Contemporary mystery has never really grabbed my attention as a reader. I took a Mystery Story course as an undergraduate and felt that contemporary mystery either was too old-fashioned (very Sherlock Holmes) or very CSI (a TV show I don't watch).
But Case Histories by Kate Atkinson is different. It may be set in England, but it's very contemporary. It doesn't have a sleuth with a magnifying glass nor medical examiners with magical insight. It doesn't make far-fetched connections and that's probably the most satisfying part of reading this book.
Oh right, what is this book ABOUT? Well, there are three "cases" which are introduced in the beginning of the book. One involves a missing little girl, another involves the shooting of an 18 year old woman working at a law firm, and the third is about a wife who splits her husband's head open with an ax. These three cases fall into the lap of Jackson Brodie, a retired investigator who opened his own practice. The novel follows Jackson through his process to investigate these cases, but that's only half the novel. The author also writes chapters to give us wonderfully detailed glipses into the lives of other characters involved in these cases, which move the story along and lets the reader begin to put pieces together. This dramatic irony makes the book exciting from cover to cover!
The suspenseful plot, intricate detailing for each and every character, and smooth writing make this one of the best books I've read in a long, long time. (Perhaps since The Other Boleyn Girl.) The only drawback I saw in this novel was the sheer amount of characters. At one point, I picked up the book after 3 days of an unfortunate non-reading spell, and couldn't remember who certain people were. (These people, by the way, were people that "enhance" your understanding of main characters...and there's a lot of "enhancement characters.")
My rating: 9/10. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this mystery and I think you will, too.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Finished "Excellent Women"
Yes, just as I expected, the ending to "Excellent Women" has not changed my rating for the book. It was a fitting ending to say the least. She doesn't get married (though maybe they're hinting at it?) and she gets new neighbors (but oh crap, they're not regular Catholics...they're those Roman Catholics!).
My book discussion is on Sunday and I'm not sure how much commentary I'll be able to contribute. What's there really to say about a passive main character who loves church and does everyone else's bidding? I get a feeling the older people in my book discussion group are going to praise this book. That's gonna be awkward :-)
My book discussion is on Sunday and I'm not sure how much commentary I'll be able to contribute. What's there really to say about a passive main character who loves church and does everyone else's bidding? I get a feeling the older people in my book discussion group are going to praise this book. That's gonna be awkward :-)
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Excellent Women - Not So Excellent
The second book of my Book Discussion group is "Excellent Women" by Barbara Pym. I'm starting to understand the selection of these books after going to my first discussion last Sunday. I was at least 20 years younger than everyone there. Though funny enough, many of the people in the discussion group felt exactly as I did about "Nathan Coulter" (see my review of that book below).
As for "Excellent Women," it has tinges of my gripes about "Nathan Coulter." This is a weird prim-and-proper English novel. It follows the life of a 30-something single woman named Mildred, who doesn't seem all that interested in getting married. She acts like she's 60, though, maybe even 70. If I had to make a Match.com profile for her, it would be "LIKES: Church, church jumble sales, tea, cooking books, everything boring. DISLIKES: Drama, men, science, liquor, everything interesting." This is no joke. Mildred loves church, loves solitude, and everything that infringes upon those loves is considered a bother...not that this isn't interesting, but rather an amusing undertone throughout the whole book. In fact, her commentary on her dislikes are hilarious. How she frets over every boring thing is hilarious. ("Oh no, the tea is not strong enough! How dreadful!") And whenever something comes up that contradicts her beliefs, well, please let the hilarity ensue! For example, her pastor, her married neighbor downstairs (Rocky), and Rocky's wife's business partner, Everard, are all interested in her. But #1 - She doesn't think pastors should marry. #2 - Rocky is married and apparently a playboy. He also seems to only like her because she possesses two qualities his wife lacks - Mildred can clean AND make tea. WOW!! And #3 - As perfect as Everard is for her (he even goes to church!), he's also an intellectual, which doesn't seem to thrill Mildred. My guess is that she hates science since it's interesting (and also tends to turn people atheist).
It's set in post-WWII England, but it might as well be 1850. The dialogue is just so sickeningly proper that sometimes I feel like writing a curse word somewhere to liven it up. Even on important subjects like DIVORCE, CHEATING, BREAK-UPS, and DEATH, Mildred takes a tone of, "Oh, of course one must miss one's husband when he leaves." Uh-huh. Way to state the obvious.
Despite the prim-and-proper plot, dialogue, and character (no stockings?! YOU REBEL!), the book is actually quite enjoyable. I won't rate it as the best book I've ever read, but I won't rate it as the worst either. Seeing as how I'm 20 pages from the end, I know the ending won't change my mind about this book. So, I'll tell you now. I'm giving it a 6/10 for easy reading, good character development, and a rather entertaining non-plot. Oh yes, non-plot...not nothingness like "Nathan Coulter," but more along the lines of nothing happens but everything happens. It's a very internal plot.
I'll let you know how the ending goes.
As for "Excellent Women," it has tinges of my gripes about "Nathan Coulter." This is a weird prim-and-proper English novel. It follows the life of a 30-something single woman named Mildred, who doesn't seem all that interested in getting married. She acts like she's 60, though, maybe even 70. If I had to make a Match.com profile for her, it would be "LIKES: Church, church jumble sales, tea, cooking books, everything boring. DISLIKES: Drama, men, science, liquor, everything interesting." This is no joke. Mildred loves church, loves solitude, and everything that infringes upon those loves is considered a bother...not that this isn't interesting, but rather an amusing undertone throughout the whole book. In fact, her commentary on her dislikes are hilarious. How she frets over every boring thing is hilarious. ("Oh no, the tea is not strong enough! How dreadful!") And whenever something comes up that contradicts her beliefs, well, please let the hilarity ensue! For example, her pastor, her married neighbor downstairs (Rocky), and Rocky's wife's business partner, Everard, are all interested in her. But #1 - She doesn't think pastors should marry. #2 - Rocky is married and apparently a playboy. He also seems to only like her because she possesses two qualities his wife lacks - Mildred can clean AND make tea. WOW!! And #3 - As perfect as Everard is for her (he even goes to church!), he's also an intellectual, which doesn't seem to thrill Mildred. My guess is that she hates science since it's interesting (and also tends to turn people atheist).
It's set in post-WWII England, but it might as well be 1850. The dialogue is just so sickeningly proper that sometimes I feel like writing a curse word somewhere to liven it up. Even on important subjects like DIVORCE, CHEATING, BREAK-UPS, and DEATH, Mildred takes a tone of, "Oh, of course one must miss one's husband when he leaves." Uh-huh. Way to state the obvious.
Despite the prim-and-proper plot, dialogue, and character (no stockings?! YOU REBEL!), the book is actually quite enjoyable. I won't rate it as the best book I've ever read, but I won't rate it as the worst either. Seeing as how I'm 20 pages from the end, I know the ending won't change my mind about this book. So, I'll tell you now. I'm giving it a 6/10 for easy reading, good character development, and a rather entertaining non-plot. Oh yes, non-plot...not nothingness like "Nathan Coulter," but more along the lines of nothing happens but everything happens. It's a very internal plot.
I'll let you know how the ending goes.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Nathan Coulter - Reviewed
I finished Nathan Coulter last night. Grandpa finally died in the last 2 paragraphs of the book. It was anti-climatic at best. Though there wasn't really a climax to begin with.
So, let's recap - This book was a book about a farming family in Kentucky. The 118 pages of the book (there's 118 pages, not 114 as noted in my last post) describe Kentucky landscape, farm life, and hick characters that do nothing. The Kentucky landscape is nice, but author Wendell Berry feels the need to remind me of what it looks like every few pages. It's repetitive. Farm life - I'm not really sure 50+ pages need to be devoted to describing how to put in a fence post, pulling vines, harvesting tobacco, and planting seed. Berry wants the reader to feel that the relationship between farmer and land is romantic, despite all the hard work. I get that. But to describe that bond is NOT a PLOT. And then we reach the hick characters. You've got the drunk, the one-eyed guy, the bible-thumper, etc. Nathan looks up to the drunk, his uncle, as a role model. Ridiculous. Am I really supposed to feel something for these characters? If so, it's downright disgust. The "Shooo-eeey" knee-slapping hillbillies are not likable characters because they're one dimensional. And just plain annoying.
I don't know why, but I'm rating this book a 3/10. I'm pretty sure you were expecting a 1/10, but I have to give this book some credit. The fact that it's a book about nothing and yet it still made me interested enough to read it to the end must mean there's something good about this book. It did have some really great descriptions and the the writing was easy to read. It flowed. But due to lack of interest, lack of plot, lack of complicated characters, and some grievous repetition, I have deducted 7 points from the book's score.
Nathan Coulter receives a 3/10.
So, let's recap - This book was a book about a farming family in Kentucky. The 118 pages of the book (there's 118 pages, not 114 as noted in my last post) describe Kentucky landscape, farm life, and hick characters that do nothing. The Kentucky landscape is nice, but author Wendell Berry feels the need to remind me of what it looks like every few pages. It's repetitive. Farm life - I'm not really sure 50+ pages need to be devoted to describing how to put in a fence post, pulling vines, harvesting tobacco, and planting seed. Berry wants the reader to feel that the relationship between farmer and land is romantic, despite all the hard work. I get that. But to describe that bond is NOT a PLOT. And then we reach the hick characters. You've got the drunk, the one-eyed guy, the bible-thumper, etc. Nathan looks up to the drunk, his uncle, as a role model. Ridiculous. Am I really supposed to feel something for these characters? If so, it's downright disgust. The "Shooo-eeey" knee-slapping hillbillies are not likable characters because they're one dimensional. And just plain annoying.
I don't know why, but I'm rating this book a 3/10. I'm pretty sure you were expecting a 1/10, but I have to give this book some credit. The fact that it's a book about nothing and yet it still made me interested enough to read it to the end must mean there's something good about this book. It did have some really great descriptions and the the writing was easy to read. It flowed. But due to lack of interest, lack of plot, lack of complicated characters, and some grievous repetition, I have deducted 7 points from the book's score.
Nathan Coulter receives a 3/10.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Story About Nothing
"Nathan Coulter" is turning out to be a story about nothing. But not in the good Seinfeld way. I'm about 30 pages from the end of the book and if you asked me what the plot of the book is, I'd say, "Nothing." There's no climax, there's no PROBLEM, there's just page after page describing the river and the farm and hick-farm people in Kentucky. If I didn't have to read this book for the book club, I would have deserted it a long time ago.
The strange thing about this book is that it's a quick read. I'm not sure WHY or HOW, but it is. I mean, the book is only 114 pages long which is perhaps one of its endearing qualities. I still find myself reading it wondering if something is FINALLY going to happen. I read the back of the book - Grandpa is supposed to die. Perhaps that's what's driving me to the end. I'm waiting for this old guy to DIE. Maybe while the authors at it, he (she?) can kill off the narrator, too. He has no mind of his own, a sort of BLANK SLATE NARRATOR who just reports, does whatever he's told, and always seems to have the word "Huh?" floating over his head at all times. Nathan Coulter must also die.
Death is a good way to end a book. I've done it in many of my novels. The tragic ending...oh so satisfying!
Well, next time, I'll report on the ending of this book and rate it. But I'm sure you can already guess my rating. Til next time!
The strange thing about this book is that it's a quick read. I'm not sure WHY or HOW, but it is. I mean, the book is only 114 pages long which is perhaps one of its endearing qualities. I still find myself reading it wondering if something is FINALLY going to happen. I read the back of the book - Grandpa is supposed to die. Perhaps that's what's driving me to the end. I'm waiting for this old guy to DIE. Maybe while the authors at it, he (she?) can kill off the narrator, too. He has no mind of his own, a sort of BLANK SLATE NARRATOR who just reports, does whatever he's told, and always seems to have the word "Huh?" floating over his head at all times. Nathan Coulter must also die.
Death is a good way to end a book. I've done it in many of my novels. The tragic ending...oh so satisfying!
Well, next time, I'll report on the ending of this book and rate it. But I'm sure you can already guess my rating. Til next time!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Book Club - Nathan Coulter
It would only make sense that a Literature Lover such as myself would join a book club. So, I did. I started the first book today, entitled "Nathan Coulter" by Wendell Berry. I'm 11 pages into the book and I'm wondering if anything is really going to happen. This is a book that suffers from over-description. Everything is overanalyzed and complicated. Berry can't tell me it's sunset in less than 300 words. So, needless to say (but I will anyway), I'm wondering if I'll actually manage to finish this book in time for the discussion. Can I drag myself to read complicated descriptions of farm landscape (do I really care where Uncle's cabin is in relation to the narrator's farm? Grandpa's house? The river?)? We'll see...
The good thing is that this club put The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on their reading list. I can't WAIT to read that book!
The good thing is that this club put The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo on their reading list. I can't WAIT to read that book!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Lies Across America
Remember the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen? Well, I read another of his books entitled "Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong." I've read 250 pages so far. It's set up by region of the United States and then critiques monuments, museums, plaques, etc. found across the country. The truth is that many of the historic sites he writes about are insignificant statues and plaques that very few people would even give a second glance at. There's lots of these things across our country and I'd hardly call them "historic sites." (In some ways, James Loewen would agree as he argues that many of them contain made-up history and are therefore made-up historic sites.)
After reading the first 100 pages, you'll get the idea of the book and once you read the heading for each passage, you'll know exactly what Loewen is going to say. He's obsessed with a) mistreatment of American Indians b) Reconstruction and Segregation and c) The lack of women in the historical landscape of the US. Basically, each entry of this entire book can fit neatly into one of those categories. After a while, you go "yeah yeah, no women in this museum..." and flip to the next entry only to say..."yeah yeah, it was the Mormons who massacred the Illinois pioneers, not the Indians...."
Now, it seems like this is a bad review of the book. But it's not. This is an interesting, insightful book, which explains rather well how America wishes to remember its history. The South rewards segregationists, racists, and continues to perpetuate racism with statues depicting black people as "mammies" and "uncles." The West rewards pioneers who enslaved American Indians, pushed them into poverty, discriminated against Chinese workers, etc. The Middle States (Montana, Kansas, Illinois, etc.) remembers things they weren't involved in or are just plain ridiculous - Abraham Lincoln's log cabin is long gone and no, he never built it. Montana had nothing to do with the Civil War and should not have a Conferate statue. The North - Well, they don't tell history like it is for fear of controversy. (Why talk about the debate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights at Independence Hall in Philadelphia when we could talk about how they all grabbed a beer afterwards...) Or, they make stuff up so that we appreciate a historical site better. George Washington wasn't really all that religious, yet we'll make a church depicting him praying at Valley Forge in stained glass. OOOH, shiny!
For what it's worth, I'll rate this book a 7/10. I'll deduct points for repetition, a lack of really noteworthy historic sites, and for sometimes long-winded entries. Other than that, Loewen provides sound historical truths and really nice explanations as to why these historical markers are detrimental to our national historical consciousness.
After reading the first 100 pages, you'll get the idea of the book and once you read the heading for each passage, you'll know exactly what Loewen is going to say. He's obsessed with a) mistreatment of American Indians b) Reconstruction and Segregation and c) The lack of women in the historical landscape of the US. Basically, each entry of this entire book can fit neatly into one of those categories. After a while, you go "yeah yeah, no women in this museum..." and flip to the next entry only to say..."yeah yeah, it was the Mormons who massacred the Illinois pioneers, not the Indians...."
Now, it seems like this is a bad review of the book. But it's not. This is an interesting, insightful book, which explains rather well how America wishes to remember its history. The South rewards segregationists, racists, and continues to perpetuate racism with statues depicting black people as "mammies" and "uncles." The West rewards pioneers who enslaved American Indians, pushed them into poverty, discriminated against Chinese workers, etc. The Middle States (Montana, Kansas, Illinois, etc.) remembers things they weren't involved in or are just plain ridiculous - Abraham Lincoln's log cabin is long gone and no, he never built it. Montana had nothing to do with the Civil War and should not have a Conferate statue. The North - Well, they don't tell history like it is for fear of controversy. (Why talk about the debate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights at Independence Hall in Philadelphia when we could talk about how they all grabbed a beer afterwards...) Or, they make stuff up so that we appreciate a historical site better. George Washington wasn't really all that religious, yet we'll make a church depicting him praying at Valley Forge in stained glass. OOOH, shiny!
For what it's worth, I'll rate this book a 7/10. I'll deduct points for repetition, a lack of really noteworthy historic sites, and for sometimes long-winded entries. Other than that, Loewen provides sound historical truths and really nice explanations as to why these historical markers are detrimental to our national historical consciousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)