In 2011 I really wanted to read 52 books (I include audiobooks) and I fell short. I read 48 books, but that's 7 more books than I read in 2010 so I improved. And in 2011 I achieved a long time goal of joining a book club, so that's also good. In 2012 again I make it my goal to finish 52 books (I've already finished 1). I've got audiobooks, a few great books joined my library as holiday gifts, I now own a Kindle and I'm in a book club ... that's totally a recipe for success, yes? I still have a demanding job and I've signed up to take 2 Continuing Ed classes, but I've recommitted (mentally) to this blog and reviewing all the books I read, plus I've started a blog about cover art - maybe that will help? We'll see how things go when I'm in the middle of the season, 2 classes and prepping to announce next season. Hmm.
What are your reading goals for 2012? Or goals in general?
--KER
Monday, January 2, 2012
Jasper Fforde and the Thursday Next series
I've written about Jasper Fforde's work before. I find that while I love and admire the imaginative worlds he creates and the clever stories within, his endings feel rushed, convoluted and yet, too neatly tied together. And yet, I've read all his books. Why? He's just too damn clever. The Thursday Next books suppose an alternate version of our reality in which reading is VERY popular and as such, requires Literary Detectives. Additionally, his protagonist is able to jump in and out of fiction, allowing her to discover Jurisfiction, the policing agency of the fictional world along with the Council of Genres and so on and so forth. Is your head spinning? The later books in the series get very heady and the reader must pay strict attention as Fforde introduces two versions of the written Thursday, meaning fictional accounts have been written in Thursday's reality about her adventures (novels which exist in our reality). Fforde also includes an extensive time travel plot involving the ChronoGuard. In case you can't guess, my favorite parts of his books take place inside fiction. I could do without the rest, but it's a package deal and the map of fiction at the beginning of Fforde's sixth in the series is a bibliophile's wet dream. I'm not kidding. Women's fiction and Racy Novel engaged in a severe border war? Of course. Cliffs of Notes, the Abridged Bridge, the Ungenred Zone and an island of Books Only Students Read. Convoluted plots forgiven!
If you are a big fiction nerd, read the Thursday Next series. I suggest not reading all the books at once. I find it more fun to be reminded and surprised by all the fictional in-jokes with each new book in the series. It's delightful fun and you'll feel smart while reading for getting all the jokes.
--KER
If you are a big fiction nerd, read the Thursday Next series. I suggest not reading all the books at once. I find it more fun to be reminded and surprised by all the fictional in-jokes with each new book in the series. It's delightful fun and you'll feel smart while reading for getting all the jokes.
--KER
Review: Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera
The Phantom of the Opera: a story fraught with expectations that precede it I honestly had no idea what to expect. I picked up the audiobook a few weeks ago from the library thinking it was high time I learned about the story and that I was in the mood to listen to an audiobook at the gym. While I've always been a theatre geek, I somehow never saw a stage or film adaptation of the Leroux's famous novel. Over the years I've seen plenty of posters and heard snatches of Andrew Lloyd Weber's musical to have vague notions of the story, but as I listened to audiobook I didn't know much more beyond a few iconic images - the mask, a giant chandelier falling, a beautiful young woman, etc.
Leroux's story opens with the owners of the Paris Opera House and their dealings with the Phantom as they turn over ownership of the opera house to new management before delving into Christine Daae's mysterious relationship to the Phantom. Told in true Gothic style, Leroux sets the scene for superstition and amateur detectives. Maybe I've watched too many episodes of Law & Order (ok, I definitely have), but our crime solving and willingness to accept the existence of a ghost has changed in the last century, therefore some of the characters' reactions stupefied me. Accepting that a Phantom haunts an opera house, demands a salary (for what services rendered?) and usurps valuable seats in the opera house during every performance? Unacceptable. But, Leroux's story is set in 1880s Paris, so I set aside my grievances. Leroux has truly mastered gothic storytelling - his novel is at once horrifying and somewhat romantic. I take issue with the romantic side. I find Erik to be a creep. I cannot accept him as romantic. He's a wounded soul (yes), but he knows his actions are wrong, which is why he goes to such lengths to hide himself, his past and his present actions. He stalked a young woman, kidnapped her, threatened her and forced her to marry him. He has a torture chamber in his home. Really? That's romantic? He died of a broken heart? Give me a break. He displays all the classic signs of an abuser - verbally, physically and mentally assaulting his victim and then profusely apologizing to never do it again. Ugh.
So, I don't think Erik is romantic. His character fails to appeal to my personal sensibilities and by the end of the novel, I was fed up, however, I recognize that Leroux captured the romantic feel of his time. Part of my frustration may be from Henry Butler's reading (narrator of the audiobook) as he drew out the repetitive nature of certain sections, like when the Persian and Raoul are trapped in the flooding torture chamber I was actually rolling my eyes. I get it. They are trapped. They might drown, but I know they don't because this is all from the Persian's written account, which means he survived to write down the story ... get on with it! I just, ugh. I can't over how much I disliked the Phantom and his motivation - his love for Christine and desire for a wife. I know, I know, gothic = some element of death, but ew. He's described as corpse-like and she as a real living bride. It squicked me out.
I was much more interested in how he penetrated every room, corridor and mind in the opera house and more importantly - why? What deformity did he have at birth? For the most part those questions are answered in the epilogue. Leroux uses the epilogue to neatly describe Erik's troubled past, plot his tracks to the opera house and explain away his deep desire to be like everyone else ... by kidnapping a woman and demanding she become his wife. Yeah, that's normal.
Here's the thing: the novel starts off with a promising premise - the narrator is investigating the truth of the myth about the Phantom of the Opera using police reports, eye witness accounts and exploration of the opera house. I enjoyed the stories the ballet dancers told and even how the phantom swindled money from the managers of the opera house. Scaring the dancers is a bit creepy, but blackmailing the management, which reprehensible, is clever. If the story had stayed in that realm and unveiled the past and the tricks of the Phantom, that would have satisfied me. The focus on Christine, Raoul and Erik's love triangle frustrated me to no end. The love triangle diverted the story so much that when the managers receive their money back, they simply wash their hands of the Phantom and don't worry about him any more. Thanks for neatly tying up those loose ends devoid of any curious minds.
By the end of the novel I was bored. I never got caught up in the atmosphere of the novel. I just wanted to know how it ended and I didn't even care if Christine lived or if the Phantom let her go. I didn't find the characters compelling or care about their development of which there was little. The Phantom changes somewhat at the end by releasing Christine and we never see Christine or Raoul after their horrifying hours in the Phantom's home. From what I've read of the musical, the story is altered and some other reviews of the novel assert the musical and the movie are better. Having seen neither, I can neither agree nor disagree, however, I find it hard to believe that I will enjoy an iteration of a story that many accept as romantic in which a man kidnaps a woman and demands she become his wife. Not cool.
--KER
So, I don't think Erik is romantic. His character fails to appeal to my personal sensibilities and by the end of the novel, I was fed up, however, I recognize that Leroux captured the romantic feel of his time. Part of my frustration may be from Henry Butler's reading (narrator of the audiobook) as he drew out the repetitive nature of certain sections, like when the Persian and Raoul are trapped in the flooding torture chamber I was actually rolling my eyes. I get it. They are trapped. They might drown, but I know they don't because this is all from the Persian's written account, which means he survived to write down the story ... get on with it! I just, ugh. I can't over how much I disliked the Phantom and his motivation - his love for Christine and desire for a wife. I know, I know, gothic = some element of death, but ew. He's described as corpse-like and she as a real living bride. It squicked me out.
I was much more interested in how he penetrated every room, corridor and mind in the opera house and more importantly - why? What deformity did he have at birth? For the most part those questions are answered in the epilogue. Leroux uses the epilogue to neatly describe Erik's troubled past, plot his tracks to the opera house and explain away his deep desire to be like everyone else ... by kidnapping a woman and demanding she become his wife. Yeah, that's normal.
Here's the thing: the novel starts off with a promising premise - the narrator is investigating the truth of the myth about the Phantom of the Opera using police reports, eye witness accounts and exploration of the opera house. I enjoyed the stories the ballet dancers told and even how the phantom swindled money from the managers of the opera house. Scaring the dancers is a bit creepy, but blackmailing the management, which reprehensible, is clever. If the story had stayed in that realm and unveiled the past and the tricks of the Phantom, that would have satisfied me. The focus on Christine, Raoul and Erik's love triangle frustrated me to no end. The love triangle diverted the story so much that when the managers receive their money back, they simply wash their hands of the Phantom and don't worry about him any more. Thanks for neatly tying up those loose ends devoid of any curious minds.
By the end of the novel I was bored. I never got caught up in the atmosphere of the novel. I just wanted to know how it ended and I didn't even care if Christine lived or if the Phantom let her go. I didn't find the characters compelling or care about their development of which there was little. The Phantom changes somewhat at the end by releasing Christine and we never see Christine or Raoul after their horrifying hours in the Phantom's home. From what I've read of the musical, the story is altered and some other reviews of the novel assert the musical and the movie are better. Having seen neither, I can neither agree nor disagree, however, I find it hard to believe that I will enjoy an iteration of a story that many accept as romantic in which a man kidnaps a woman and demands she become his wife. Not cool.
--KER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)