skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Title: Good Omens, The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch
Author: Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett
Publication date: 1990
Book's setting: Present Day (ish)
Random facts: I bought Good Omens on the day that the rapture was supposedly going to happen. Looking back that is ironic.
Plot summary: I have never had such a hard time articulating a review before. It's all sentence fragments and exclamation points. But I'm trying, I really am. Here we go? Crowley is a demon and Azirphale is an angel. They have been left on earth to prepare for the Apocalypse and in the meantime have become friends and rather fond of humanity. Adam is the Antichrist, a young boy destined to be the destroyer of earth. Anathema is the descendant of Agnes Nutter, a medieval witch who wrote a book of prophecies on the end of the world. Newt is the descendant of the witch hunter who burned Agnes. Death, Famine, War, and Pollution are the four Horsemen who are preparing the world for destruction. Good Omens is the story of the end of the world, and how all the above characters manage to bring about (or attempt to resist) the Apocalypse.
Favorite aspects: The pacing and the scene changes were cinematic and hilarious and wonderfully planned. The climax of the book was so fast-paced and insane that it stopped feeling like reading and felt more like inhaling. Basically I liked everything about this book. I liked Newt and Anathema's predicted, plotted, totally unromantic relationship. I adored Crowley and Aziraphale, whose bromances negates all other bromances in the history of literature. I laughed out loud at the secondary motorcycle gang from Hell. (Most of the time I couldn't tell, but that bit had "Gaiman was here" all over it.) I liked all the crazy pop culture references that no one will understand in 200 years. I loved how it was brimming with HISTORY. I appreciated how sometimes I almost started taking it seriously, and then had to pull back and remember I was only reading. I guess most of all, I liked how it wasn't anything like reading a book. It was a multi-media cultural event. Or something.
Least favorite aspects: Where is the sequel? Can there at least be an appendix? Or a collection of short stories? Come on guys!
Other works it reminded me of: Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy; Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams; but also a little bit of everything?
Sadie's merciless breakdown: I read the first 50 pages of Good Omens very carefully in bed the night I bought it. (I went out of my way to buy it. I'd never read it before and I don't do that often, but I wanted to read it and the library didn't have it so I called up Barnes and Nobles and they put a copy aside for me and I bought it. $18 for a paperback. Shame.) Then I realized I was about 1/7 done with the funniest book I'd ever read, so I stopped.
I read the next substantial part while sitting in Coraddo on 70th street after a Lady Gaga concert. I shouldn't be allowed to read in public. There was a gay couple and their friend sitting at the table with me (it was crowded) and whenever I hit a really smashing sentence I was tempted to tell them about it. I didn't of course. I kept reading on the subway. All the way from 70th to the Junction. Then I had to stop because I had to go to work.
I got home from work at 6:30pm. Instead of reading more I watched tv with my sick sister. I woke up the next day with the flu. The next five days were spent too delirious to read. I finished the book on a Wednesday. It was 86 degrees out and felt like it could very well be the end of the world. I sat outside of my apartment building and decided it probably was. (Remember, I still have the flu.)
When I finally finished it I decided it was probably one of the best things I'd ever read. Still think so.
In light of Good Omens I could never write anything witty about it. Every possible witty thing was put into the novel. So instead I gave you my pathetic reading experience. (Well, going to a Lady Gaga concert is far from pathetic. However Coraddo's overpriced coffee is.)
Recommendation rate: Just read it. Even if you have to spend $18 on a paperback and $4.50 on the subway fare to get you to the bookstore.
Title: Redeeming Love
Author: Francine Rivers
Publication date: 1991
Book's setting: 1850
Random facts: One of my best friends recommended it to me and I have this policy in which I must read every single book my friends love.
Plot summary: Redeeming Love is a vibrant interpretation of the Book of Hosea. Set in the 1850's the novel follows the life of Angel, a bastard child sold into prostitution after her mother's dead. When California farmer Micheal Hosea feels led by the Holy Spirit to marry Angel and save her from a life of prostitution, she doesn't come willingly. Redeeming Love is a novel about sacrificial love, salvation, and following God, no matter what he asks of you. Although Angel's journey toward salvation is the core of the novel, a host of compelling minor characters weave their way in and out of the story, impacting Angel's life in unexpected ways.
Favorite aspects: The first thing I liked (which is sort of small) was how well-researched it was. Sometimes books like this are thrown together and don't feel truthful, but Rivers obviously poured a lot of time into it, and it showed. I really love the time period it was set in and Rivers captured it in all its vibrant glory. Something about the prairie. I love it. The second thing I liked (much bigger) was Angel. She was one of the most developed characters I've read in a long time. She was spectacularly plotted and really well developed and not one point in her story line seemed false. She must have been incredibly hard to write but I was drawn to her and sympathized with her throughout the entire novel. It's not often that I meet someone like her in a novel. I'm not going to forget her.
Least favorite aspects: The more I read the more sensitive I become to writing. Obviously not everyone can be Marilynne Robinson- I get that. But this book was too good for it's writing. I'm not going so far as to say Rivers is a "bad" author, but I don't think her skill matched the task at hand. Redeeming Love had no literary beauty or style. It was just a plot being conveyed sensibly. It lacked the flavor and emotional high that moving literature has. Usually I'm not picky about writing if the plot is strong... but religious fiction demands more grace in the writing.
Other works it reminded me of: Not My Will by Francena Arnold; Rodzina by Karen Cushman.
Sadie's merciless break-down: Needless to say, this was a strange follow-up to Atonement. I am a Christian. Basically what that means is that I see grace, redemption, atonement, and unconditional love everywhere. I see it in Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean of all places! I can find grace in anything. If you're not religious and you don't see it it's simply because you don't know where to look.
Okay. So. I think that Redeeming Love was heavy-handed. They say show don't tell, right? Number one rule of writing. Rivers broke it. I'm not sure what tipped the scale but the heavy narration bogged down the spiritual awakening. I feel awful saying this. It was a good novel, all things considered. The story arch was consistent and the characters were round and the themes were important. It was good enough that I finished it... but something was missing. Or rather something was over-exposed until it stopped feeling precious. Does this make sense? Am I being way too hard? Should I have waited longer in order to digest McEwan's delicate prose before plunged into Redeeming Love? I don't know. It just didn't move me like I thought it would.
ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE. I almost wrote this book a couple of times. (Without the sex and the religion.) It was going to be called Apple of the Prairie. It was going to be awesome. I never got further than the first chapter. I am seriously considering revisiting that idea.
Recommendation rate: If you really like Christian lit then give it a go, you may love it. If you're not one for religious fiction then just pass on it.
Title: Atonement
Author: Ian McEwan
Publication date: 2001
Book's setting: 1935-1940
Random facts: My sister bought me a used copy for my birthday. On the inside she inscribed it for me. She says that the book has a lot of voting in it so I'll like it.
Plot summary: "I love you. I'll wait for you. Come back." In the summer of 1935 England is on the brink of war. 13-year-old Briony intercepts an inappropriate note from the son of a family servant to her older sister Cecilia. Too young to understand the complex relationship between the two, Briony's overactive imagination black-lists Robbie as a maniac, a man not to be trusted. That same evening Briony's 15-year-old Lola is raped by a unidentified man who Briony assumes is Robbie. The assumption evolves into fact in the young girl's mind as she is questioned by the police and eventually as a witness on trial. Robbie and Cecilia, torn apart by a crime he didn't commit, vow to stay true to each other, but prison and the impending World War II keeps pushing them apart. Can Briony ever face up to her guilt and could Robbie and her sister even forgive her? Atonement is a complex, emotional, and epic novel. It's written from several points of view, giving it depth and holding your interest, with a clutching ending that the reader will never expect.
Favorite aspects: The characters were perfect. I couldn't dislike them. They were flawed obviously, deeply flawed. And yet I rooted for each one the entire way though. Briony was a little beast who did her penance and never had the forgiveness she sought. But she was practically a baby when she did it. Robbie was moronic for sending that note, for even writing out what he did. But I've done similar things. How can you judge him for it? Cecilia should have talked to Briony right away. She probably also should not have had sex in a library. But despite her incredibly ability to hate Briony, she is an amazing Penelope and I admire her for it. And of course, the writing was flawless. Not only did McEwan seriously research his time period, he also researched his writing. It was written as if it had been written 50 years before its publication date. It tasted like Fitzgerald and Waugh and Wharton. It was beautiful.
Least favorite aspects: Oh good grief. Am I actually expected to say something negative? Okay, I'll try my very best. Lola. I wanted more of Lola. Did she know? What was her prerogative, marrying Marshall? When did Briony figure out it was him? These are questions I would liked answered but it's not like the book was missing Lola's story. Robbie's and Cee's was quite emotional by itself, thankyouverymuch.
Other works it reminded me of: Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh; Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh; Summer by Edith Wharton; Tender is the Night by F Scott Fitzgerald; All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque.
Sadie's merciless break-down: THIS BOOK THIS BOOK THIS BOOK. *breathes*
I haven't been this emotionally moved by something since The House of Mirth. While reading it I would just get so overrun with EMOTIONS that I literally had to hide the book and go get a drink or something. Words are oddly powerful like that. I've never had to pause a movie to have a good cry. Atonement left me with my heart on my sleeve.
And yet... Despite the fact that this was a DEPRESSING novel, it was also full of grace and forgiveness and hope. Hence the title, I suppose. It was an oddly religious for a novel that, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't so much as mention God. It was cathartic. Briony's atonement didn't just immortalize Robbie and Cee, but it felt to me like Atonement immortalized an entire generation of love stories cut short by the war. In a way the novel had two villains- Briony's crime and the war. So I guess you could say that the villain was unavoidable circumstance. Hardships and sorrow getting in the way of love and what to do about it. Briony never gets to ask forgiveness and she is unable to save Robbie and Cecilia from what she did to them. They never get to be together. But they are immortalized together in the novel, which in a weird way, like Briony says in the end notes, makes it okay.
While reading Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society I found myself filled with rage because of what happened to Christian and Elizabeth. I felt the same rage while reading Atonement. I know a lot of people hated Briony... and I guess there is reason to do so. But this novel is about, well, atonement. And you're not supposed to hate her. None of the main three characters acted in anyway to make them deserve the lives they had. They were just eaten up by the war. I think the war is the villain in this book. Or rather, war and everything else powerless about life. Living is the villain. Just by existing you end up hurting people and often it's completely out of your hands. I'm sure (actually I know) a lot of people might disagree, and it's easy to blame Briony for everything, but I think that goes against the entire point of the novel.
Atonement filled me with a weird sort of peace. I guess everyone will read it a different way but I found it to be a blessing. The note at the end made it an even better book, I read a lot of reviews who said they disliked it. It's almost more remarkable if she never lost her guilt and if Robbie and Cee were never able to forgive. Somehow, it was full of light and peace regardless.
Basically Atonement fills me with feeling. Feeling I could rant about for hours if you let me. It was visual and held amazing characters and incredibly motifs and it played with words in such a powerful way. I think I need to read it again before I can really wrap my mind around how moving it actually was.
Recommendation rate: If you're over 16 and you value good literature then put it on your list. JUST READ IT BECAUSE IT MAY CHANGE YOUR LIIFFFEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Goodness, you should see me now, I'm so hyper. I should not be allowed to type when I am hyper.
Title: Man and his Symbols
Author: Carl Jung
Publication date: 1964
Book's setting: Nonfiction psychological text sooo, you know
Random facts: So they are making a movie about Jung and Freud and it's gonna have Keria and Fassbender so basically I'm going to watch it no matter how historically incorrect it is.
Plot summary: Man and his Symbols is a collection of essays by Carl Jung and his followers that explore the subconscious mind and meaning behind dreams. It was written as an introduction to his school of though, and was meant for a general audience as opposed to psych students. Because of this it's a surprisingly easy read.
Favorite aspects: The dream descriptions were my favorite parts. I basically feel ripped off. Where are my deep and meaningful dreams, wrought with symbolism?? I dream about sexy men and getting lost in my kitchen and awesome bookstores. Make what you will of that, Jung. I dare you. Anyway. I really looked at Man and his Symbols as over-blown literary analysis with a bit of anthropology tossed in for good measure. Don't be scared because it's Jung. It was a fascinating and incredibly understandable read. It really helped me be a better reader... Jung was obsessed with universal symbols like the Old Woman. It definetly helped me see fairy tales in a new light, and all fiction in general. Actually I think it might make me a better writer. If you consider yourself an author or even just write stuff for the heck of it then I think you should read Man and his Symbols.
Least favorite aspects: The edition I have is terrible, although it seems to be the only edition in print. The type was set so tiny I had to decode it! Someone, reprint this book in Helvetica or Garamond! It deserves it! I can't fault anything Jung or his followers say because they basically invented this way of looking at the world. It's not a perfect philosophy to say the least, but it is beautiful and thought-provoking and I appreciated it greatly.
Other works it reminded me of: I have never read a psych text before... so...
Sadie's merciless break-down: I haven't been reading much. I'm watching way too much tv (although Chuck and Fringe are done now) and when I am reading I've been on an old favorites kick. Sometimes you need a little Hilary McKay or Robin McKinley in your life. Very slowly during the last two weeks I've been picking my way through Jung. I was impressed. It was very crazy and had very limited science and probably should not be called psychology at all. But then again Jung was basically one of the founders of psych so we can excuse him for that because proper psychology did not exist when he wrote it.
You know what? Jung seems like a legit nice guy. I think I have a crush on him. (Except I am not allowed to because my sister does and she says I always steal her imaginary lovers. Except for Finn Hudson. I don't want him.) He was very gracious about religion and very respectful of it. Although he never said he himself was invested in any religion he admitted how important it was in society and how much the world depended on it and how greatly it impacted human thought and the universal symbols derived from it. I greatly appreciated that. He was the anti-Freud in that matter. Thanks, Jung. You and me baby, let's go interpret some dreams.
Recommendation rate: If you are interested in basic psych ideas or literary analysis or dream interpretation or fairy-tales then you need to read it.
Title: Siste Viator
Author: Sarah Manguso
Publication date: 2006
Book's setting: Written through the 90's and early 00's.
Random facts: Siste Viator means "stop traveler."
Plot summary: A volume of poetry, therefore plotless.
Favorite aspects: I don't usually read poetry. I find it often too abstract and I have a hard time grasping the bigger picture within the fragmented lines of fragmented phrases. But Manguso's poems were full of stories and vibrancy and relatable emotion. They weren't distant or abstract at all. I guess what made it even better is that I knew about Manguso's like prior to reading her poetry. Her memoir (reviewed a few months ago) gave me the basis to really appreciate the struggles she portrayed in her poetry. Of course they would have been beautiful regardless, but her thoughts and feelings were familiar, because I already knew her.
Least favorite aspects: I guess nothing? I should read more poetry.
Other works it reminded me of: The Two Kinds of Decay by Sarah Manguso.
Sadie's merciless break-down: So I don't usually read poems. Kate sometimes throws one in my face and tells me to read it, and of course I read countless anthologies as a kid... but I'm not usually a poetry person. But this volume was completely magical and heart-breaking and inspirational because Manguso's like was all those things. Instead of ranting a rant and using meaningless large words to try and portray the beauty, here is a sample of her poetry from Siste Viator.There is No Such Thing as Skill
There is only facility and retribution
The day I woke up giggling was the day I gave up controlling my perversion.
That was one bad dream.
Why is the heart broken, and not squashed, or flattened, or wrung out?
Would you wring out an icicle?
I give up writing about twice a day, just to keep things fresh.
I write myself a citation every time I break the rule and start writing again.
Sometimes I write a citation just so I can write a citation.
Recommendation rate: If this volume of poetry was a movie it would be rated R. Even so I think you need to get your hands on it.
