Tuesday, August 26, 2008
PLEASE!
The BBBC cannot die! I am begging you to pick a garbage book to read as a lovely de-stress. Please!?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Alchemist
Well I didn't bounce off of the Alchemist, but it was a close thing. I found it to be boring, and trite. Too much for me. Overall though, I was struck - again and again - by the innate selfishness of this so-called Personal Legend business. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do, sometimes things don't go your way, and sometimes (most times), you don't get what you want, or need.
Maybe it's that it was so simplistic, but I don't think that was the only thing. I didn't agree with the message, but that wasn't it entirely either. I will say that the only reason I didn't put it down was that I felt it was required reading. It's kind of killed my drive to pick up another book though. The next one will have to be a fun, light and fluffy one though. That's for sure.
Maybe it's that it was so simplistic, but I don't think that was the only thing. I didn't agree with the message, but that wasn't it entirely either. I will say that the only reason I didn't put it down was that I felt it was required reading. It's kind of killed my drive to pick up another book though. The next one will have to be a fun, light and fluffy one though. That's for sure.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A Thousand Splendid Suns...
Anyone read this or The Kite Runner? I have read both and am quite happy. Kite runner was last year but the other was today. We can discuss?
Monday, June 16, 2008
My Take...
Well, unlike Tal, I didn't hate this book. I rather enjoyed it but it has gone into my stack of books to give away as I can't see myself doing a re-read. I find Africa a fascinating place but this family didn't really make me fall in love with them.
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
God, what a miserable bastard. Nathan Price was a hard character to like. For a mysogynist like him to have four daughters was quite fitting somehow. Learning a tidbit about his experiences with the Bataan Death march almost helps one understand his asshole status, but not entirely. I hated him and once it became clear a character would die, I had so hoped he'd be the one. His arrogance and ignorance really became grating over the course of the book.
What differences and similarities are there among Nathan Price's relationship with his family, Tata Ndu's relationship with his people, and the relationship of the Belgian and American authorities with the Congo?
All draw the parallel to a "Father Knows Best" mentality. Paternalism and the concept of Big Brother looking out for you were quite clear.
Are the novel's political details--both imagined and historical--appropriate?
Most certainly the political atmosphere of the time played a large role in the story.
How does Kingsolver differentiate among the Price sisters, particularly in terms of their voices? What does each sister reveal about herself and the other three, their relationships, their mother and father, and their lives in Africa? What is the effect of our learning about events and people through the sisters' eyes?
She creates them individually rather well. I felt like, while they did seem a bit overdone, I could make a clear picture of each sister in my mind. This method of telling the story made it much more enjoyable.
Sorry, in a hurry as usual, but very glad to see the BBBBC isn't dead! What is next?
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
God, what a miserable bastard. Nathan Price was a hard character to like. For a mysogynist like him to have four daughters was quite fitting somehow. Learning a tidbit about his experiences with the Bataan Death march almost helps one understand his asshole status, but not entirely. I hated him and once it became clear a character would die, I had so hoped he'd be the one. His arrogance and ignorance really became grating over the course of the book.
What differences and similarities are there among Nathan Price's relationship with his family, Tata Ndu's relationship with his people, and the relationship of the Belgian and American authorities with the Congo?
All draw the parallel to a "Father Knows Best" mentality. Paternalism and the concept of Big Brother looking out for you were quite clear.
Are the novel's political details--both imagined and historical--appropriate?
Most certainly the political atmosphere of the time played a large role in the story.
How does Kingsolver differentiate among the Price sisters, particularly in terms of their voices? What does each sister reveal about herself and the other three, their relationships, their mother and father, and their lives in Africa? What is the effect of our learning about events and people through the sisters' eyes?
She creates them individually rather well. I felt like, while they did seem a bit overdone, I could make a clear picture of each sister in my mind. This method of telling the story made it much more enjoyable.
Sorry, in a hurry as usual, but very glad to see the BBBBC isn't dead! What is next?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Poisonwood Bible
Well first I have to admit that I didn't like this book. I would have stopped reading it if it hadn't been "required." I never once felt attached to these characters, or their surroundings. A lot of this had to do with the early foreshadowing that Kingsolver felt she needed to inlclude - but why on earth would I get attached to characters I barely liked in the first place when I knew that one of them would die? Also, I'm all for learning lessons and gaining a little wisdom from books, but man, this one was depressing! It made me sad, and it made me angry...but it never engaged me. All that being said, I pared down the questions for this book, because I didn't feel like answering the others (if I'm being honest). I get the questions from this website, so feel free to pick and choose as you see fit.
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
God, what a miserable bastard. With my reading in middle school consisting of a large percentage of VC Andrews books, I'd say that I've seen my share of miserable bastard fathers, but shit! His family were nuisances to him; things to dominate, and alternately ignore or punish. I liked having the perspective of Orleanna into his young personality before the war, but even then you could see glimmers of his perceptions of superiority and domination over women. I didn't grieve for the man he could have been because he only became more of what could always have been after the war. He was crippled by his guilt and shame and spent the rest of his life making sure that everyone around him knew that it was them that was at fault and not him. Besides, the pictures his children paint of him do give you enough information to form an explanation of his beliefs and behaviour - it's just not a nice one. Man was weak and selfish. Man was cruel. Man was blind. The voice of his wife talks more of her life and way it was shaped by him, as opposed to ever being directly about him - but still, shows us the kind of person Nathan Price was. A man's life is shaped by his actions, and never once was an action of Reverand Price's meant to do anything but prove to others his faith, his importance, and his missions.
What differences and similarities are there among Nathan Price's relationship with his family, Tata Ndu's relationship with his people, and the relationship of the Belgian and American authorities with the Congo?
Oh the novel reeked of paternalism, didn't it? It made me kind of sick to think of it all. I mean we all know that paternalism is rooted in "good faith" and once truly meant caring for those not able to care for themselves - but when you apply it to a family, a village, a country, an entire continent, well it kind of falls apart, doesn't it? The fact of the matter is that unless you allow people - any people - to make mistakes, to learn to care for themselves, they never, ever will be able to do so. Orleanna's shock that the Belgian government would not transition to a democratic Congo was echoed by what it going on right now in the middle east, and still to this day in Africa. But again, it smacks of paternalism. If the Congolese had been able to try for more than 51 days at a democratic politik, maybe things would have turned out differently. Maybe not, maybe they would have sunk themselves into dictatorship, but who can say now? It's the curse of Africa that those nations wealthy in resources will always, always be the subject of domination by the greedy and powerful nations of the First World. It may not be military in nature as it once was, but tell the International Monetary Fund does any different. Tell me that the American government doesn't still fund and supply one monster over another for power. What kills me inside is the fact that the resource-poor nations - like Rwanda, like Darfur - mean less than nothing in the eyes of the powerful because of their basic inability to matter in any other terms than wealth.
Are the novel's political details--both imagined and historical--appropriate?
They sound pretty accurate to me, but I'm not intimately familiar with the 60s in any case. Wikipedia says mostly so, although it seems the girls may not have been privy to the political machinations at the time.
How does Kingsolver differentiate among the Price sisters, particularly in terms of their voices? What does each sister reveal about herself and the other three, their relationships, their mother and father, and their lives in Africa? What is the effect of our learning about events and people through the sisters' eyes?
I liked the different perspectives the girls gave to the story. It allowed me to paint a picture of one event from several different angles, which made me feel like I could determine what really happened during any given event. I didn't love that none of the girls ever strayed from the voice that Kingsolver ave them though. Fine, make Rachel the materialistic, selfish teenager; make Leah the tireless supporter of justice and equality - but I felt like they were trapped by their perspectives. I just don't think it's possible for four people to be so staunch in their viewpoints so as to never deviate, never consider another option.
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter?
God, what a miserable bastard. With my reading in middle school consisting of a large percentage of VC Andrews books, I'd say that I've seen my share of miserable bastard fathers, but shit! His family were nuisances to him; things to dominate, and alternately ignore or punish. I liked having the perspective of Orleanna into his young personality before the war, but even then you could see glimmers of his perceptions of superiority and domination over women. I didn't grieve for the man he could have been because he only became more of what could always have been after the war. He was crippled by his guilt and shame and spent the rest of his life making sure that everyone around him knew that it was them that was at fault and not him. Besides, the pictures his children paint of him do give you enough information to form an explanation of his beliefs and behaviour - it's just not a nice one. Man was weak and selfish. Man was cruel. Man was blind. The voice of his wife talks more of her life and way it was shaped by him, as opposed to ever being directly about him - but still, shows us the kind of person Nathan Price was. A man's life is shaped by his actions, and never once was an action of Reverand Price's meant to do anything but prove to others his faith, his importance, and his missions.
What differences and similarities are there among Nathan Price's relationship with his family, Tata Ndu's relationship with his people, and the relationship of the Belgian and American authorities with the Congo?
Oh the novel reeked of paternalism, didn't it? It made me kind of sick to think of it all. I mean we all know that paternalism is rooted in "good faith" and once truly meant caring for those not able to care for themselves - but when you apply it to a family, a village, a country, an entire continent, well it kind of falls apart, doesn't it? The fact of the matter is that unless you allow people - any people - to make mistakes, to learn to care for themselves, they never, ever will be able to do so. Orleanna's shock that the Belgian government would not transition to a democratic Congo was echoed by what it going on right now in the middle east, and still to this day in Africa. But again, it smacks of paternalism. If the Congolese had been able to try for more than 51 days at a democratic politik, maybe things would have turned out differently. Maybe not, maybe they would have sunk themselves into dictatorship, but who can say now? It's the curse of Africa that those nations wealthy in resources will always, always be the subject of domination by the greedy and powerful nations of the First World. It may not be military in nature as it once was, but tell the International Monetary Fund does any different. Tell me that the American government doesn't still fund and supply one monster over another for power. What kills me inside is the fact that the resource-poor nations - like Rwanda, like Darfur - mean less than nothing in the eyes of the powerful because of their basic inability to matter in any other terms than wealth.
Are the novel's political details--both imagined and historical--appropriate?
They sound pretty accurate to me, but I'm not intimately familiar with the 60s in any case. Wikipedia says mostly so, although it seems the girls may not have been privy to the political machinations at the time.
How does Kingsolver differentiate among the Price sisters, particularly in terms of their voices? What does each sister reveal about herself and the other three, their relationships, their mother and father, and their lives in Africa? What is the effect of our learning about events and people through the sisters' eyes?
I liked the different perspectives the girls gave to the story. It allowed me to paint a picture of one event from several different angles, which made me feel like I could determine what really happened during any given event. I didn't love that none of the girls ever strayed from the voice that Kingsolver ave them though. Fine, make Rachel the materialistic, selfish teenager; make Leah the tireless supporter of justice and equality - but I felt like they were trapped by their perspectives. I just don't think it's possible for four people to be so staunch in their viewpoints so as to never deviate, never consider another option.
Friday, June 13, 2008
I think I must be dumb...
Or not an English Major. The Life of Pi is the second award-winning book we've read that I just don't get. I've apparently missed the major metaphor (but found another lesson in the book?) and truthfully, I didn't like the book one bit. Sarge didn't really get it either. Ian, what did you think?
I'm reading some non-fiction at the moment but I do have the Poisonwood Bible if we want to do that one next.
I'm reading some non-fiction at the moment but I do have the Poisonwood Bible if we want to do that one next.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Hello? Hello? (Echo)
Well, I've now finished The Secret Life of Bees if anyone wishes to discuss. I have also finished The Friday Night Knitting Group and will be beginning Life of Pi if you're interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
