Author: Elizabeth Kostova
Genre: fiction, mystery, horror
Publication info: Little, Brown, 2005
Pages: 642
Nerds have adventures too!
That's one thing I like about this book. When I was talking recently with a friend about The Historian, the best way I could describe it was as a "nerdy thriller." Unfortunately, I was only about halfway through at the time and had yet to discover that there really isn't much thrill after all. But nerds abound—all the major characters are serious academics who do some intense research. I guess I enjoy that because that's the way my career may take me, except I hope my research doesn't endanger my life as it does theirs.
The Historian centers on the legend of Dracula, who was a real person otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler, prince of Wallachia. When the unnamed narrator asks her father about a strange book she finds in his study, he reluctantly tells her of his quest to find Dracula's tomb and his missing dissertation adviser, Bartholomew Rossi. Professor Rossi, you see, had also been given a similar mysterious book, sending him on a quest to learn about Dracula and whether or not he is still alive—or better put, undead.
If you're confused by this description, that's because it's my best attempt to capture the multiple layers of the book. The bulk of the story is actually a story within a story, the narrator's father telling his tale. But included in that tale are other tales from other people, resulting in even more layers. I count all this as a fault in the book, because with all these stories within stories, the overall plot loses its immediacy. At times when I almost feel suspense, I remember that what I'm reading took place nearly twenty years before the time of the present story. I think the story could have been much more exciting if it was structured and presented in a different way.
The strengths of the book are its research and atmosphere. It's hard to tell where historical fact ends and fiction begins, and I enjoy that aspect. It has certainly motivated me to learn more about Vlad Dracula. I enjoy that the book treats Dracula and vampires in a way totally different from other literature and movies (including a currently popular series I won't name).
Atmosphere is a big part of the book. The author shows great skill in describing some breathtaking settings all across Europe. I especially enjoy the major segment of the story that takes place in Hungary, since I've been there myself. I love the visits to old libraries, archives, monasteries, and churches. They are fun places to be, and they are fun places to read about.
Overall, The Historian is pretty good, pretty interesting, but it falls short of being a really suspenseful, thrilling story. I feel bad for the publisher that bought the manuscript for two million dollars, thinking it had the next Da Vinci Code on its hands. I'm not saying Dan Brown is a great author, because he's not, but he's much better at suspense than Elizabeth Kostova is.
Still, you might want to give this book a try, especially if you're interested in Dracula and vampires (the dangerous kind, not the sparkly kind). You might enjoy it more than I did.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Hunger Games
Author: Suzanne Collins
Genre: fiction, young adult, post-apocalyptic
Publication info: Scholastic Press, 2008
Pages: 374
Amazing. Profound. Moving. These are all words I would not use to describe The Hunger Games.
I realize I'm probably going against the majority opinion here, but I just can't understand why this book is so popular. The most I can say for this book is that it's a page-turner, and even then, it didn't have me wanting to turn pages until well after the first hundred. Until that point, I was mostly just annoyed.
Why was I annoyed? Because the book's premise is based on a situation so implausible and simplistic that it was next to impossible for me to care about what happens to any of the characters. (On a side note, I just learned that this book is apparently a direct rip-off of Battle Royale by Koushun Takami, but since I haven't read the other book, I'll confine my criticism to what I know personally.) In a near-future North America that has been ravaged by war and natural disaster, the cleverly named Capitol exercises control over the twelve districts of Panem by requiring each of them them every year to send one boy and one girl to participate in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death broadcast on television.
Okay. Why would they do something so disgusting and evil? Because apparently in this dystopian world, nobody has any sense of morality whatsoever. Yep, the Capitol is just that bad. No further explanation needed. And everyone in the districts just rolls with it. They grumble, they groan, but they send their children year after year. And the children? Well, as evil as they see the Games to be, they jump right in and try to kill as many others as they can. Does anybody else see how absurd this is?
Katniss, the protagonist (another requirement for dystopian societies: stupid names), volunteers to go to the games when her little sister is chosen. This is great because you see Katniss as a rebel right from the beginning; she regularly hunts outside the boundaries of her district, a crime punishable by death. So you expect to see her fight against this brutal system, right? She doesn't. Oh, she does a few things here and there to "stick it to them," but they really don't do anything productive. Ultimately, she just goes along with it like everyone else, leaving you wondering why we're supposed to like her.
My other major gripe about this book is that Katniss is always spared from making difficult moral decisions. A good story has good characters that develop throughout the story, and they do so by making tough decisions. We learn about them through the decisions they make. But Katniss has the convenience of being in an arena where people get killed off right and left. Let me explain. Without giving too much away, let's suppose she makes a friend or ally during the Games. Cool; now we wonder what she is going to do about having to kill that person eventually. It's going to be a real test of character for Katniss. But no worries—someone else kills off that friend, so Katniss is spared that difficulty. This happens multiple times during the story, and in the end, we still have no idea whether Katniss has any kind of moral fiber.
The Games themselves are pretty fun and exciting to read about. I'll admit I stayed up rather late one night reading it. But every time the kids fought with each other, I wanted to scream at them, "Does nobody see how wrong this is? Is anybody going to do something about it?" I think the author wants us to believe that the characters are powerless against the system, but if that's the case, she does a lousy job of showing it. I just don't buy it!
I have a few other complaints about the writing style that I'll mention only briefly. The speech tags ("he says," etc.) are done rather poorly. There is too much unneeded description and too little needed description (how big is the arena, anyway?). Events that are supposed to be surprises are easy to predict.
Finally, the ending of the book is really weak. The author couldn't have made it any clearer that there is a sequel if she pinned you down and screamed it in your face. I understand that it's the law (apparently) to write books in a series, but that doesn't mean that each installment shouldn't be able to stand on its own as a story. The flat ending of The Hunger Games makes it impossible for this book to stand on its own. But you can bet that I am never going to read the rest of the series.
Genre: fiction, young adult, post-apocalyptic
Publication info: Scholastic Press, 2008
Pages: 374
Amazing. Profound. Moving. These are all words I would not use to describe The Hunger Games.
I realize I'm probably going against the majority opinion here, but I just can't understand why this book is so popular. The most I can say for this book is that it's a page-turner, and even then, it didn't have me wanting to turn pages until well after the first hundred. Until that point, I was mostly just annoyed.
Why was I annoyed? Because the book's premise is based on a situation so implausible and simplistic that it was next to impossible for me to care about what happens to any of the characters. (On a side note, I just learned that this book is apparently a direct rip-off of Battle Royale by Koushun Takami, but since I haven't read the other book, I'll confine my criticism to what I know personally.) In a near-future North America that has been ravaged by war and natural disaster, the cleverly named Capitol exercises control over the twelve districts of Panem by requiring each of them them every year to send one boy and one girl to participate in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death broadcast on television.
Okay. Why would they do something so disgusting and evil? Because apparently in this dystopian world, nobody has any sense of morality whatsoever. Yep, the Capitol is just that bad. No further explanation needed. And everyone in the districts just rolls with it. They grumble, they groan, but they send their children year after year. And the children? Well, as evil as they see the Games to be, they jump right in and try to kill as many others as they can. Does anybody else see how absurd this is?
Katniss, the protagonist (another requirement for dystopian societies: stupid names), volunteers to go to the games when her little sister is chosen. This is great because you see Katniss as a rebel right from the beginning; she regularly hunts outside the boundaries of her district, a crime punishable by death. So you expect to see her fight against this brutal system, right? She doesn't. Oh, she does a few things here and there to "stick it to them," but they really don't do anything productive. Ultimately, she just goes along with it like everyone else, leaving you wondering why we're supposed to like her.
My other major gripe about this book is that Katniss is always spared from making difficult moral decisions. A good story has good characters that develop throughout the story, and they do so by making tough decisions. We learn about them through the decisions they make. But Katniss has the convenience of being in an arena where people get killed off right and left. Let me explain. Without giving too much away, let's suppose she makes a friend or ally during the Games. Cool; now we wonder what she is going to do about having to kill that person eventually. It's going to be a real test of character for Katniss. But no worries—someone else kills off that friend, so Katniss is spared that difficulty. This happens multiple times during the story, and in the end, we still have no idea whether Katniss has any kind of moral fiber.
The Games themselves are pretty fun and exciting to read about. I'll admit I stayed up rather late one night reading it. But every time the kids fought with each other, I wanted to scream at them, "Does nobody see how wrong this is? Is anybody going to do something about it?" I think the author wants us to believe that the characters are powerless against the system, but if that's the case, she does a lousy job of showing it. I just don't buy it!
I have a few other complaints about the writing style that I'll mention only briefly. The speech tags ("he says," etc.) are done rather poorly. There is too much unneeded description and too little needed description (how big is the arena, anyway?). Events that are supposed to be surprises are easy to predict.
Finally, the ending of the book is really weak. The author couldn't have made it any clearer that there is a sequel if she pinned you down and screamed it in your face. I understand that it's the law (apparently) to write books in a series, but that doesn't mean that each installment shouldn't be able to stand on its own as a story. The flat ending of The Hunger Games makes it impossible for this book to stand on its own. But you can bet that I am never going to read the rest of the series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)