Ahhhh, Tuscany in the summer! This book does a fine job of transporting you both to modern day Siena and to 14th-century Siena through two simultaneouAhhhh, Tuscany in the summer! This book does a fine job of transporting you both to modern day Siena and to 14th-century Siena through two simultaneous stories. The main story, set in modern day, involves a rather unappealing young woman named Julie who travels to Siena to uncover secrets about her family and The True Story about the two feuding families who provided the basis for Romeo and Juliet.
The second storyline, set among the danger and drama of Renaissance Siena, is where the novel really shines. Somehow it’s so vivid and immediate that I was desperate to find out if maybe – maybe! – things would work out for these prototypes of the star-crossed lovers we first met in 8th grade English class. All the best plot elements from Shakespeare’s play are here – perfidious adults, power politics, and the anguish of doomed love. And such doom! In this author’s rendition, the action is fleshed out to be grander, darker, more violent, and more exciting than a masked ball and a couple of duels. (Will I be struck by lightning for saying that?)
The bad news is that the novel derails in the modern day sections. Our main character Julie is irritating, she has an evil twin sister who’s sometime evil and sometimes just childish, and the dialogue has so many bizarre idioms that I wondered if it had been written by a foreigner (turns out, yes). And unfortunately, the modern story is narrated in first person so we’re treated to Julie’s uneven voice and questionable powers of reason the whole time. Plus her obsession with Romeo and Juliet means she quotes it incessantly and feels mystically doomed because, after all, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, so she’s obviously fated for a tragic end herself! Because we are doomed to repeat history!! (That was not a spoiler: Julie does not end up stabbing herself in a crypt.)
Anyway, the end result is that the 14th century storyline is a gripping homage to Shakespeare, but the modern storyline comes like come across like a Shakespeare-themed Nancy Drew adventure. Even this isn’t entirely bad, though, because instead of Ned Nickerson we get a swarthy Italian policeman with rich relatives.
Another plus is that I learned a lot about Siena, which I’ve never been to and now am dying to visit. Overall, it was a fun summer read. ...more
Two-plus stars. This had promise, but fell a bit flat. While the descriptions of life for Jews in Vienna at the end of the 30's was interesting and unTwo-plus stars. This had promise, but fell a bit flat. While the descriptions of life for Jews in Vienna at the end of the 30's was interesting and understandably moving, once the action moved to England the story lost its fizz. Part of the problem is that I didn’t much like the main character, so the story suffered by being in first person. Plus I don’t like feeling conflicted about being sympathetic to a plight more than to the person suffering the plight. Shouldn't a person's suffering make her more sympathetic?? Not necessarily to me, and I don’t want to bother wondering if this is a character flaw. Regardless, I don’t think the book came across as less cohesive and captivating because of my maybe-flaw – I think the book simply wasn’t as gripping as it could have been. ...more
The problem with Shaw is that I always feel crabbier when I read him. Even Pygmalion, which strikes me as a superior play, makes me slightly irritableThe problem with Shaw is that I always feel crabbier when I read him. Even Pygmalion, which strikes me as a superior play, makes me slightly irritable, and Major Barbara doesn’t have any musical tunes to hum while you’re trudging through Shaw’s dreary I Am So Keenly Critical and Nuanced dialogue. The other problem is that, in my opinion, he’s neither keen nor nuanced. He’s bigoted and cranky, and his weak humor begs an unfavorable comparison to Oscar Wilde, who probably didn’t like this play either. I know – Shaw brings up interesting questions about individual and corporate responsibility toward those who purchase goods, and he explores the question (impossibility) of a utopia. These are good issues, and not easily resolved in or out of the play. But Shaw’s antagonism toward religion and his disgust for human beings in general are so off-putting that I want to toss the book at his feet. Too bad someone didn’t tell him that misanthropy gets tiresome.
In retrospect, possibly what pushed me over the edge wasn’t actually Shaw’s play, but having to listen to self-righteous classmates discuss it. “It’s awful that the Salvation Army hands out bread and soup instead of providing job training!” “Yes, in fact it’s EVIL when you think about it!” No, it’s not. Isn’t it bad enough to have to read about ridiculous characters? Must I also have to listen to ridiculous comments from actual people?? ...more
This breezy page-turner is tinged with a pleasingly mellow shade of Faulkner Lite – not too much eccentricity, not too much sins-of-the-fathers fataliThis breezy page-turner is tinged with a pleasingly mellow shade of Faulkner Lite – not too much eccentricity, not too much sins-of-the-fathers fatalism, and just enough Southern atmosphere to make you reach for a glass of lemonade and be thankful for modern pharmaceuticals. Here's the premise: a young Chicago woman gets an invitation from her college friend, Will, to spend the summer in his family’s ancestral home in Tennessee. She can relax on the porch, eat chicken salad with his great aunts, and maybe start writing the novel she’s been thinking about. Will’s family turns out to be the kind that has framed letters from Thomas Jefferson on the wall and Secrets Nobody Ever Talks About. For the bohemian-raised Ava, who doesn’t know her mother’s real name let alone her genealogy back to Adam, this is as much of a culture shock as dressing for dinner and hearing people’s life story at the gas station.
Fortunately, the book isn’t full of the overly wacky “characters” that often plague Southern fiction. Well, there is a cousin who dresses up like Edgar Allan Poe, but he’s kind of funny. The great aunts are charming, the story moves along nicely, and the occasional flashbacks to 1927 or 1931 make for an intriguing element. This isn’t great literature, but it’s a great summer read. ...more
A university lecturer, hard up for cash, gets a tip that there may have been a SIXTH Cambridge spy whom the British government has kept under wraps foA university lecturer, hard up for cash, gets a tip that there may have been a SIXTH Cambridge spy whom the British government has kept under wraps for years. As he tries to piece together the story, his sources start turning up dead, which he eventually decides must mean that the leftover bigwigs of the KGB also want to keep the sixth spy under wraps. Unfortunately, the hero is not particularly likeable and comes across as naïve – especially considering his specialty is Cold War Russian history – which ruins what otherwise could have been quite a fun thriller. The premise is interesting, though....more
While nothing will help me understand the mania for vampires, at least this book was genuinely creepy...creepy enough that I had to make a classmate wWhile nothing will help me understand the mania for vampires, at least this book was genuinely creepy...creepy enough that I had to make a classmate who always parked nearby walk me to my car and check underneath it to make sure some man in a cape wasn’t clinging to the bottom waiting to grab my ankles or WORSE. The beginning is that scary. Portentous weather, foreboding landscape, cryptic warnings from the natives, freaky castle, freakier inhabitants....it all looks very grim for our hero, a hapless solicitor sent to Transylvania to help a client transition some of his affairs to England. The atmosphere of danger and doom make even the most implausible elements (wolves with glowing eyes! men crawling down castle walls!) completely chilling. For the first few chapters I was too creeped out to walk outside alone at night, hence the forced chivalry.
Then, in what feels like a bait and switch but of course isn't, the narrative shifts and we’re back in England with the hero’s fiancée, Lucy, and her best friend. This should be where things get interesting, as Dracula – the ancient, foreign menace – is now coming to safe & familiar England to search for new victims, and we get to see his powers of seductive corruption in action. However, the story loses some of its zing, and all the doom and dread and “What could this mean?!” I was sucked into in Transylvania seemed faintly ridiculous in the London sections. Alas.
On the plus side, I enjoyed Stoker’s commentary on understanding evil. The company of Englishmen in Dracula is too modern, too complacent with scientific understanding to figure out Lucy’s decline. Only Dr. Van Helsing knows to hearken back to legends, traditions and folklore in order to apprehend the threat. It’s an interesting approach, for Van Helsing does not pit science against faith, or pagan myths against Christianity; rather, he pits modern, rational science against the mythical and supernatural. Van Helsing is not a priest, and although he uses symbols of salvation (a crucifix and communion wafers), the battle he wages is more spiritual than religious, the conflict between good and evil more in the mystical rather than in the orthodox realm.
Dracula is well suited to an age of rapid scientific and technological development, for it speaks to the limitations of man’s purely rational achievements. Plus, it packs a double whammy of gothic horror: Dracula does not merely exert physical control by kidnapping women or locking them in a tower – he also produces spiritual enslavement and damnation, which must be combated by similarly spiritual means. However, the corrupting influence of Dracula is neither immediate nor absolute; Dracula can outmaneuver our band of Englishmen but not defeat them; he’s tricky, not invincible. And, most importantly, he’s subject to the strength of goodness and to the ultimate power of death. *SPOILER ALERT* Significantly, Lucy’s soul is returned to a state of purity when she dies, and even Dracula himself seems released from the evil possessing him when he is defeated. For some reason, this facet has been jettisoned in contemporary vampire stories, in which the vampire main characters are attractive victims of circumstance who try to control their blood lust, against whom neither man nor death has any power, only fellow vampires. In this vision, vampirism is contained – though never defeated – not by religious symbols, but by individual will. Does this mean that there is no possibility of redemption from evil, only management of it? And vampires, with their strength of body or strength of will, are the ultimate power in the world? I find this more disturbing and ridiculous than the original vampire legends.
There are about a million critical essays on the cultural/psychological/religious/sexual issues Dracula brings up, which are interesting, but for me those issues are secondary to the actual novel, which isn’t spectacularly written. Still, it’s worth reading. ...more
Another funny mystery, though not nearly as good as the previous two. This time the murder takes place at the fictional St. Michael’s College, CambridAnother funny mystery, though not nearly as good as the previous two. This time the murder takes place at the fictional St. Michael’s College, Cambridge, where the cash-strapped college is hosting a special weekend for rich alumni. Unfortunately, this time the author often goes for easy jokes, the solution is improbable, and — worst of all — there’s an appallingly written American character who occasionally throws cowboy expressions from TV Westerns into snarky, complexly British-sounding sentences. It's as though the author couldn't make the effort to change her voice but every now and then remembered to sound "Texan," which is weird because she's smart and has lived in both England and the US, so why the gross unevenness? I was also a bit irritated because I kept referring to the map of the college at the front of the book to keep track of who was where, and it didn’t matter, so I felt taken in. Or maybe it did matter but I couldn’t figure out how. Not bad, but not great. Certainly not disappointing enough to give up on this series....more
A Massachusetts whaling ship is anchored off the island of Santa Maria when another ship, looking listless and forlorn, drifts toward the island. WhenA Massachusetts whaling ship is anchored off the island of Santa Maria when another ship, looking listless and forlorn, drifts toward the island. When the captain and a few men head over to investigate, they find Spanish sailors and black slaves desperate for water and supplies. The captain of this hapless lot, Benito Cereno, seems weak, aloof, and entirely unqualified to command a ship. What’s the deal?
Don’t read the back of the book or descriptions of the plot, as knowing anything about the ending will ruin the story. This brief thriller concerns adventure on the high seas, but really it’s Melville’s way of saying that the New World is heading over the same precipice as the Old World. Short, suspenseful, and lots of bang for your buck. I'm not a Melville fan, but this little gem is a masterpiece of narrative manipulation. Haunting. ...more
I don’t know which is stranger – that people like this book, or that it was written in the first place. It came into being because Gretchen Rubin, a wI don’t know which is stranger – that people like this book, or that it was written in the first place. It came into being because Gretchen Rubin, a woman with a bizarrely charmed life, decided to spend a year devoting each month to a “theme” designed to make herself happier and then write a book about it. The whole thing smacks not only of a calculated stunt, but also of the sort of “list” approach she used for her breathtakingly trite book on Churchill. Regardless, any reasonable person would wonder why this woman was worrying about how to be “happier” than she already was with her “soul mate” husband, two healthy children, a family she likes, in-laws* she likes, plenty of free time, and money coming out the wazoo. The obvious question is: “If she wants to be happier, why doesn’t she do more service?” The question you’ll also probably ask, repeatedly, is “What could a smug perfectionist with an easy life possibly teach me?” Honestly, I have no idea, unless it hasn’t already occurred to you to.....are you sitting down?.....stash your crap in file boxes instead of leaving it strewn all over, and stop nagging your husband. Other previously unmined gems of insight: “You can’t change others,” “Exercise makes you feel better,” “Be friendly,” “Do things you like to do,” “Be grateful,” and, my personal favorite, “Money can buy happiness.”
Even better, every ten sentences or so she inserts – not to be confused with “works in” – a quotation that sounds like the first entry in its category from The Big Book of Quotations. Based on the self-congratulatory tone she doesn’t quite have the skill to avoid, I’d guess she’s deeply invested in showing she is Educated, and has Done Research. I think you’re also supposed to surmise she’s really smart, based on the number of references to editing the Yale Law Review or clerking for a Supreme Court Justice. What she never mentions, yet you can also surmise, is the fact that money is no object. Neither is time.
While being rich and leisured doesn’t disqualify her from having wisdom, it does place her situation in context. She’s not struggling to find happiness amidst real trials – illness, poverty, loneliness, relatives who drive you bonkers – she just wants to be “happier.” What’s amazing is that with all her research, she doesn’t come up with anything profound. At best, her paper-thin “insights” are merely summaries of other people’s research. And yet, inexplicably, a couple of women in my book group actually liked it! These women don’t sit around wondering if they’re happy enough – they probably wonder if they’re faithful enough and doing enough good in the world. So what did they find valuable?? A couple of them said that the organization chapter prompted them to clean out closets, which is always good, but there are at least a hundred books on de-cluttering that were written by people who were already aware of file boxes. (I know this because my sister has bought all those books and occasionally gives them away as presents, unless you’re really lucky and she just throws your stuff out without being asked.) So the organization chapter struck me as a bit silly. But not as silly as turning to Nietzsche for tips on happiness. And I think that indicates the biggest flaw – her approach is entirely secular. Joy and fulfillment (a bit deeper and more lasting than “happiness”) come through doing good and, eventually, becoming good. Every now and then she stumbles as if by accident upon versions of the Golden Rule Lite, but, naturally, in her eyes the point of being nice to others is to make herself happier.
*Father-in-law is Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. He later served on Citigroup’s board as Senior Counselor. During his eight years at Citigroup, shareholders suffered losses of more than 70%; Rubin earned over $126 million. ...more
Huh-larious. From the woman who brought us Death and the Cozy Writer comes a new installment of murder among spectacularly absurd people. This time thHuh-larious. From the woman who brought us Death and the Cozy Writer comes a new installment of murder among spectacularly absurd people. This time they’re an assortment of mystery writers at a conference at some Scottish castle. Most of them have a motive for killing the star of the conference, a hack arriviste whose books are obviously inferior and yet, inexplicably, sell better. (The cow probably didn’t even write them herself!) To add insult to injury, she is also a blond knockout who’s about to make off with someone’s husband, or maybe she already did – I can’t remember many details, including who the murderer was, because the mystery is secondary to the amusement. I think the solution somehow hinges on the castle’s floor plan, so pay attention to the map in the front. I always skip that sort of thing because I have no sense of spacial relations. Perfect for wiling away a couple of hours....more
If this weren’t a true story, no one would buy it as fiction. The book opens in the spring of 1943, as Norway is suffering under Nazi occupation. FourIf this weren’t a true story, no one would buy it as fiction. The book opens in the spring of 1943, as Norway is suffering under Nazi occupation. Four ex-pat Norwegian commandos are heading to the coast with the intent of recruiting and training saboteurs – their ultimate goal is a German airbase, as the Allies desperately need a sea route to Russia. The mission is compromised, and young Jan Baalsrud is left on a tiny, snowy island in the Arctic Circle, drenched, shot, bleeding, unarmed, with only one shoe and a team of Nazis a couple hundred yards behind. How could anyone survive? The cold alone is enough to kill most of us off, not to mention the fright. What follows – frostbite, snow blindness, avalanches, treachery, heroism, starvation, and, always, miles and miles of Arctic snow – kept my mouth hanging open most of time. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Almost as astonishing as Jan’s story is the will of the people who help him, the danger they faced knowing what would happen to their families if they were found out. I have to admit I never think of Norway unless I’m watching the winter Olympics, and certainly I never think of it in the context of World War II, yet the Norwegians’ love of their country in all its frozen, inhospitable glory, and their will to fight the occupation are truly inspiring. Howarth’s prose is a bit bland, but perhaps that was intentional, as the story is breathtaking enough....more
The arrogant musings of a left-wing social philosopher who essentially divides people into three categories: dumb bunnies, common-sensers, and people The arrogant musings of a left-wing social philosopher who essentially divides people into three categories: dumb bunnies, common-sensers, and people who have the deep insight to agree with him. The only take-home message worth taking home was that philosophy is not as effective a vehicle for ideas as literature, which I knew beforehand. ...more
Loading...
