Markus Zusak's book I am the Messenger is aimed at the young adults. It is funny, edgy, and at times, crude. His attempt here is to write something that the teenagers might actually read, and hence, get the moral messages woven into the story.
Unless you've first read about the author, you don't know if the story happens in "any city" in the US or somewhere else. He purposefully avoids picking a specific place as the backdrop. In doing so, in my view, the story loses the richness an established city name can provide. Then again, what I read was the US publication of the story. Either the author himself or the US editors/publishers may have deliberately decided to remove the Australian references in order to appeal to a larger market. In a couple of other places in the story he uses generics or meta-statements in order to appeal to everyone and loses the sharpness of a point he attempts to make. It is like someone saying "Hey, I've got the funniest story to tell you. So, these two guys walk into a bar, right. Now think of the funniest 'two-guys-walk-into-a-bar joke you know' and that's what happens. Isn't that hilarious?" Technically, if you follow the advise, you've got the funniest story. But, by being a meta-story, and by trying to appeal to everyone's best joke, it loses the appeal and the purpose.
As for the moral undertones of the story itself, Zusak loses a couple of points for giving mixed messages. While the drinking age in Australia is 18, the supposed moral compass of the story getting wasted on booze at the age of 19 doesn't set a good example for the young adults, IMHO. Same with the casual sex one of the leading characters goes through at age 19 versus the supposed shame of getting pregnant at age 16. Then again, that is probably what the author is attempting to say anyway, that life isn't all good or bad, black or white, cut and dry; that life is messy and complicated and not all what it seems to be on the surface.
As mentioned earlier, I got the feeling that someone has sanitized the story by removing some of the Australian-ness from it. But then, they had to keep the reference to Merv Hughes and put in an explanation. Had they added or kept more Australian quirks in, the story would have been far more interesting, at least to me.
Still, it is a good, easy read with a funny dialogue. (I ended up picking this book because it was among a pile of books someone had given my teenage son.)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Time Traveler's Wife
Even before the book The Time Traveler's Wife was made into a movie, I had added it to my Amazon Wish-List because it turns up in Best of Sci-Fi lists. So when the movie came out, I wanted to read the book before seeing it on the (big/small) screen. I finished the book about a week ago and watched the DVD only a couple of nights ago.
For a first novel, I think, Audrey Niffenegger's writing style in this book is damn good. It is quite a page-turner; or perhaps, I think that way because I like time-travel stories. The title could have been "The Time Traveler and his wife." That would have been more apt as the author shifts the role of the narrator in almost every chapter. She does not dwell too much in the how aspects of the time travel, which is good. Instead, the story moves along with Clare's time, and obviously, jumps back and forth in Henry's time. Her use of the couple's ages in the section headings is useful in the narration and understanding of the events. She is not afraid to let the reader in on the big events early in the book and then fill in the details later. While that would be an anti-climax in a mystery, she is able to pull it off in this story because the time travel twists (ie: how the participants got there) are much more interesting than the end results themselves.
She doesn't use the message-passing techniques between times (ie: Doc Brown sending a letter to Marty McFly from the past in the movie Back to the Future III) or leaving things behind where you can later/earlier find them (ie: in the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, they look for the keys behind a sign knowing that they are going to go back and leave the keys there later on) all that much. Instead, she relies mostly on people's memories and recollections. After all, this is a romance novel as well and, I suppose, memories are more important in such a book. {grin} A sci-fi stickler would argue about the author's claim that the time travellers aren't able to change the future (or past in their case) events and then she herself using such things when convenient. But, since the whole idea of the time travel requires a huge leap of faith, you tend to go along with the pre-conditions set by the author.
Now on to the movie, which I thought was surprisingly close to the book. They had to cut quite a lot of details from the book's version of the story in order to fit it into the movie-legnth. I think, someone who only sees the movie isn't getting his money's worth. In the movie there's not much interaction between the couple and their friends and families; some important characters are completely gone (Kimy and Ben). Overall the movie was okay, but I liked the book a whole lot more. The casting was spot on, specially for Clare's and Henry's roles. Had I not read the book first, I think, the movie would have been too confusing for me. There are some instances where the movie doesn't explain what's going on all that well (ie: the wedding -- okay, that's not a spoiler for anyone since you know she is the wife ... the title says so. :-)).
One quibble I have with the the book is the author's use of PG-13/R rated language at times and R-rated scene descriptions. I don't read trashy romance novels, so perhaps, that's a requirement in that genre, but for the sci-fi genre, I could've done without those. (Sci-Fi greats like Clarke and Asimov didn't have to resort to crudeness to write great stories.)
Overall, a great book! Movie? Meh, read the book first.
For a first novel, I think, Audrey Niffenegger's writing style in this book is damn good. It is quite a page-turner; or perhaps, I think that way because I like time-travel stories. The title could have been "The Time Traveler and his wife." That would have been more apt as the author shifts the role of the narrator in almost every chapter. She does not dwell too much in the how aspects of the time travel, which is good. Instead, the story moves along with Clare's time, and obviously, jumps back and forth in Henry's time. Her use of the couple's ages in the section headings is useful in the narration and understanding of the events. She is not afraid to let the reader in on the big events early in the book and then fill in the details later. While that would be an anti-climax in a mystery, she is able to pull it off in this story because the time travel twists (ie: how the participants got there) are much more interesting than the end results themselves.
She doesn't use the message-passing techniques between times (ie: Doc Brown sending a letter to Marty McFly from the past in the movie Back to the Future III) or leaving things behind where you can later/earlier find them (ie: in the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, they look for the keys behind a sign knowing that they are going to go back and leave the keys there later on) all that much. Instead, she relies mostly on people's memories and recollections. After all, this is a romance novel as well and, I suppose, memories are more important in such a book. {grin} A sci-fi stickler would argue about the author's claim that the time travellers aren't able to change the future (or past in their case) events and then she herself using such things when convenient. But, since the whole idea of the time travel requires a huge leap of faith, you tend to go along with the pre-conditions set by the author.
Now on to the movie, which I thought was surprisingly close to the book. They had to cut quite a lot of details from the book's version of the story in order to fit it into the movie-legnth. I think, someone who only sees the movie isn't getting his money's worth. In the movie there's not much interaction between the couple and their friends and families; some important characters are completely gone (Kimy and Ben). Overall the movie was okay, but I liked the book a whole lot more. The casting was spot on, specially for Clare's and Henry's roles. Had I not read the book first, I think, the movie would have been too confusing for me. There are some instances where the movie doesn't explain what's going on all that well (ie: the wedding -- okay, that's not a spoiler for anyone since you know she is the wife ... the title says so. :-)).
One quibble I have with the the book is the author's use of PG-13/R rated language at times and R-rated scene descriptions. I don't read trashy romance novels, so perhaps, that's a requirement in that genre, but for the sci-fi genre, I could've done without those. (Sci-Fi greats like Clarke and Asimov didn't have to resort to crudeness to write great stories.)
Overall, a great book! Movie? Meh, read the book first.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Brave New World
Aldous Huxley wrote the novel Brave New World in 1931. In it he gives the accounts of a future world where the utopian society gone wrong and turned into what the reader should think as a dystopia, but for the people of the time is a happy place. The story's "utopia" has been achieved by following the Assembly Line concept first introduced by Henry Ford to build the Model T.
The opening sequence reminded me of the movie Matrix and its incubator idea. I bet Matrix got it from this book. The concept of genetic engineering and breeding people for specific task-sets is quite remarkable considering that Huxley developed the idea in the 1930s. Then again, H. G. Wells' The Time Machine was published in the 1890s and it has humans evolving into two separate species.
If we take several steps back from our own society today and look at the big picture, we may find that there are some similarities between us and this story. For instance, we are slaves to the modern (in)conveniences such as the Internet, the cell phones, the pharmaceuticals, etc. And, we certainly don't lack the "herd mentality" (ie: everybody else has an iPhone, a Facebook page, Windows, etc.) Instead of sleep-conditioning, we have the brain-washing being done by the right and left-wing media outlets, the political parties, the corporations, the advertisers, the paid lobbyists ... We are being conditioned to think a certain way, to buy certain things, to use certain drugs. Instead of Huxley's single drug, soma, we now have many such things legal and illegal. So, are we on the unalterable path to Huxley's dystopia?
It was really interesting that towards the latter part of the book, Huxley tries to equate the idea of "free thinking" to Christianity or the subservience to God. That concept, to me, is just ironic! Then again, I guess, back then he didn't have Jesse Ventura telling him that "religion is a crutch for people who can't think for themselves." {grin}
Bottom line: For a futuristic novel written in 1930s, this book more than enough holds on its own in any time-frame. Good read; enjoyed it; made me think.
The opening sequence reminded me of the movie Matrix and its incubator idea. I bet Matrix got it from this book. The concept of genetic engineering and breeding people for specific task-sets is quite remarkable considering that Huxley developed the idea in the 1930s. Then again, H. G. Wells' The Time Machine was published in the 1890s and it has humans evolving into two separate species.
If we take several steps back from our own society today and look at the big picture, we may find that there are some similarities between us and this story. For instance, we are slaves to the modern (in)conveniences such as the Internet, the cell phones, the pharmaceuticals, etc. And, we certainly don't lack the "herd mentality" (ie: everybody else has an iPhone, a Facebook page, Windows, etc.) Instead of sleep-conditioning, we have the brain-washing being done by the right and left-wing media outlets, the political parties, the corporations, the advertisers, the paid lobbyists ... We are being conditioned to think a certain way, to buy certain things, to use certain drugs. Instead of Huxley's single drug, soma, we now have many such things legal and illegal. So, are we on the unalterable path to Huxley's dystopia?
It was really interesting that towards the latter part of the book, Huxley tries to equate the idea of "free thinking" to Christianity or the subservience to God. That concept, to me, is just ironic! Then again, I guess, back then he didn't have Jesse Ventura telling him that "religion is a crutch for people who can't think for themselves." {grin}
Bottom line: For a futuristic novel written in 1930s, this book more than enough holds on its own in any time-frame. Good read; enjoyed it; made me think.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Three Cups of Tea
I finished reading the book Three Cups of Tea about four weeks ago. This is the true story of an American mountain climber's commitment to building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Everyone should read this book. Contrary what the cover says, Greg Mortenson didn't write the book and isn't the narrator. I got past that in the first page. After that, I got lost in the story behind his mountain climbing adventures; enjoyed the descriptions of the K2 and other mountains and what the mountaineers go through in climbing trips; compared the conditions in rural Pakistan to what I can relate to; absorbed the descriptions of conditions in Islamabad, Peshawar, and Lahore--places I've heard of in the context of international cricket matches. But then ... the descriptions of Korphe and other small villages sound unimaginably rough and took my breath away even though I'd seen quite far off rural villages in Sri Lanka.
Mortensen's interview on Fresh Air is archived and available for listening and the interview text is on Greg's own site.
Bottom line: I really liked the book. This should be required reading for everyone. Those of us who complain about the modern inconveniences of the Western world should take note of how people try to survive and make a better life for their children in other parts of the world. This book, taken together with the 2005 movie "Why We Fight," I hope, in time would open the eyes of all Americans to looking at the world from a different perspective. I'm waiting to read the sequel, Stones Into Schools.
In my Google Buzz, I said this: I wish I had the money (or the financial backing) and, more importantly, the guts to build and run just a single school in Sri Lanka. I'd make a good Math/Science/English teacher, right? I'd be strict, but, I think, I'd be good at it. :-) Hmmm ... speaking of Tea and schools, I think, I know where to build it: near an up-country tea plantation.
Everyone should read this book. Contrary what the cover says, Greg Mortenson didn't write the book and isn't the narrator. I got past that in the first page. After that, I got lost in the story behind his mountain climbing adventures; enjoyed the descriptions of the K2 and other mountains and what the mountaineers go through in climbing trips; compared the conditions in rural Pakistan to what I can relate to; absorbed the descriptions of conditions in Islamabad, Peshawar, and Lahore--places I've heard of in the context of international cricket matches. But then ... the descriptions of Korphe and other small villages sound unimaginably rough and took my breath away even though I'd seen quite far off rural villages in Sri Lanka.
Mortensen's interview on Fresh Air is archived and available for listening and the interview text is on Greg's own site.
Bottom line: I really liked the book. This should be required reading for everyone. Those of us who complain about the modern inconveniences of the Western world should take note of how people try to survive and make a better life for their children in other parts of the world. This book, taken together with the 2005 movie "Why We Fight," I hope, in time would open the eyes of all Americans to looking at the world from a different perspective. I'm waiting to read the sequel, Stones Into Schools.
In my Google Buzz, I said this: I wish I had the money (or the financial backing) and, more importantly, the guts to build and run just a single school in Sri Lanka. I'd make a good Math/Science/English teacher, right? I'd be strict, but, I think, I'd be good at it. :-) Hmmm ... speaking of Tea and schools, I think, I know where to build it: near an up-country tea plantation.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Introduction
I intend to post (as time lets me ... time always whacks me upside the head whenever I try to do anything and then it runs away) my thoughts, musings, reviews, etc about the books I read. More often than not, these will be a couple of sentences on average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)