Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Read: 14 April, 2008

Tom Sawyer is an episodic piece that might have been titled "sketches of boyhood." There is a plot, but it takes a secondary position to main plot - the adventures of a young boy in Mississippi. It isn't a bad thing. The plot of the story (the discoveries of Indian Joe's various criminal activities) serves well for little bursts of excitement, but probably would have bogged the story down if it had taken central place.

I'm afraid that I don't have too much to say about the book. It was a light and interesting read, it was terribly funny at times, and the characterization was superb. I do wish that I had read this when I was a bit younger as I think that I would have appreciated it more. So while I definitely recommend it to anyone, I would especially recommend it to 10-15-year-olds.

Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King

Read: 31 March, 2008

Hearts in Atlantis is a collection of short(ish) interwoven stories dealing in some way with the 60s, Vietnam, and the lives of two people named Carol and Bobby. The first and main story is about a kid named Bobby who finds himself just about to grow up. One day, an older man named Ted moves into the building and, in him, Bobby finds an adult he can be friends with. This is the only story that deals with the supernatural and Stephen King fans will find that it connects with his Dark Tower series.

The rest of the stories are considerably shorter and mostly deal with Vietnam - either with the fear of being sent or with the effects of having been there. Wrapping up the novel is a short story that finds Bobby returning to his home town, completing the circular path of the novel.

According to the book jacket, the novel is about Vietnam and the 60s, but it's done in a very circumspect way. Only the minor characters ever go, the heroes of the shorter stories crammed into the final few pages. The main characters, Bobby from "Low Men in Yellow Coats" and Pete from "Hearts in Atlantis," never go. Bobby, in fact, never even gets to hear about Vietnam, growing up before the war starts. But "Low Men in Yellow Coats" doesn't avoid the subject at all, it merely hides it. Bobby is given a copy of Lord of the Flies and becomes obsessed with it, using that novel to understand his world, a world that would be transformed into a scene from the novel in the following years. As for Pete, he comes close to Vietnam, almost touches it, but he manages to scramble back into humanity and away from the mentality of Lord of the Flies that he approaches when he laughs at a crippled classmate who falls and nearly drowns in a flooded path. He regains himself, saving the classmate and raising his grades so that he wouldn't be sent to war, he is spared the guilt and trauma that affects the main characters of the next two stories.

For a book that centres around Vietnam, Hearts in Atlantis somehow manages to stay off the soapbox. It's always something that's bothered me about Vietnam stories. It's such a raw subject that I've yet to see an author be able to handle it without becoming preachy. That's not to say that King doesn't show an opinion, but that opinion is not a moral judgement of the war, but rather an exploration of the mentality that led to what happened during the war - like Lord of the Flies, he presents us with ordinary people who were thrust into extraordinary situations and either did or saw things that they spend the rest of their lives trying to deal with.

The characterization is amazing. This is the first actual Stephen King book that I've read. I've read some of his short stories, but they've never appealed to me. Now I know why. His strongest ability is characterization, something that he creates and builds upon over the course of a long narrative. Despite the length, there was an economy of space too. Every scene served to advance character and the result was a lengthy book with very little action that I read quickly and excitedly.

I'm trying to think of labels for the book, but I'm finding myself at a loss. There are elements of suspense and horror, but these are merely vehicles for exploration and not the subjects of it. Not to mention that the supernatural elements of "Low Men in Yellow Coats" are abandoned entirely until the final few pages.

How To Tell Your Friends From The Apes by Will Cuppy

Read: 2 February, 2008

A series of two page profiles for a number of animals (including a section devoted to other humanoids). Cuppy displays a great deal of research and uses it well to make his profiles quite funny. The style of comedy is very subtle, making it easy to miss if the reference isn't known.

I wasn't wildly impressed with this book. I did enjoy it and it truly is very funny, but it left me feeling a bit empty; it's like a meal that just isn't as filling as expected. Finishing, I couldn't help but to feel that I could have much better spent my time with a different selection. That being said, however, it truly is quite funny and I certainly wouldn't say that it's a bad book.

Just to give a sense of what to expect, here is a passage:
"When standing beside a mimosa the Giraffe is indistinguishable from the tree except that he has four legs and a head and a tail. Some hunters will stalk a mimosa tree for days without getting results."

Ultimately, I found that the introduction by P.G. Wodehouse was the best part of the whole book (not only because Wodehouse is awesome, but also because all the best passages from the book to follow are quoted there).

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

Read: 2005

Piscine Molitor Patel (known to all as Pi Patel) is the son of a zoo owner. He's an exceptionally bright young man and shows his maturity quite clearly when it comes to religion. He's a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Christian, all at the same time. But soon, political discontent drives his family out of India and towards Canada. The zoo is sold, the bags are packed, and the whole family (including several animals on their way to American zoos) board the Tsimtsum, a Japanese cargo ship with a Taiwanese crew.

"The ship sunk," begins Part II. From that point on, this is a story of survival against amazing odds. Not only does Pi Patel survive 227 days in the Pacific Ocean, but he does it in the company of an adult male Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.

The thing I love most about this book is the fact that you can read it once and interpret the story one way, but then you can read it again and see everything differently. The revelation of Part III is certainly really good food for thought. There's the literal interpretation of seeing the boy on a life-raft with a tiger. Then there is the alternative story given at the end of the boy on a life-raft struggling with his inner beast while trying to keep his humanity. Then, of course, there's the third possibility that the entire story is complete fiction and is just about a boy maturing and struggling with the different influences in his life. It's easy, especially as an English major, to really read too far into books and see things that just aren't there. But I think Yann Martel makes it quite clear that all three of these interpretations are intentional. Heck, he even gives us two of them up front!

Another thing I loved about the story was the three part system. Part I deals with introducing Pi and the society he is coming out of. I found that what I read in Part I really brought Pi to life and let me identify with him enough that I really cared about what happened to him in Part II. I had bonded with him enough that when he suffered in Part II, I suffered as well. When he started to lose touch with his humanity (like when he suddenly notices that he's eating like a tiger), I really feared for him. Thank goodness Part I ends with the message: "This story has a happy ending." I think it would have been very difficult and painful to read otherwise. Part II is his struggle on the raft. Part III is his interview in which he explains what happens. I found this to be a really important part. It's also a very interesting part in its function. It serves not only to ridicule the idea that the concept of the book (a boy surviving that long in the pacific with a tiger) is preposterous, but also serves to introduce a whole new perspective and the possibility that none of it might have happened at all (I mean that within the book's fictional world).

Several people I have spoken to have said that the transition is too abrupt. Of course, it would have to be since that's exactly what it was for Pi Patel: abrupt. But I've heard many times that there's too much character development at the beginning to wade through before getting to the meat of the story. To each her own, I suppose.

One final fantastic point I just want to bring up in relation to the two possible stories offered by Martel is the idea that the more interesting story is more important than the story that is true. So that's what Martel leaves us with: "Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?" Which is more important to you, a good story or the truth?

Harry Potter #3: The Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling

Read: 2005

The Prisoner of Azkaban is the third instalment of the Harry Potter series. The story opens on Harry's thirteenth birthday. He is staying with his abusive aunt and uncle (muggles, or non-magical persons) for the summer. What follows is a story of his third year at Hogwarts, a boarding school for young wizards, and his discovery of his long-dead father.

Before I begin, I would like to make it very clear that I will only be discussing The Prisoner of Azkaban in this review. I haven't read any of the other books in the series, so I really can't comment on how this particular book fits in. Now that that's out of the way…

I absolutely loved the way The Prisoner of Azkaban brought mythology to life in a modern and relevant way. It's not Tristan or Siddhartha Gautama anymore, this is just Harry. I have seen many attempts to revitalize myths for children, but this is the first time I have seen it done quite so successfully (at least since The Hobbit and The Chronicles of Narnia).

The plot is undeniably interesting. Many common child issues are brought up and dealt with in quite a nice pedagogical way. Everything from friendships to coping with fears to bullying to dealing with the loss of a loved one. These are all issues that every child faces, and children can learn a lot about how to deal with fear, for example, in the episode with the boggart (just find a way to make the fear look silly, laugh it to death!).

My major qualm with the book was the way that the plot developed. Rather than a subtle movement or clues for the reader to piece together, the plot moves very slowly, takes a huge leap, moves slowly again, etc. Sometimes, an explanation character is thrown in. These characters have no being of their own, no personalities, no relevance to the story. Rather, they are there just to act as Harry's (and our) surrogate ears. A good example of this would be Rosmerta at the Three Broomsticks pub. The story hasn't been told in twelve years, and suddenly they are telling Rosmerta every single detail. Of course, it just happens to be right in front of Harry.

The ending pretty much plays itself out in this same way. In a typical Nick and Nora style, all the relevant characters are gathered together and three chapters are spent revealing the truth. A lot of new information is added, sudden leaps are taken so that the reader could not have guessed the outcome for him/herself, and several instances are still left unexplained (for example, why, if Sirius Black is so good, did he break Ron's leg? One explanation someone has given me is that he's gone a little crazy with his desire for revenge. Why, then, did he not just kill Scabbers once he had him in the Shrieking Shack? Why did he wait in a dark corner until Harry and Hermione appeared and waited for Ron to shout out that it's a trap?).

The only other trouble I had with the book was the fact that everything plot critical was repeated several times. So you would have a main character explain something, then someone would ask an idiotic question that pretty much requires that main character to repeat what he just said. I suppose this is technically a children's book, so it makes sense that it would not require quite so much memory, attention, and piecing together as what I normally read. But as an adult, this was quite frustrating to read. And I feel that, somehow, it's short-changing children, too. From what I've noticed, kids tend to be a whole lot more perceptive than they are typically given credit for.

The use of names in The Prisoner of Azkaban is really interesting and entertaining. The names are whimsical, but also very descriptive of the character. Take "Snape" for example. This man is a jealous, petty, conniving man, one of those bullies in books that the reader just loves to hate. His name sounds exactly like that. "Snape" firstly sounds a lot like "snake," but it also conjures images of the petty and the low. Then you have "Remus Lupine," the werewolf. Remus, of course, taken from the Roman myth of Romulus and Remus, the twins who were raised by a she-wolf. And "Lupine" from the Latin word "lupus" which means "wolf." Playing around with pronunciations and possible meanings of the names is almost more entertaining that the novel itself.

All in all, I did enjoy it. I think Ms. Rowling is certainly an extremely intelligent woman and she puts a lot of that intellect into her work. Getting kids to read on such a large scale is certainly an amazing feat. However, the plot development style does not help anyone. If this is a children's book, I would like to see more clues throughout the novel so that it is possible (note: not 'easy') to figure out the ending. I think it's not just important that children read, but also what they read. Giving them something that has room for guesswork would do far more to improve their critical and observational skills than just having a couple little stories and then having a complete gear shift for an ending that pulls strings out of thin air with which to tie loose ends. As an adult reader, it would make the novel more worth-while.

Sano Ichiro #4: The Concubine's Tattoo by Laura Joh Rowland

Read: 18 January, 2008

Emperor Tokugawa Tsunayoshi's concubine has died while carving a tattoo onto her body. The emperor's lead investigator, Sano Ichiro, must solve the mystery of her death while navigating the delicate balance of the court, the conflicted allegiances of his right-hand-man, and his new wife's feminist ideals.

The Concubine's Tattoois genre-fiction; there's no mistaking it. It makes the unfortunate poor writing choices that most detective mysteries seem to make. If characters are developed at all, it is only in "character blurbs" that are given on introduction and that are supposed to explain all future actions of that character. For example, a few paragraphs are devoted to Lady Uechi Reiko's (Sano's wife) upbringing and how, as an only child, she was raised as a male and that's why she's such a feminist. Unfortunately for what could have been a very good story, Rowland has never heard the phrase "show, don't tell."

This is a recurrent issue in the novel, and not only when characters are first introduced. Whenever a character feels anything, we are told explicitly what it is they feel, regardless of which side of the investigation they are on. In a mystery, this does a great deal to ruin the story because it takes a lot of the guess-work out of the equation. And, of course, since the reader knows what the protagonists can't know, it forces Rowland to give the detectives "sudden insight" that defies logic.

The novel also offended my sensibilities in many ways. Nearly every "bad" character is either gay or a sexual pervert. It wouldn't bother me so much if only one antagonist were gay or if some of the good characters were too, but the one-sidedness suggests to me that Rowland equates being gay with a deficiency of character (whether it be outright evil like Lord Yanagisawa or plain effeminate impotence like the emperor). And while I certainly agree with some of the narrator's ideas about the caste system and the role of women, seeing the author break through into the writing to get on her soapbox and lecture about these topics becomes wearisome after a while.

For my last negative comment of the day, I found the mystery itself to be lacking. There were red-herrings and femme-fatales and all the other staples of the genre, but the total lack of originality, interesting characters, and a compelling plot made the whole novel drag. The big twist ending might have been all right if the characters didn't go on at length about how unexpected a twist it was. Rowland doesn't seem to understand that her readers can identify surprising conclusions without being told to be surprised (and then lectured at about how anti-feminist we all are for not anticipating it).

That being said, I loved the setting. Rowland does a great job of exposing the world of her mystery - it's just a shame that such an interesting world is populated by such cardboard people.

Lamb by Christopher Moore

Thank you, Zeba, for the recommendation.

Read: 11 January, 2008

The story is written from the perspective of Biff, Jesus's best friend. In the modern day, an angel raises Biff from the dead so that he can write a new gospel. It follows Jesus from the time Biff met him as a child up until their deaths. It shows us Jesus's early training as a stonemason, his travels into the East, and his eventual ministry.

Lamb is an absolutely hilarious comedy about Jesus that, surprisingly, manages to remain almost completely inoffensive. I loved reading it. It was very funny with a writing style similar to Carl Hiaasen's, but lacked Hiaasen's flaws (like the awfully disappointing endings). It was clever where it needed to be, sensitive where it needed to be, and funny where it needed to be. The characterizations of Jesus, Biff, and Mary Magdalene were stunningly constructed.

There were two portions that I felt a little let down by. The first is when Biff and Jesus get to Calcutta and see a ritual dedicated to the goddess Kali. The scene was important to the story, but it felt dry. It was too descriptive, like an anthropological study. I do understand that it's supposed to be horrifying, so the humour of the rest of the story would have been out of place. But it needed something different. Reading the Afterward, Moore mentions that he had learned about the ritual from Joseph Campbell, which goes a way to explain the tone of the passage. Unable to use his normal humour, Moor had resorted to Campbell's more academic writing style.

I was also a little disappointed that the story skipped over much of Jesus' ministry. The reason given in the book is that the real gospels already tell that story, but I would have liked to have heard Biff's perspective. I understand that it would have been more difficult to write about that portion without offending people and without getting preachy, but the pacing just didn't match up with the rest of the story. It felt like the last few chapters ended the book with a bit of a "plegh."

These two complaints are very minor, though. The book was awesome and I highly recommend it for pretty much anyone. Having studied the New Testament a bit, I found a lot of references to theories about Jesus and a lot of jokes that asked for a certain familiarity with the Bible to get and my previous knowledge enriched my reading. But friends who had no previous interest or understanding found no difficulty in following the story. I also think that reasonable Christians won't find it at odds with their faith. There's something for everyone.