I'm confused. I know I said earlier that my blog posts would probably decrease, but then it increased again. But today, I read this article on how quality, not consistency is what is important, which has me seriously reconsidering how often should I write. The problem is that I want people to be aware of the books I read, and to read/avoid them (basically, I'm sharing), but sometimes, I don't have much to say about the book. So... what should I do? I don't want to make this into an emo-portlet, where you have to suffer through my life-story before seeing a book review. As always, I'm indecisive so this will probably end on the back burner.
To go back to point, Singapore just celebrated it's 46th birthday *shoutandflourish*. As per tradition, I borrowed some Classic Russian books to read on National Day. I'm not sure why, but when my aunt started booking a hotel room every year to watch the parade, it somehow became a habit to read a Russian writer that day. I believe that first year, I read Anna Karenina and fell in love with Tolstoy's writing. Apart from last year, where I was in China, I've been able to do the same. This year, I read two books: Notes from the Underground and The Double by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Ressurection by Leo Tolstoy.
I'm not sure why I persist in reading Dostoyevsky, because every time I read him, I never fully understand the book. Somehow, I get lost reading him. This collection (of two) is the same. I did understand Notes from the Underground more, which had a really interesting premise, but that may have been because I read that first. Notes from the Underground has for a protagonist this guy that appears thoroughly unlikeable. Sometimes like how I feel, so I suppose since I can relate...
On the other hand, The Double was a little more complicated. I understood the premise, but after that, I got very confused. It took a lot for me to finish the book, and I did it with a feeling of confusion. I completely didn't understand what happen. I did read the this is his juvenalia, which may explain why it's a little harder to understand than the others.
Ressurection, which is Tolstoy's last great novel, was quite different from his others in that it focused quite a lot on the 'lower classes'. It's actually so long, the end of the book has chapter summaries, where they summarise each chapter with a sentence so that you can understand the novel in it's entirety.
The story is quite simple, a noble man tries to find redemption by 'saving' a woman that he previously disgraced. During it's course, you can see Tolstoy's thoughts on serfdom and such. The ending, is a little, disappointing. I didn't expect what happened (romance-wise that is). But I wouldn't skip reading the book just because of this.
So, if you feel like reading something 'meaty' read Tolstoy! His writing, to me, is clear and very readable. (But start with Anna Karenina).
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Twelth Imam by Joel C Rosenberg
I've been writing reviews of Joel Rosenberg's books on IntoTheBook, but I think they've had enough of my reviews of him. Well, Aunty Evonne has lent me his latest book: The Twelth Imam, which is different from his 'Political Thriller' series, as it focuses more on Iran and it's nuclear programme. Unlike the other books, this book also provides a rather comprehensive alternative viewpoint (i.e. he also writes from the viewpoints of the Muslims).
The book is suspenseful, because none of the characters start of as God-fearing. It's an interesting way of writing, because his past series started off with at least a few Christian characters. Well, I could probably continue praising the book, but that would probably result in a spoiler. So, I think I'd just talk about two points that I didn't like, but I figure will be pretty controversial.
The first thing, was that the book had a very obvious political agenda. I don't mind the 'Christian Agenda' as some of the critics on Amazon.com have pointed out, because I find it pretty well done. Furthermore, if you have read his other book, you can see that he is a staunch Christian, which is really cool, because it is another avenue to introduce the Gospel. But what I don't like, is this polarising of the two parties in America. In his last series, I could see it's necessity, because it's essentially a political thriller. But this book, which focuses more on espionage, seemed unnecessary for two reasons. One, it's quite a big overgeneralisation to say that all Christians are Republicans and vice versa. Two, it's confusing to those reader's outside the US. I've been following US politics as much as I can, and I still don't understand the difference between the two parties, or why they can't seem to compromise. I really don't think someone who has not even bothered with politics can understand. Since it doesn't seem to add anything to the book, I don't think it should be inside (perhaps someone like Ernest Hemingway said something similar).
The second thing was, somewhat similar, this idea that America is the only one who can make a difference. Again, I see it's necessity in the first book, and in real life, but this book seemed to be about one man's operating in Iran. In fact, the CIA (which I assume represents the American Government), is shown as inept and not listening to his opinions. In that case, why must blanket statements about how America is the only one who can stop Iran appear? I feel that it contradicts, and even diminishes the message of how it's Christ and Christians that will change the world.
All that being said, this is still an excellent book. I was genuinely caught up in the events, which are very well-depicted, and learnt about Shia Eschatology at the same time. I really can't wait for the sequel to come out(:
The book is suspenseful, because none of the characters start of as God-fearing. It's an interesting way of writing, because his past series started off with at least a few Christian characters. Well, I could probably continue praising the book, but that would probably result in a spoiler. So, I think I'd just talk about two points that I didn't like, but I figure will be pretty controversial.
The first thing, was that the book had a very obvious political agenda. I don't mind the 'Christian Agenda' as some of the critics on Amazon.com have pointed out, because I find it pretty well done. Furthermore, if you have read his other book, you can see that he is a staunch Christian, which is really cool, because it is another avenue to introduce the Gospel. But what I don't like, is this polarising of the two parties in America. In his last series, I could see it's necessity, because it's essentially a political thriller. But this book, which focuses more on espionage, seemed unnecessary for two reasons. One, it's quite a big overgeneralisation to say that all Christians are Republicans and vice versa. Two, it's confusing to those reader's outside the US. I've been following US politics as much as I can, and I still don't understand the difference between the two parties, or why they can't seem to compromise. I really don't think someone who has not even bothered with politics can understand. Since it doesn't seem to add anything to the book, I don't think it should be inside (perhaps someone like Ernest Hemingway said something similar).
The second thing was, somewhat similar, this idea that America is the only one who can make a difference. Again, I see it's necessity in the first book, and in real life, but this book seemed to be about one man's operating in Iran. In fact, the CIA (which I assume represents the American Government), is shown as inept and not listening to his opinions. In that case, why must blanket statements about how America is the only one who can stop Iran appear? I feel that it contradicts, and even diminishes the message of how it's Christ and Christians that will change the world.
All that being said, this is still an excellent book. I was genuinely caught up in the events, which are very well-depicted, and learnt about Shia Eschatology at the same time. I really can't wait for the sequel to come out(:
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Without Mercy by Lisa Jackson
At first, Without Mercy reminded me of Alex Rider's Point Blanc. That's mostly due to the blurb, which talks about a elite school for troubled kids. But it's not. And I have to say, I'm not very impressed with the Lisa Jackson books right now.
It feels as though she's pushing an agenda: She doesn't seem to have a good view of Christianity. Well, if you think so, ok. But why spoil a book with it? It's alienating a lot of readers, not just Christians. To make matters worse, Christianity had no bearing whatsoever on the plot.
And believe me when I say, the only redeeming feature of the book is it's plot. Mong read a section of the book and started laughing, due to the way it's written. And I have to admit, it's not very good. It reads like how I would write, and I'm a terrible writer :/ For instance, I have no ounce of poetry in me (It took very long, but I finally learnt how to appreciate poetry, although I still cannot understand Wole Soyinka). Which means unlike other writers, who can make their prose sound like poetry, I cannot do anything like that. Boring isn't it?
Like I said, the plot redeems the book. The premise of the book is interesting, and the plot is rather well-developed. I thought the characters were fairly well developed, except for one main character. The sudden (and I felt, unnecessary) plot twist made the characterisation painfully shallow, because unlike Emma, when I flipped through the book a second time, I could see no hints of what is to come.
Honestly, you should only read this book if you're very bored. The themes in the book aren't very good, and the writing is only average.
It feels as though she's pushing an agenda: She doesn't seem to have a good view of Christianity. Well, if you think so, ok. But why spoil a book with it? It's alienating a lot of readers, not just Christians. To make matters worse, Christianity had no bearing whatsoever on the plot.
And believe me when I say, the only redeeming feature of the book is it's plot. Mong read a section of the book and started laughing, due to the way it's written. And I have to admit, it's not very good. It reads like how I would write, and I'm a terrible writer :/ For instance, I have no ounce of poetry in me (It took very long, but I finally learnt how to appreciate poetry, although I still cannot understand Wole Soyinka). Which means unlike other writers, who can make their prose sound like poetry, I cannot do anything like that. Boring isn't it?
Like I said, the plot redeems the book. The premise of the book is interesting, and the plot is rather well-developed. I thought the characters were fairly well developed, except for one main character. The sudden (and I felt, unnecessary) plot twist made the characterisation painfully shallow, because unlike Emma, when I flipped through the book a second time, I could see no hints of what is to come.
Honestly, you should only read this book if you're very bored. The themes in the book aren't very good, and the writing is only average.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Keepsake by Tess Gerritsen
After I read The Silent Girl by Tess Gerritsen, I went to the library to borrow one of her books. In one of life's many coincidences, the next Tess Gerritsen book Aunty Florence wanted to lend me was The Keepsake, which happened to be the one I borrowed. It reminded me of how God works, that he's underneath sustaining things/letting the earth keep on going, and every now and then, you see his power in miraculous ways (this is a bad paraphrase of G. K. Chesterton)
But anyway, The Keepsake has an interesting premise. Someone has been leaving preserved women, starting from a 'mummy' found to be a recently killed body. And everything seems to revolve around the Crispin museum, specifically, a young archeology student named 'Josephine'. But as the story progresses, her identity is called into question.
I was glad to see the coroner Maura Isle feature more prominently in the book. However, detective Jane is still the main character. I don't really know why, but I find her rather irritating. But I do like the other characters, which is why I'll continue reading the series.
To me, this is one of the few good murder series around. It's very rare to find a modern author who does not use explicit material or copious use of profanities. Futhermore, the books are well-written and doesn't feel cliched at all (despite the fact that -spoiler alert- it is about a stalker-obsession book).
But anyway, The Keepsake has an interesting premise. Someone has been leaving preserved women, starting from a 'mummy' found to be a recently killed body. And everything seems to revolve around the Crispin museum, specifically, a young archeology student named 'Josephine'. But as the story progresses, her identity is called into question.
I was glad to see the coroner Maura Isle feature more prominently in the book. However, detective Jane is still the main character. I don't really know why, but I find her rather irritating. But I do like the other characters, which is why I'll continue reading the series.
To me, this is one of the few good murder series around. It's very rare to find a modern author who does not use explicit material or copious use of profanities. Futhermore, the books are well-written and doesn't feel cliched at all (despite the fact that -spoiler alert- it is about a stalker-obsession book).
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)