When Lisa said that this novel had been compared to The Odyssey, I didn't see it and I still don't. Odysseus had a definite destination in his travels and knew exactly what was waiting for him when he got there. The idea I got from the Man was basically, "Well, we can't stay here. Let's go this way."
That being said, I don't really consider this as a journey. A journey has a definite destination, whether physical, emotional, or spiritual. There is an eventual end and it is plausible that one will be able to reach that end.
In The Road it seemed that they might be looking a 'a better place'. I'm sorry hon, this is the apocalypse, this is the world that you live in, there is no better place. I'm sure that the Man knew this too. I feel like he wanted to give the boy something the look forward to. After all, "livin's better than dyin'". Or so they say.
I'm glad at the end the Boy is picked up by a family. The thing is that it's not like it's going to get any better. The plants are dead. The animals are dead. The sun is dying. Hope just blinds them from the harsh reality.
This book was depressing and not really that compelling for me. Am I glad I read it? Sure. Will I ever read it again? No. And for me, that says everything.
(Now, I know that "livin's better than dyin'" is a quote from somewhere and for the life of me I can't figure it out. It's really frustrating, because I know that I know where it's from and I feel like it should be really obvious. If anyone who reads this recognizes it, please enlighten me so I can hit myself up the head with an "Oh my god. Duh.")
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
and through your own split head you rise up glowing;
Yvette Nichol.
Oh, dear.
I can't stand her.
It's like Armand Gamache has taken my four-year-old sibling on a murder investigation. Me, me, me. Where's my recognition. Why can't I do what I want. Oh-- wait! I made a mistake? Well, you can't blame me, I'm only a trainee.
Beauvior has a right to hate her. Someone this self centered should never have entered law enforcement, which is entirely about other people. Sometimes it's about helping other people, other times reading other people. But of course Nichol can't do either, she's still trying to grasp the idea that there are other people.
And they keep messing up her agenda to be the best and most renowned detective that was ever known. It's so unfair.
On the other hand, we have Gamache who practically is other people. He is watching their faces, sensing their intents, perceiving actions before the person them self is sure what they are doing. He is the ultimate detective because he is the ultimate watcher and listener.
All he wants to do is solve the crime-- with the help of his team of course. This is a man who recognizes the true important things in life. He touches other people, reaches out and stirs their emotions. He makes connections, forms relationships, and honestly, truly, surprisingly, cares.
When he needs them, these people will be there for him. They will be his friends. They will entrust him with secrets. They will unknowingly reveal important details to his intent listening. They will help him to solve a crime. After all, most premeditated crimes are committed by someone close to the victim.
Gamache has recruited a small army of people at his back, supplying him with information and support he needs. Nichol only has her own narrow viewpoint, and her lonely super-woman (scoff) self to rely on.
Oh, dear.
I can't stand her.
It's like Armand Gamache has taken my four-year-old sibling on a murder investigation. Me, me, me. Where's my recognition. Why can't I do what I want. Oh-- wait! I made a mistake? Well, you can't blame me, I'm only a trainee.
Beauvior has a right to hate her. Someone this self centered should never have entered law enforcement, which is entirely about other people. Sometimes it's about helping other people, other times reading other people. But of course Nichol can't do either, she's still trying to grasp the idea that there are other people.
And they keep messing up her agenda to be the best and most renowned detective that was ever known. It's so unfair.
On the other hand, we have Gamache who practically is other people. He is watching their faces, sensing their intents, perceiving actions before the person them self is sure what they are doing. He is the ultimate detective because he is the ultimate watcher and listener.
All he wants to do is solve the crime-- with the help of his team of course. This is a man who recognizes the true important things in life. He touches other people, reaches out and stirs their emotions. He makes connections, forms relationships, and honestly, truly, surprisingly, cares.
When he needs them, these people will be there for him. They will be his friends. They will entrust him with secrets. They will unknowingly reveal important details to his intent listening. They will help him to solve a crime. After all, most premeditated crimes are committed by someone close to the victim.
Gamache has recruited a small army of people at his back, supplying him with information and support he needs. Nichol only has her own narrow viewpoint, and her lonely super-woman (scoff) self to rely on.
Look how far we've come.
I don't need a bonus blog post; I haven't missed a blog yet. I crave one. To read and discuss literature, my passion, is all I need out of life.
Contemporary literature. What is there to say? What do I expect? Nothing I suppose. I read to satisfy a craving, fill a void-- not because I have expectations. I either like a book, or I don't. There is no set criteria. I am not choosing actors to fill a specific role, I am simply filling it with whatever I can get my hands on and either entering another world euphorically or tossing the current travesty away with disgust.
But enough about me. It's not what I expect from modern literature that matters (even I am not that egotistical), it's what modern literature needs to be.
Once upon a time books were only read by the highly educated-- people who understood art. Today, everyone reads. And I can't believe some of the people that try to claim that they like reading. Half of them wouldn't know a good book if it bit them in the ass. Instead, they read Soap Operas that are written down instead of being acted out on the television.
However, that is not my point, so I'll save that tangent for a another day.
My point is that everyone reads. The populace of America is "educated". (And what a low-brow, narrow, boorish education it is. Once again I am being distracted.) I mean to say, that in a society where everyone reads, truly great books must appeal to everyone.
"How," you ask, "How is this possible?"
Well, for most authors it isn't.
But- a truly good author can create a writing style and plot that seems quick and interesting enough for the people in it for the (as Lisa put it) "brain candy", yet include hidden themes and depth that will appeal to those of us that occasional seek something with a little more sustenance.
This, I suppose is not what I necessarily expect, but what is needed from contemporary authors. They must multitask and appeal to as many audiences as possible.
Don't ask me what I expect. Even though I said I wasn't picky before (I'll try anything once), if I had my way, everyone would write in prose and focus on abstracts and personal relations and character development. I'm not sure if the contemporary audience would appreciate that.
Contemporary literature. What is there to say? What do I expect? Nothing I suppose. I read to satisfy a craving, fill a void-- not because I have expectations. I either like a book, or I don't. There is no set criteria. I am not choosing actors to fill a specific role, I am simply filling it with whatever I can get my hands on and either entering another world euphorically or tossing the current travesty away with disgust.
But enough about me. It's not what I expect from modern literature that matters (even I am not that egotistical), it's what modern literature needs to be.
Once upon a time books were only read by the highly educated-- people who understood art. Today, everyone reads. And I can't believe some of the people that try to claim that they like reading. Half of them wouldn't know a good book if it bit them in the ass. Instead, they read Soap Operas that are written down instead of being acted out on the television.
However, that is not my point, so I'll save that tangent for a another day.
My point is that everyone reads. The populace of America is "educated". (And what a low-brow, narrow, boorish education it is. Once again I am being distracted.) I mean to say, that in a society where everyone reads, truly great books must appeal to everyone.
"How," you ask, "How is this possible?"
Well, for most authors it isn't.
But- a truly good author can create a writing style and plot that seems quick and interesting enough for the people in it for the (as Lisa put it) "brain candy", yet include hidden themes and depth that will appeal to those of us that occasional seek something with a little more sustenance.
This, I suppose is not what I necessarily expect, but what is needed from contemporary authors. They must multitask and appeal to as many audiences as possible.
Don't ask me what I expect. Even though I said I wasn't picky before (I'll try anything once), if I had my way, everyone would write in prose and focus on abstracts and personal relations and character development. I'm not sure if the contemporary audience would appreciate that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
