Tibor Fisher: Under the Frog
Labels: Tibor Fischer
A Wicked Note On Bolaño
I am reading Bolaño's new short story collection (The Return, New Directions, 2010) and at one point he writes (emphasis mine):
Rogelio came over to our table and said that the greatest writer of the centrury was, without doubt, Mikhail Bulgakov. (...) Rogelio mentioned other works by the distinguished novelist, more than ten of them...Now, Rogelio almost had to include the short stories of B too if it came more than ten...
Labels: Roberto Bolaño
A New Critical Reading of “Dark They Were and Golden-Eyed”
In Ray Bradbury's short story, “Dark Were They and Golden Eyed”, a family of five arrives at Mars from the Earth to settle down and find a new life. Although they try to do everything they can to establish an environment as similar to Earth as they can, soon they notice and have to accept that they are going through irreversible changes and cannot maintain their old selves: they gradually turn into Martians.
Labels: Ray Bradbury
Disobedience by Naomi Alderman
I am almost done with Disobedience by Naomi Alderman. And I think I know why it doesn't work. It is impossible to identify with the heroine (Ronit). She is superficial, pathetic, insensible, very-very selfish and I could go on and on and on. It is not that there aren't (main) literary characters that are similarly negative but in this case Alderman seems to make tons of effort to make us like Ronit or at least understand her. I am not saying that this really strict and ortodox Jewish world with its patriarchs and silent manipulators is attractive in any sense, however the only character I managed to like up to a certain point is the husband, Dovid. I absolutely despise Esti, consider Ronit a monster, so comparing to them, Dovid is quite likeable. I am wondering whether the last 50-so pages will change anything.
Labels: Naomi Alderman , reading diary
The Good Apprentice by Iris Murdoch
OK, this is gonna be short, for now: I find Murdoch's writing almost unbearably pretentious. I am not the one who refuses "artsy" things, but this seems to be too much, even for me.We'll see. I am still in the beginning.
Labels: Iris Murdoch , reading diary
Laura Rider's Masterpiece by Jane Hamilton
I almost did not pick up the book as it has this terrible, distasteful and hideous jacket design - I understand that it is supposedly funny hinting at some 50s (?) romance novel covers but there is nothing in it that suggests irony; the designer thought that putting together 50s style graphics automatically gives an ironic impression. Well, let me tell you: no, it does not.
Even when I read the blurb on the cover I thought it would be a kind of “How to Talk to a Widower”- type book – a very easy, very entertaining guilty pleasure. I did not read anything from the author, Jane Hamilton (whose name, by the way, sounds exactly like a name of a heroine in a typical romance novel, and this fact did not help me pick up the book either).
And finally the mea culpa, the pleasant surprise: Laura Rider's Masterpiece is extremely intelligently written, almost too intelligently (meaning: too artificially, too perfectly, too smoothly), and the story itself is growing onto me slowly but surely. It is a pretty delicate situation and of course the big question is whether Ms. Hamilton is talented enough to grab its delicacy and uneasiness. There is something creepy about the whole set-up, something absolutely not funny about the wife writing flirting letters to the radio star in the name and with the consent of her husband.
We'll see.
Labels: Jane Hamilton , reading diary
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 8.
Okay, okay, okay. Calm down.
I am almost in the end, hardly 30 pages are left, and it is a total chaos. The last sentence of the inspector twisted the story again. The hundredth time. I do not know anything, I do not understand anything.
I still have patience and excitement to go on and on and on. But I am more and more convinced this novel cannot be finished in the "right" way (from the writing technique's point of view or something). I do not want to finish this book and I want to finish it so badly.
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 7.
Well, I am not familiar with the genre, this genre, if this is the genre the novel seems to belong to (why the hell I keep thinking that nothing is really what it seems to be?!), but now that I have read about 2/3 of the book certain events start to pile up and they seem to be too many for CRZ to be able to "explain" in the end one by one. Unless of course there is going to be (1) a huge deus ex machina or (2) a generous, mysterious, leave-everthing-in-the -dark type ending. I am not sure I would be happy with either of them though. (However, everything seems to point to number 2, so I'd better get used to the idea.) And as fabulous and overwhelmingly rich as this book has been so far, I am terrified that CRZ won't have enough munition left for the whatever ending…
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 6.
I am slowly but surely realizing that one of the protagonists of the novel (quite easily the real one) is Barcelona itself. It is unbelievable how atmospheric CRZ's text. Beautiful. I've been waking up, living with and going to bed with Barcelona for a while now, a gothic, sinister Barcelona, always wet, always under stormy skies, always at daybreak, neither day nor night. Haunting me anywhere I go.
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 5.
Ah, now I feel some inauthentic voice in the text – a dialog-chunk where CRZ let the temptation for an oh-so-easy score take over. But I needed to get to the 320th page to experience this slight slip for the very first time in the novel – and that is, my friends, not a too bad report card over all, whatever the future might bring.
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 4.
…of course, now the question is not that what will happen - if it stays like this (and this is a huge 'if'), we can figure that out quite easily I guess, but rather: is it going to be final main story or will the main story be Daniel's fight against the Evil? And if yes, will he succeed? Is he going to survive this fight?
Here is my guess at the moment: he'll try to fight it but won't survive the battle. I just cannot see anyone being able to stand up to such an evil power, the Evil itself.
But that leads me to something else too: if I am right, and it is a Mephistopheles (Faust) story than how come the omnipotent Mr C. cannot see Daniel's every step and move? Or can he? Is this just a trick of his – to make D. think he can have thoughts and intentions of his own while in reality he cannot…? And who is in and who is just an innocent bystander in Daniel's life? Like: what is the role of Isabella?
Questions, question, questions. Still. Still no answers. (I love it.)
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
Sunday Salon: no milk today
- Check out the news on the 2009 Frankfurt Book Fair; this year the Guest of Honour was China; now, you know if I invite a guest I am not bashing them or if I want to, I don't invite them. Why the hell they made China the G of H if they can't tell two nice words about this country (mainly in the context of literarture).
- How well do you know your own books? - asks Sarah Crown in the Guardian's Books Blog. Ah, what a familiar situation...
- Watch out online book reviewers (including book bloggers)!
- Disney-art, a bit... khm... differently...
Labels: Sunday Salon
Monday Movies - October 12, 2009
This week is about the best romantic movie I have ever seen.
Of course there is not one "best of", and so I could list a lot of "best" romantic movies as well as "best this" and "best that". However I am mentioning the one that I have seen (and will be watching) the most as I love it so much (but who doesn't).
Yes, it is of course Casablanca, directed by one of my fellow countrymen, Kertész Mihály, a.k.a. Michael Curtiz.
Ah, what could I write about this movie that hasn't already been written? Anyhow, it is comforting to know that the studio came to its senses and casted the Bergman & Bogart couple as the leads instead of Ronnie (the Reagan) and Ann Sheridan (as the original plan was). Brrrrr....
Oh, and one more thing: Bogart wrote a big chunk of the screenplay and so supposedly we should thank him for one of my all-time favourite quotes (that I use an average once a week, or more, haha): "Here's looking at you, kid..."
(You can read about more favourite romantic movies here.)
Labels: Monday Movie Meme
Sunday Salon: Mysteries of Winterthurn by Joyce Carol Oates
Mysteries of Wintherthurn by Joyce Carol OatesPublished by Persea Books in 2008
(NOTE: Well. The thing is, Oates' name was all around in the past week in connection with the nominees for Nobel Prize for Lit – and honestly I hoped it was a mistake, mainly if you compare her to the other nominated authors. But just in case I have written a few words about an old novel of Oates to prove my point. Here it is – I don't want to throw it out just because she hasn't won. As for Herta Müller, the winner… well. She has to wait.)
Everyone read Bellefleur or them or Blonde. Everyone loved them. Me too. But this is an author who should write approximately tenth of the amount she is actually writing and stop and think first instead. 75% of her oeuvre is – although very popular in Reading Clubs I guess - totally mediocre (and I am very generous now). Mysteries of Winterthurn is not an exception either.
Success traps you much more easily than failure. While failure might discourage you success often makes you stuck-up and over-confident. That's what happens to Oates sometimes in her career and that is definitely the case with Winterthurn. It was written not much after Bellefleur and she evidently wanted to ride the success waves of that great family novel.
First of all, it is important to keep in mind that Oates' novel is supposed to be a classical mystery / detective story because this fact determines the critical approaches.
The story takes place in a small fictional American town in the East Coast – or better to say: stories as there are 3 ones (seemingly loosely) linked together by the same place and the same characters – a detective and his love. The question is: apart from this, is there any more, a bit deeper connection among the three stories?
We follow the protagonist, Xavier Kilgarvan's detective career from the beginning up to his 40s. In the first story there are several strange unnatural deaths in his own family and he manages to find out who stands behind all this. The second one is about some sadistic murders of factory workers (women) and in the third one a respected priest is murdered while in the middle of (seemingly) dubious acts. (You can read the book as a detective story, a whodunnit, so I am not telling you more.)
Well. I know, it is the umpteenth time I am writing this but again, Mysteries of Winterthurn seems to be an excellent example for the fact that a story itself is really not that important (=not enough) for a good novel. (In other words: the story is way over-estimated nowadays.) The literary value of a book lies mostly in the way an author handles (writes) a story. It is mainly true with mysteries. And that's where Oates slips: she evidently doesn't want to present an ordinary whodunnit, she feels she has to be "deeper", more "artistic". So she researches a whole bunch of cheap (American) pulp fiction from the beginning of the last century, decides to follow their formula but, as she is a "serious" novelist after all, she wants to write a persiflage, a kind of (not-too-funny) parody of these instead. So she uses a lot of archaisms, strange sentence-structures, fills her text with exalted fake-emotions, etc, etc. But there is a problem here: if you do decide on this genre you just cannot do things by halves. In a persiflage (parody) you either mock at somebody or not mock at them at all. You either need to take it totally seriously (and then drop the genre) or make fun of the characters, situations, etc. without any ("artistic") restrictions. That's what makes this genre work. Any other solution just confuses the receivers (=readers). Just like Oates confuses us in the Mysteries of Winterthurn: she evidently takes her almost-horror stories dead (haha) seriously but at the same time the way she tells us these stories (i.e. her writing style) is one of a parody. We tend to believe the seriousness of the stories but the archaic, mocking, sometimes pompous style that goes with it makes them sound discordant.
But even the stories themselves are not authentic in a literary sense. Yes, you can write unsolved mysteries very successfully (watch out: there is a good reason why I wrote "unsolved"; it is not necessarily referring to the actual story line, but again, I am not going to tell you more…), but you need to be an excellent writer to make it work (think of Edgar Allan Poe for instance). Or: you can create a surrealistic/enigmatic situation (chain of events) but in this case you need to give an explanation for the surrealism/enigma in a classic detective story. Unfortunately, Oates mixes up things again: she presents a mystery story in a pretty realistic way but leaves important elements of the same story enigmatically unsolved, causing uncertainty, unbalanced feelings in the reader (and not the good kind of literary uncertainty, believe me).
But let me to collect the positive features of the novel as well – and try to answer my beginning question at the same time: is there any more, a bit deeper connection among the three stories? After all, it says "A novel" and not "3 Novels" on the cover.
I have a feeling that if we can get over this mystery-persiflage thingie we might even discover what Oates' real purpose would be with her book. Somewhere deep (very, very deep, almost invisibly deep) she seems to talk about one thing in all 3 stories: she is outraged by the unscrupulous American Rich, who, with the help of their money, can overcome social morals, laws and anything or/and anybody who might stand in their way to live and do as they please. And after all this can be a suitable message for a reader to keep their motivation to finish the book.
Suitable – yes; literarily valuable – unfortunately: no.
Labels: Joyce Carol Oates , Sunday Salon
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 3.
I have never understood totally what it meant when somebody said 'It was the kind of book I read as slowly as I was able to so that it could last longer..."
Now I know.
As in literature or any other act of communication, what confers effectiveness on it is the form and not the content. (...) Everything is a story, a narrative, a sequence of events with characters communicating an emotional content. We only accept as true what can be narrated.
I think it rhymes to Wittgenstein but I still need to think it over. Not to speak of the fact how much it rhymes to what I've kept saying: the "story" being totally secondary after the form of a text. Yeah, baby.
(Part 1.
Part 2.)
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
And the Nobel goes to…
Well, now we know where the award goes this year.
But there might be something we don't know. A quote:
One lesson to be taken from this: the Swedish Academy has a big leak, and someone made a mint placing money on Müller at 50/1. That's two years in a row now (though since Le Clézio's odds started out much better not quite as much was won off his victory) -- and you can be sure everyone is going to follow the Ladbrokes odds very, very closely next year.
First read this…
…and then this…
Interesting, to say the least. (And the LS is fantastic, as usual.)
Labels: Herta Müller
Monday Movies - Dad characters
Over at The Bumbles there is a weekly meme that is very close to my heart as it is about movies, good movies. I thought it is time to introduce this topic here as I am also planning to write about movies in the future.
This week is about movies with great Dad characters.
The greatest movie about a Dad is definitely Father directed in 1966 by István Szabó (he is the one who got an Academy Award back in 1981 for his 'Mephisto'). It is out here as well with English subtitles so all the English speaking community can enjoy it too.
More fantastic Dad characters in movies...? Let me see just on top of my head.
- Les Nichols (played by Charles Durning) in Tootsie. (One of the best movies ever made about gender issues as well.)
- Ted Kramer in Kramer vs. Kramer.
- Moses Pray (played by Ryan O'Neal) in Paper Moon.
- Guido (played by Roberto Begnini) in Life is Beautiful.
- Frantisek (played by Zdenek Sverák) in Kolya.
- Helge (played by Henning Moritzen) in Festen.
- Vito Corleone in Godfather (played by Marlon Brando).
- Will (played by Hugh Grant) in About a Boy.
- Bishop Edvard Vergerus (played by Jan Malsmjö) in Fanny and Alexander
- Norman Thayer (played by Henry Fonda) in On Golden Pond.
(You can read more about Daddy movies here.)
Labels: Monday Movie Meme , movies
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 2.
In a bookstore I have just read a bit about the novel in Bookmarks. Well, it seems to me that the NYT mentions Faust so I am right about that. (Phew. I felt stupid... no, not stupid but rather over-educated.)On the other hand it seems The Angel's Game hasn't gotten too good reviews (hasn't gotten too bad ones either), it has been judged as a mediocre effort, and everybody compares it to his previous novel of course. (See one of my posts about this - this comparison game is the stupidest thing ever.)
Again, it is absolutely possible that this novel goes downhills (has to drop quite a lot as it is now at a very very high point), but it has to be a totally different reason from what these idiot reviews are talking about. I haven't read even one authentic (=literary critical) reason so far for these face-makings.
Nevertheless, in spite of my common sense and knowledge, these things can put me off quite well.
(Part 1.)
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón , reading diary
Sunday Salon: Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin
Giovanni's Room by James Baldwin
Published by Delta, 2000.
Last week I wrote about a James Baldwin novel and promised I would go on this week with another one, a more famous one, Giovanni's Room.
Well, it almost did not happen.
Not because this novel is worse – as a matter of fact, just the opposite. Although it was written much earlier then If Beale Street Could Talk, Giovanni's Room is more completed, more absolute – artistically speaking. Its world is as dark as the world of Beale Street but in a different way. It is a love story as well but even more beautiful. Race is not mentioned here and its subject is not a "blacks vs. whites" conflict but rather the nature of love. And as such, Giovanni's Room is one of the most beautiful love stories ever written. However, our question seems evident: is it possible to write another "traditional" love story when everything has already been said and told about this topic? And the answer is: yes and no.
Baldwin's story is a love story between two young men. A great, tragic love. The text is not banal, not sentimental at all: it presents all the painful aspects of the agony a relationship can cause (adding homosexuality to all this), including a very thorough social context as well (see the exploitation manner of the old pimps). Baldwin pictures the situation with a real insider's view, thoroughly and in an extremely complex way. The novel is an unforgettable, inspiring and sometimes disturbing reading about the beauty and the anguish, the clashes, the social aspects and the overwhelming power of Love itself.
Other than it should be a compulsory reading for every bigoted person who ever questioned the rights of homosexual love, it is hard to say anything more.
As a matter of fact hard to utter a word after closing the book.
Labels: James Baldwin , Sunday Salon
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Part 1.
(NOTE: In my Hungarian book blog I have been doing this for a long, long time - a diary of my ongoing reading experiences; thoughts, ideas while I am reading a certain book, thoughts, ideas about that particular book. I wanted to do so in this blog as well, when all of a sudden... Well. It will be sufficient to say now that I do not care about that certain "all of a sudden" thingie any more.)I am at about the 120th or so page and... I am sure it has been one of the best novels I have read in this year so far. Or in the last 2 years. Or ever. The problem: it is 530+ pages so I should keep up my very high opinion on it for another 410 pages... We'll see (and I definitely hope so).
I kinda read some of the reviews (the reliable ones I mean) - "kinda", as I really did not want to know any important story line in advance (other than the cover tells us of course, but I practically cannot avoid that), so I just skimmed through these reviews very superficially and quickly. The Angel's Game was published in Hungary too, so I even pulled up some Hungarian reviews as well.
But.
After just 120 pages the parallel with the Faust-story is sooooo evident to me. I cannot tell if it will be staying so (so please do not tell me if yes or no!), but if yes, why the heck nobody mentions this? Am I the only one who read the Master and Margarita by Bulgakov (another aspect of the parallel)? Or am I the only one who has noticed this? OK, I am smart, but that smart...? So I am assuming, the character named Andreas Corelli, won't turn out to be a Lucifer figure and that's why nobody mentions this... Although so far everything, I repeat, everything shows so: the outlook, his "family background", his being totally omniscient, even the title of the book, etc, etc. Or, of course, I haven't read the reviews very thoroughly or I haven't read the right reviews, etc.
The text itself is so disturbing that I cannot read more than a few pages (1 or 2 chapters) at a time and then I need to put it down for a short while, but I cannot wait to get back to it again. I know, I know, it is weird but that's how it is, that's how I am. Believe me, there are not too many books that have done this to me. Very intense, very disturbing, very complex, very thick text. Layers and layers and layers. Incredible. So far at least.
And the characters. Not even the protagonist (Daniel - who is, or has been so far, the least interesting out of the 3), but take the woman (Cristina) or the (seemingly? really?) altruist Pedro Vidal. So complex, so complicated characters that I could write essays on them. And again: I have only read less then the quarter of the whole book (roughly)! But in this first part so many things are happening (both on the levels of reality and symbolism), so many emotions and thoughts are crammed in that all this would be more than enough already for a separate novel.
I should read (=catch up) with my Les Miserables but I cannot think about anything else but The Angel's Game.
Came the right time, right place...? Yes. Definitely.
Labels: Carlos Ruiz Zafón






