouldn’t have guessed it was made-for-TV judging from the cast. Looks like a project like this attracted some fairly big names. Directed by Norman Jewison, who also directed “The Hurricane” with Denzil Washington and “Moonstruck” (which I liked) from the 80s.

“Dinner with friends” is a contemporary character study of two married couples, and their struggles. The drama is set in Connecticut and New York. It’s about friendship, the two husband’s are best friends, and so are their wives. So it’s about both female and male friendship. Due to events in the plot both couples must re-evaluate their seemingly perfect relationships. The focus is less on the kids and more about the adult issues. I think it’s partly about how messy relationship problems can sometimes be. Blame is a fickle thing, nobody is perfect.

I think “Dinner with friends” was probably written with married couples in mind as the key audience, but I’m sure single people could enjoy this too. The flashbacks made the story more about the psychology of the characters, and less about guessing what’s going to happen next.


I read the 86 page Pulitzer Prize winning play by Donald Marguiles, and it’s so short most of the dialogue is retained in the film adaptation. Basically like reading a script. As the back cover of the book explains, it’s a deceptively straight-forward suburban drama.

But I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a comedy, for me there were only a couple of laughs here and there. A small objection from my side would be some of the scenes were a little cliché for American families. The strength of the piece is clearly the dialogue.

Another reviewer points out author Marguiles poses several interesting questions about marriage and friendship: How do you handle growing old together? Could your marriage all fall apart? And if you knew everything about your closest friends, would you still want them around? Who has it right: those, who stick to marriage or those who break out of the rut? And how do we react when our closest friends doubt us?

According to the sleeve of the book, Donald Marguiles’s plays have been performed at major theatres across the United States and around the world. I have to say even though the book/play won the award for drama, I preferred the film. I tried reading plays before and I think at least in this case, it works best being performed and spoken by actors. Just gives it more realism and emotion.


But the book is slightly more sophisticated and quotable. The movie was "dumbed down" a bit. I recommend both film and book version. I can’t say which you should go for, they each are their own thing. I liked both!

Here are some of my favourite verbal fireworks from the book (no spoilers) :

“I met X – she made me feel good from the first time I talked to her on the phone”

“Have I ever been so wrong about someone? God, what does this say about my judgment?"

“He’s essentially a good guy waiting to happen. He just needs to find the right woman”

“When you’re single, you expend so much energy. I know. You’re always looking, always feeling scrutinized. It’s exhausting”

“I don’t know, I think she likes you. Yeah? Then I like her. Uh, you’re so deep”

“I thought if I could choose my family this time, if I could make my friends my family....Congratulations. The family you’ve chosen is just as fucked-up and fallible as the one you were born into”

“Settling down, having kids. It was just one more thing I did because it was expected of me, not because I had any real passion for it”

“How come the minute the conversation turns to us you’re struck mute?”

IMDB

Rottentomatoes

Readers, any thoughts? Any other plays made into films you like?

Book review: A Confederacy of Dunces / John Kennedy Toole (1980)

Probably the funniest and most unusual novel I’ve ever come across. A light and entertaining read, and at times laugh-out-loud funny. People seem to either love or hate this book. To me it’s a modern classic. I guess anytime you have humour as a key ingredient, then the story will divide audiences.

Our hero is neurotic, anti-social, obese outsider Ignatius Reilly, he still at the age of 30 lives with his widowed mother. Ignatius is a well-educated wannabe writer, but unable to find a job due to his rudeness and attitude. The story is about his adventures in job hunting and holding on to employment, and the story is also about events that happen at a bar called Night of Joy, which the locals visit.

Ignatius is revolting, but pitiful enough that I cared about him. The author makes you hope that he will succeed in life in spite of his outrageous, but somewhat idealistic behaviour. Some may even identify with his mother's plight, as he really is a handful for her, with no idea how to get along with people. One of the jobs Ignatius attempts is as a file clerk at Levy Pants. Another job he tries is as a hot dog salesman. In both cases creating funny and awkward moments.



The humour is the best thing about this book, and I found myself looking forward to the next amusing situations. For example, one of the funnier moments is when a cop discovers the cream inside the doughnuts has already been sucked out by the greedy main character!

The real life story of John Kennedy Toole is a sad one. He was an English teacher who was never recognized or appreciated for his writing during his lifetime. Toole took his own life. But his mother fought for years trying to get his book published, and finally 11 years after his suicide did his book hit the stores.

The Pulitzer prize winning novel is considered an important work of modern Southern literature, the events take place mostly in New Orleans, so its also a description of the atmosphere in the South during the early 1960s. The black oppressed community are unhappy with the way they are treated, Ignatius is content with his rebellious outsider position, while the coloured character we get to know is looking for change. Having said this, you might think the novel is dated being written in the 60s, but I think it holds up surprisingly well and comes across as very fresh. This I think is mainly due to Toole's memorable use of language.

The author appears to make fun of the police force in a similar way that Alfred Hitchcock used to expose them as incompetent. But then again everyone seems to be given the full treatment and made a satirical joke of, which is part of the book’s charm.

I think eccentric people with a university degree who have had difficulty finding work might relate to the main character’s troubles. Especially in this time of financial crisis where there are cutbacks and fewer jobs to be had. Overweight people will probably also be able to identify with Ignatius’s compulsive eating, which he does to sooth his anxiety.

If you like this, I recommend the comics by Harvey Pekar, he also worked as a file clerk in the US, the humour and atmosphere is a little similar, I think. Ignatius’s bizarre behaviour can in my opinion also be compared to “Fear and loathing in Las Vegas” from the 70s. The hat Ignatius wears could be a reference to Holden Caufield’s in “The Catcher in the Rye”, and probably is also a symbol of rebellious behaviour, which Ignatius refuses to take off during a job interview. Other reviewers point out Ignatius is like a fat and intelligent version of Mr. Bean. He is like a cartoon character, but walking around in the real world.


The novel is 400 pages. I would highly recommend the first 200 pages. The remainder of the book had a few golden moments of humour, but I found it to be a little unnecessary. I felt like I had heard what he had to say in the first half of the book. I think the book deserves an unorthodox rating, I give it 9/10 for the first half, 5/10 for the last half. I guess if you add these up it makes a 7/10.

Probably not a book I would suggest reading in one or two sittings, instead the kind of novel you might pick up now and again and read a chapter from.

I like this book for the humour and bizarre characters, Ignatius, Ignatius’s pen friend Myrna Minkoff from college, and old-timer Mrs Trixie to me are highlights.

One of the great comedies in fiction. Like nothing I’ve ever read before, highly original. Is Ignatius Reilly a genius or a madman? ( :

The title refers to a quote from Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Book review: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? / Philip K. Dick (1968)

I usually prefer sci-fi on film, but I was impressed by this novel, full of ideas, and it still holds up well today despite being written in the 1960s. Love the title of this book. I’d be interested to know of other novels where the title is a question? "What was she thinking? : notes on a scandal" is one book. Here are more.

The film Blade runner is loosely based on this novel. The book is more thoughtful and the film more visually atmospheric, so they compliment each other very well. The stories differ quite a lot, the book includes scenes with Deckard’s wife Iran and their pets. The ending to the film I think is more exhilarating. In the book, I am not sure I was entirely convinced that people in the future would want goats and sheep as pets, I can understand why they left this out of the film. The only motivation being real animals are sought after due to them being status symbols. The electric animals are lower down on the prestige chart. A weakness in both film and book: why does Deckard hunt the replicants, if they are going to die within a few years anyway?

Although there are discrete references to e.g. George Orwell’s 1984, it’s still a very original book. Amazing that an author can create such a future world from scratch. Everyone is under suspicion for being an android. Rick Deckard is a bounty hunter assigned to kill several Nexus-6 model androids, who have murdered there masters on Mars. An empathy test — the Voight-Kampff — is used to distinguish humans from androids. Another reviewer raises an interesting question: Wouldn't it be so much easier to just make all androids so they have an easily distinguishable feature to show they aren't a normal human?


I think this book works on many different levels. A lot is going on between the lines. It’s a science fiction adventure, but it’s also a dystopian warning saying we should look after the environment. It’s about how the drug industry is dangerous and can control your feelings. Furthermore, it’s a cautionary tale about how we should go about cloning and act towards our creations. The story is also about what it does to the protagonist Deckard that he is assigned to kill androids. Philip K Dick has stated the story is about what makes us human. Having a friend who suffers from autism, I felt the androids are described in an almost autistic way having little or no empathy towards others, this is less visible in the film. But this could just be a prejudice attitude among Deckard and his colleagues, we can’t be sure. The author PKD on page 90 tries to defend this lack of empathy by stating Deckard’s wife sometimes has even less empathy than androids.

It can be very difficult to determine if someone is an android in Philip K. Dick’s world, likewise it can be difficult to know straightaway if someone is mentally disadvantaged. It is widely known that a number of mentally disadvantaged people see themselves as aliens, try and pass themselves off as normal individuals, and on occasion are not even aware of suffering from a mental condition. In the book, several comments are made that the androids are attempting to blend in to society and pretending to be ordinary people. I may be wrong, but this allegorical interpretation I think suggests Philip K Dick himself was autistic (many artists are), or had knowledge of people with this condition. The androids lack many human qualities, but that's in part because they are manufactured that way. Is it their fault that they lack empathy? The androids could represent any given oppressed group throughout human history.

To me, it’s difficult to know exactly what PKD was attempting to say, as the story is open-ended. I feel the novel has taken on a life of its own based on countless reviews and articles over the years which interpret the story in various ways.
I guess the message to me is we should treat androids with equal respect and give them the same rights as humans, and not treat them as slaves, if one day the technology should allow them to be created artificially. Androids in the book have feelings and desires too. The story depicts how humans are as ruthless as robots by their willingness to kill robots. I think the author probably asks more questions than he answers, which I see as a good thing. We the readers are left to ponder these ethical questions ourselves.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is in “1001 books you must read before you die”

Also, check my recommendations of Blade Runner and Frankenstein, which are related.

Book review: The Catcher in the rye / J.D. Salinger (1951)

Loved this American coming of age novel, which I just finished. A classic, which might just creep into my top 10 books! Originally written for adults, it’s far from being your typical young adult novel. Suitable for all age-groups.

At the beginning, the main character, Holden Caufield says he got thrown out of many schools, and this is an incentive for the reader to discover why. Holden is difficult to pinpoint, he is described as both childish for his age and sometimes he seems wise beyond his years. The conflict is simple: Holden wants to be an adult, but at the same time he doesn't.

He is a rebel without a cause, without having an alternative to school life. Holden refuses to follow society’s rules, he follows his own. Holden is bothered by trivial things around him. You wonder why he listens to the audience in the foyer, when they clearly irritate him? He rebels, but nevertheless he doesn’t seem able to ignore stuff.

The novel’s strength for me is its energy, characters, humour, and observations. Another positive element is the description of the difference between the inner and outer world.

I was never bored for one second, which is rare for me when reading a novel. There were actually some parallels to the film Roger Dodger (2002), which is one of my favourites. There are many cultural references to the novel, wikipedia has made a long list.

Chapter 11 is my favourite part, where Holden seems happy and likeable in the company of his friend Jane Gallagher, these events takes place in the past. This chapter is both a strength and weakness to me, because I don’t quite believe it’s the same subjective voice as the rest of the book.

Disliking everyone around him apart from a select group of family and friends, he drifts around in New York during the course of the story. He is only good at writing English essays. He doesn’t have much in common with his roommates, but still for reasons unknown helps one of them with written English. Why? Is he trying to fit in or be accepted? Or is he just helpful? They appear only to talk, because they go to the same school.

We don’t know for sure why he is so angry and pointing out other people’s faults, there are probably several reasons, an incident with a brother of his, puberty, from an upper-class family, not knowing who he is. Is he a sociopath or have some other mental illness? Is Holden aware that he needs help, or does he need other people to inform him of this? It’s more of a chaotic character study of a young man than a story of A to B. Holden to me is interesting, his many observations are sometimes arrogant and pessimistic, but often funny and naïve. For example saying an audience are clapping at the wrong time, and the pianist is not playing right.


A very good description of New York, he give Woody Allen a run for his money! Holden and others being able to walk around so freely in NY was something that I felt showed it was written in another era. Today kids probably wouldn’t be able to walk around like this without grown ups.

The novel is still controversial to this day. Some readers may be turned off by Holden’s swearing, is Salinger almost making swearing cool? It encourages the reader to think for themselves and find there own place in life. But controversially Salinger/Holden in a way are also encouraging young people to drop out of school. Promoting drinking and lying. This could be why the novel has been banned in some places. Holden is an anti-hero who has become an icon for teenage rebellion and alienation, a character teenagers could identify themselves with. Making the novel forbidden has obviously made it even more intriguing to read.

A weakness could be the structure of the story, I felt like the scenes sometimes where variations of the same situation repeated. The way he thinks about his sister is a little disturbing, but innocent. His sister Phobe, similar to Holden, is also wiser than her age implies, and other times she is immature. You get the feeling Holden misses his childhood enormously, it’s a sanctuary of memories. For example the way he describes going to the museum, when he was a kid. Some have criticized too much whining being on display and there is not enough character development, but this didn’t bother me.

To me TCITR reads as a book written from the heart, as if Salinger couldn’t help writing the story. Maybe the message is that growing up is tough, which is probably why so many young adults can relate to Holden’s inner thoughts and behaviour. His parents seem to be very distant, which makes it even more difficult for him. A lot is going on in Holden’s mind, which we are allowed to peek into, which is why its even more surprising to hear him claim he is the least intelligent of his siblings. Perhaps he is intelligent, but the schools don’t fit his way of thinking and learning.

It’s that rare book that I felt I could re-read immediately after I had turned the last page. A must-read in my opinion. 9/10 ( :

Further reading: bookdrum.com

Book review: The Magus / John Fowles (1966)

I saw a number of readers on the web named this the best novel they had ever read, so I thought I better try it.

Great story, a contemporary classic, which grabbed me right away. The first 50 pages is probably my favourite part of the book. In my opinion a book that can recapture your desire for reading. An excellent twentysomething novel full of colourful characters and surprises. A bestseller when it was initially released.

This is the most recent addition into my current top 10 novels, I read it over the summer, it’s a long read of over 600 pages. But then again so is Harry Potter.

Suitable for vacation time, the story is like taking a journey to a foreign country, most of the plot takes place on a remote Greek island, 8 hours south of Athens. Author Fowles has created a world I looked forward to immerse myself into and savour. I really felt like I had been to the island, even though it was obviously only in my mind I had travelled.

The book begins in the UK. Set in 1953, the richly described protagonist is 25-year-old English teacher Nicolas Urfe. He is emotionally detached, struggling to find his place in life both in terms of his work, and relationships. He is unsure if he wants to continue teaching. Without giving too much away, on his trip to a Greek island he befriends Maurice Conchis, a mysterious recluse, who is likewise vividly described. Conchis becomes a mentor figure and shapes Nicolas in a way he couldn’t have predicted.

A story about the opposite sex and the difficulties of growing into an adult. But also about secrets, psychological games, manipulation, seduction, trust, the difference between truth and illusion, and the dark side of human nature. Much like the main character Nicolas, the reader must try to interpret what is real and what is not, which is half the fun.

A quote from page 477:

“Wasn’t going to buy it. You weren’t really expected to. She gave me another quick smile. If you can imagine playing chess, but not to win...merely to see what moves the other person makes”

If you are unaware of the term, a magus is a sorcerer or magician. I never felt the novel was written 50 years ago, I felt it has aged remarkably well. John Fowles himself wrote the story based on personal experiences of teaching at a boarding school on a Greek island in 1952-53, which is probably why the novel felt so personal.

The 1968 movie version was poorly received and Fowles himself was unhappy with the result. Maybe one of those books which is un-filmable and consequently works better as a novel.

It probably inspired the movies Sleuth (1972) and The man with the golden gun (1974), which I really like, although The Magus is streets ahead of both in my mind in terms of plot twists. I will never forget The Magus. Unlike anything I have ever read before, a hypnotic read, very original. Knowledge of literary references and Greek mythology is helpful, but not essential.

It’s in "1001 books you must read before you die", and so it should be. Highly recommended. 9/10. The only reason I'm not giving it 10/10 is because the book could have been shorter with some better editing.

Readers, any thoughts?

Book review: The Secret History / Donna Tartt (1992)

I keep seeing people recommend this novel online, several sites I follow have: getmorebooks and booksiloved

I thought I better review this novel before I forget what I thought about it.

Without giving anything away, the story takes place mainly in a New England American college environment. The main character, outsider Richard Papen, narrates his experiences, meeting new friends, and the reader like Richard is in a way seduced by a group of students studying Greek. The professor Julian is like a father figure to them, the group mostly come from dysfunctional families. The 5-6 students are somewhat cut off from the other pupils at the college, the plot is about how they deal with several horrifying events, to say more would spoil your enjoyment. The story is deeper if you know your Greek mythology, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t.

My favourite section of the novel is the first half, especially the chapters about living in the summer house and the cold room were memorable. The supporting characters are very real and richly described, and this I liked. Due to the realism I felt transported to another world. Unsurprisingly I have read in an interview that Tartt also went to college and was interested in classical Greek.

Richard is a great narrator, you really get under his skin and see the college world through his eyes. If I had to compare the inner voice, it would be Charles Ryder in the British TV-series ‘Brideshead revisited’, but ‘The Secret History’ didn’t have the strong homosexual undertones of Evelyn Waugh’s story.

I thought the suspense was a little uneven. The editing could have been sharper, the book is a little drawn out being 500 pages. I felt 200 pages could easily have been cut, not a whole lot happens from pages 260-450. The novel might have been more suspenseful, if it was only 300 pages. Although her writing is beautiful, maybe it doesn’t apply so well to the crime fiction genre, which I prefer to read quickly.

I would call the book psychological crime fiction, as it’s more about the psychological effects of crime than the actual crime itself. Other themes are social conformity and acceptance vs. individualism, poor judgement through guidance or lack of guidance from parents. In this case, the conformity is Richard's desire to be a part of a group and learn Greek, but the consequence is him getting into trouble.

The lack of guilt in the book is disturbing and interesting, the guilty ones seemed more concerned with not getting caught. We don't get inside the heads of all of them (only the narrator), so it's tough to say what they all feel inside. Much like Richard we are observing the events and trying to figure out the emotions of the other characters. Can you justify killing? Even in self-defence or an accident, is open to debate, can you live with the consequences?

I don’t know what to rate this book, probably an 8 out of 10, I am slightly torn, some parts I loved. But I wish the editing had been better in this impressive debut novel.

I recommend you give it a shot, especially if you are familiar with college life. But her writing style is not for everyone. It spent 13 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and was translated into 24 languages. It’s in ‘1001 books you must read before you die’.