Dan Brown tries to hit a home run with this book, but instead ends up hitting into a double play. There are several things that are wrong with this book. One, Dan Brown has written the exact book three times. Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and The Lost Symbol all follow the same basic plot line and share many details. Consistency is nice, but what ends up happening is predictability. I knew everything that was going to happen before it happens not because I am smart enough to figure it out, but because Dan Brown is so transparent it is unbelievably easy to see where he is going. There is not one thing original about this book. Dan Brown has ripped himself off, as well as other works (Holy Blood, Holy Grail; National Treasure; The Red Dragon).
Two, the 'bad guy' in this book is an absolute joke. Nothing weakens a character more than not being able to kill one character who he should be able to kill and not killing someone else when he says he is going to do so. It is hard to take him seriously when he cannot or will not follow through on his threats. I did not believe he would kill Katherine, Langdon, Peter, etc. because he had not killed anyone of any significance. Also, Mal'ahk's motivations really slow down the novel. All he really wants is to be a god, or demon. So he has orchestrated this whole thing to make that happen. Not really edge of your seat kind of pay off. Yes, he tried to upload the video, but in the end that was just icing on his cake of being a supreme being. Silas and Company wanted to shake the foundations of the world; the Hassassin and Company wanted to blow up the world; Mal'ahk wants to be special. The plot is dead. Also, does anyone else think it is interest that Zachary, when he is younger, vehemently rejects everything his father stands for (Mason stuff) and then grows up to immerse himself in that and achieve what the Masons ultimately want? Hmmm.
Three, Dan Brown wastes too much of his time spreading information. His little one liners of tidbits of information coupled with his multi-paragraph explanations on how to blow something a) take up time, space, etc. and b) make Dan Brown come off as arrogant. It's almost as if he's saying, 'Look what I know that you are to stupid to know. Let me share this with you.' As a side note, Dan Brown's material is so sloppily researched that it is clearly evident none of what is in the book is actually true, though he claims it is.
Related to that, Dan Brown, it is increasingly clear, has a pretty bleak view of humanity. In the Da Vinci code the problem is the world is not ready to receive this ground-shattering information. The same is true here. The Masons keep their secret because the rest of the world is not ready. In other words us 'regular' little humans with our small minds and weak hearts cannot possibly maturely digest this supposed wisdom without the world coming to an end. Also, related to the video, we bickering humans will not be able to survive once this scandal. The world will just fall apart. Has anyone counted how many sexual scandals there have been in the USA in the last decade. A lot, and look, we're all still here. It would take more than an video-tape to bring down this country and the rest of the world. But, according to Dan Brown, humanity is far too weak and immature to handle such information.
Robert Langdon continues to astound. First he continues to be brought into these situations. You'd think he would learn. Second, for someone who is as smart as he is he sure is astounded a lot. Third, for someone as open as he is he sure is skeptical about anything he thinks is silly. Langdon is quickly becoming one of those characters you hate.
Overall, this book is bad, and not as in good. The plot is perfectly predictable; the characters are not developed, believable, or real in any way. It drags in some places, because of its predictability and Dan Brown's incessant need to flood our minds with useless (and often times untrue) information. The same is true of all his books, but some of the others have at least the thrill factor to make it exciting. This one does not have that, which is where Dan Brown really missed. The plot, in a lot of ways is absolute crap.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Lacuna, by Barbara Kingsolver, * * * *
The Lacuna, by Barbara Kingsolver is written in a very similar way as her previous novel, The Poisonwood Bible. In The Lacuna, Kingsolver seeks to place her main character, Harrison Shepherd, in a historical context. Shepherd spends time with the likes of Diego Rivera, Leon Trotsky, and Frida Kahlo. All of these characters, in their own way, have a profound impact on Shepherd.
This story is told though journal entries, written by Shepherd and later published by is longtime assistant, Violet Brown. From a young age, Shepherd writes. Frida encourages him to do so as well. The idea is for Shepherd to tell his story. At times Shepherd is reluctant to do so, even going so far as to have his assistant 'destroy' (which she does not) all his journals. These journals create a unique perspective in the book. We are told the story from a first person point of view, but Shepherd does not reveal very much about himself. He is telling the story of the world around him, which comes across as third person point of view. However, since the story is told through journal entries the reader is given only limited information. What the reader ends up with is: first person, third person, limited (non-omniscient) point of view. The reader sees Shepherd's world through Shepherd's eyes, but not all of it.
Shepherd is modeled after reclusive author J.D. Salinger. I do not know if Kingsolver had Salinger in mind specifically, however there are several similarities between Salinger and Shepherd, most notable being Shepherd's desire to stay out of the public eye. At times in the novel this is almost frustrating because in the absence of Shepherd's own words the public creates a view of him that is not true. All he needs to do is grant one interview, but he maintains his privacy and will not succumb. Though frustrating, this 'reclusivity' ends up making Shepherd a very strong character. He does not care what other people think of him. He is strong, confident, etc. enough to live his life without the approval of the masses.
Using character to show history Kingsolver paints a picture of a very dark time in the world's history, the Red Scare. This was a time when the world was at war, though without any weapons being fired. Communism was spreading like wild-fire throughout eastern Europe and Asia and the United States was absolutely horrified that communism might take hold in America. To that end many people were accused of being communist, or communist sympathizers. Shepherd falls victim to this paranoia. Since he does not grant interviews the public has come up with their own view of him: communist sympathizer. This image is enhanced do to Shepherd's past association with Rivera and Trotsky.
Kingsolver highlights some key things here. One, how easily panic spreads. In the beginning Shepherd is seen as a hero because he is such a gifted author. In the end, though, he is vilified for his supposed communist leanings. Why? The country is in a panic. Fear runs rampant and because of that Shepherd suffers. The fear of the American public, and government, lead to his fall from grace. Two, the prejudice that exists in human hearts. Shepherd has several strikes against him. One, he is half Mexican. Two, he is a homosexual. Three, he is private (which, in the eyes of everyone else, means he is hiding something). These aspects of Shepherd's character are used against him, even though he is, in absolutely no way, communist.
Most of the book is sad, due to Shepherd's life and the things he experiences. However, Kingsolver ends on a positive by revealing Shepherd may actually be alive (he supposedly commits suicide rather than face the 'communist accusations). This is a great way to end the book. Shepherd gets what he always wanted: a private life, away from everything, free to live how he wants.
Good book overall. Kingsolver manages to once again weave a great story through some historically tumultuous events.
This story is told though journal entries, written by Shepherd and later published by is longtime assistant, Violet Brown. From a young age, Shepherd writes. Frida encourages him to do so as well. The idea is for Shepherd to tell his story. At times Shepherd is reluctant to do so, even going so far as to have his assistant 'destroy' (which she does not) all his journals. These journals create a unique perspective in the book. We are told the story from a first person point of view, but Shepherd does not reveal very much about himself. He is telling the story of the world around him, which comes across as third person point of view. However, since the story is told through journal entries the reader is given only limited information. What the reader ends up with is: first person, third person, limited (non-omniscient) point of view. The reader sees Shepherd's world through Shepherd's eyes, but not all of it.
Shepherd is modeled after reclusive author J.D. Salinger. I do not know if Kingsolver had Salinger in mind specifically, however there are several similarities between Salinger and Shepherd, most notable being Shepherd's desire to stay out of the public eye. At times in the novel this is almost frustrating because in the absence of Shepherd's own words the public creates a view of him that is not true. All he needs to do is grant one interview, but he maintains his privacy and will not succumb. Though frustrating, this 'reclusivity' ends up making Shepherd a very strong character. He does not care what other people think of him. He is strong, confident, etc. enough to live his life without the approval of the masses.
Using character to show history Kingsolver paints a picture of a very dark time in the world's history, the Red Scare. This was a time when the world was at war, though without any weapons being fired. Communism was spreading like wild-fire throughout eastern Europe and Asia and the United States was absolutely horrified that communism might take hold in America. To that end many people were accused of being communist, or communist sympathizers. Shepherd falls victim to this paranoia. Since he does not grant interviews the public has come up with their own view of him: communist sympathizer. This image is enhanced do to Shepherd's past association with Rivera and Trotsky.
Kingsolver highlights some key things here. One, how easily panic spreads. In the beginning Shepherd is seen as a hero because he is such a gifted author. In the end, though, he is vilified for his supposed communist leanings. Why? The country is in a panic. Fear runs rampant and because of that Shepherd suffers. The fear of the American public, and government, lead to his fall from grace. Two, the prejudice that exists in human hearts. Shepherd has several strikes against him. One, he is half Mexican. Two, he is a homosexual. Three, he is private (which, in the eyes of everyone else, means he is hiding something). These aspects of Shepherd's character are used against him, even though he is, in absolutely no way, communist.
Most of the book is sad, due to Shepherd's life and the things he experiences. However, Kingsolver ends on a positive by revealing Shepherd may actually be alive (he supposedly commits suicide rather than face the 'communist accusations). This is a great way to end the book. Shepherd gets what he always wanted: a private life, away from everything, free to live how he wants.
Good book overall. Kingsolver manages to once again weave a great story through some historically tumultuous events.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Not Me, by Michael Lavigne * * *
Michael Rosenheim is in Florida visiting his father, Heshel Rosenheim, who is dying. Heshel is a holocaust survivor as well as a recipient of many awards and recognitions for his volunteer work. Heshel has done a lot of work on behalf Jews, which is an important detail. One day Michael receives a box of journals that detail a story in which a German officer, Heinrich Mueller, assumes the identity of a prisoner at a concentration camp. The name this Mueller assumes is Heshel Rosenheim. The journals tell how the officer, Heinrich Mueller, stole the identity of the prisoner and then how he goes on to be war hero for the Jews as the State of Israel is established. Much of the book deals with Michael trying to discover if the story from the journals is true, or a work of fiction made up by his father.
The main theme in this story is atonement. Is it possible for someone to atone for their sins, no matter how heinous the sins? For example, if a German officer, guilty of participating in genocide, steals the identity of a victim of the concentration camp in which he works, but then goes on to do a nearly countless number of amazing things for the benefit of the Jewish people. Does that person atone for what they have done?
Certainly Heshel Rosenheim would like to think so. Repentance is mentioned in the book, the idea that one turns completely from an old way of life and into a new one. Heshel converts to Judaism, and takes his faith very seriously. He fights bravely for Israel in their conflict against Egypt. He raises a lot of money for the Jews. He rescues many children who were orphaned by the Holocaust, etc. Does any of this absolve him? Lavigne leaves it up to the reader to decide.
Another theme in the novel is deception. Yes, Heshel has done many things, perhaps enough things to atone for his previous actions. However, part of atonement is confession. Heshel continually deceives those around him as to who he is and what he has done. Like so many other Germans from that time period, Heshel lies to cover up the truth, and his role in it. One could almost say, if Heshel is truly sorry for his actions he would be honest about them, he would not lie about them.
Michael is searching for answers. He does not know what to believe at first though in the end he finds the answers he is looking for. In the end he decided to forgive his father. At least, that is the impression with which the reader is left. His search for answers is something with which the reader can truly sympathize. Of course he wants to know what happened. Heshel is his father. The reader cheers for Michael, in a sense, because the reader wants Michael to have that peace from closure.
Michael, I think, is what makes the book work. Because he is personally very connected to the story that makes it all the more necessary for the answers to become clear. If Michael were, say, just a reporter, his search for answers would be less sympathetic. However, because Michael wants to know who his father is and what his father has done, so he can figure out who he is and what his life means, the reader can willingly follow Michael as he digs for the truth.
This book, like so many other Holocaust literature, is important because it reminds the world of one of the darkest times in history. Due to what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s not very many people want to talk about it. The world needs to be reminded, so that the same kinds of things do not happen again.
The main theme in this story is atonement. Is it possible for someone to atone for their sins, no matter how heinous the sins? For example, if a German officer, guilty of participating in genocide, steals the identity of a victim of the concentration camp in which he works, but then goes on to do a nearly countless number of amazing things for the benefit of the Jewish people. Does that person atone for what they have done?
Certainly Heshel Rosenheim would like to think so. Repentance is mentioned in the book, the idea that one turns completely from an old way of life and into a new one. Heshel converts to Judaism, and takes his faith very seriously. He fights bravely for Israel in their conflict against Egypt. He raises a lot of money for the Jews. He rescues many children who were orphaned by the Holocaust, etc. Does any of this absolve him? Lavigne leaves it up to the reader to decide.
Another theme in the novel is deception. Yes, Heshel has done many things, perhaps enough things to atone for his previous actions. However, part of atonement is confession. Heshel continually deceives those around him as to who he is and what he has done. Like so many other Germans from that time period, Heshel lies to cover up the truth, and his role in it. One could almost say, if Heshel is truly sorry for his actions he would be honest about them, he would not lie about them.
Michael is searching for answers. He does not know what to believe at first though in the end he finds the answers he is looking for. In the end he decided to forgive his father. At least, that is the impression with which the reader is left. His search for answers is something with which the reader can truly sympathize. Of course he wants to know what happened. Heshel is his father. The reader cheers for Michael, in a sense, because the reader wants Michael to have that peace from closure.
Michael, I think, is what makes the book work. Because he is personally very connected to the story that makes it all the more necessary for the answers to become clear. If Michael were, say, just a reporter, his search for answers would be less sympathetic. However, because Michael wants to know who his father is and what his father has done, so he can figure out who he is and what his life means, the reader can willingly follow Michael as he digs for the truth.
This book, like so many other Holocaust literature, is important because it reminds the world of one of the darkest times in history. Due to what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s not very many people want to talk about it. The world needs to be reminded, so that the same kinds of things do not happen again.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Empire Falls, by Richard Russo * * * *
'Empire Falls' tells the story of Miles Roby, who runs the Empire Grill, one of the eating establishments of the town of Empire Falls. He is kept in this job by the promise of Mrs. Whiting, current owner of the restaurant, as well as most of the town, that he will one day own the Empire Grill. Miles' daughter, Tick, features prominently in the novel as she tries to befriend John Voss, the victim of many school bullies. Miles' ex-wife, Janine, also appears often; she is preparing to get married to Walt Comeau, who is a regular at Miles' restaurant. Most of the book deals with Miles as he deals with the things going on around him, as well as his search into his own, and his mother's past. The book also deals with a school-shooting, and the impact it has one people in the town, especially Tick.
More than anything this book is about the collapse of 20th century America. Empire Falls used to be a budding town, having several textile factories. When it is discovered the products can be made in Mexico for half the price the company is sold, the workers laid off. What was previously a blue-collar town with a good population has now turned into a ghost-town, a victim of greed.
Empire Falls, though a fictitious town, is a symbol for many American towns, and citizens. It is not only the loss of jobs, it is a loss of spirit. The citizens of Empire Falls remember what the town used to be and have given up hope that it will ever return to that. Many have lost their job, some their homes, all their way of life. Empire Falls has fallen hard, symbolizing how America, in real life, has fallen in some ways.
Another theme in this book is vengeance. Mrs. Whiting keeps Miles exactly where he is, managing the Empire Grill when he could be doing something else, as punishment for her husband's infidelity. Miles, of course, is innocent in all of this, but he is, nonetheless, victim to Mrs. Whiting's anger and bitterness. Mrs. Whiting claims to love Miles, but that is hard to believe considering she will not lift a finger to make the Empire Grill flourish. Nor will she let Miles to anything to improve upon his situation in life.
One can also clearly see vengeance in the actions of John Voss. In seeking vengeance for being bullied, as well as being abused as a child, John brings a gun to school and kills three people. It is hard to imagine the pain he is feeling inside, a pain strong enough to carry out such a horrific act.
Finally, vengeance can be seen in the act of Janine marrying Walt. It is clear, at times, that Janine does not truly love Walt. She is marrying him as much to get back at Miles as anything else.
What is evident in all three of these cases is that the vengeance is not entirely justified. Miles does nothing to Mrs. Whiting, and yet she punishes him. John Voss kills three people, none of whom hurt him in any way. Miles is partially responsible for the break up of his marriage, but he is not an evil person. And yet, Janine feels the need to punish him to making her life miserable.
This book is very good. I think Russo captures perfectly the struggles of Small Town USA, as well as the anger and pain we all feel from the way others have treated us.
More than anything this book is about the collapse of 20th century America. Empire Falls used to be a budding town, having several textile factories. When it is discovered the products can be made in Mexico for half the price the company is sold, the workers laid off. What was previously a blue-collar town with a good population has now turned into a ghost-town, a victim of greed.
Empire Falls, though a fictitious town, is a symbol for many American towns, and citizens. It is not only the loss of jobs, it is a loss of spirit. The citizens of Empire Falls remember what the town used to be and have given up hope that it will ever return to that. Many have lost their job, some their homes, all their way of life. Empire Falls has fallen hard, symbolizing how America, in real life, has fallen in some ways.
Another theme in this book is vengeance. Mrs. Whiting keeps Miles exactly where he is, managing the Empire Grill when he could be doing something else, as punishment for her husband's infidelity. Miles, of course, is innocent in all of this, but he is, nonetheless, victim to Mrs. Whiting's anger and bitterness. Mrs. Whiting claims to love Miles, but that is hard to believe considering she will not lift a finger to make the Empire Grill flourish. Nor will she let Miles to anything to improve upon his situation in life.
One can also clearly see vengeance in the actions of John Voss. In seeking vengeance for being bullied, as well as being abused as a child, John brings a gun to school and kills three people. It is hard to imagine the pain he is feeling inside, a pain strong enough to carry out such a horrific act.
Finally, vengeance can be seen in the act of Janine marrying Walt. It is clear, at times, that Janine does not truly love Walt. She is marrying him as much to get back at Miles as anything else.
What is evident in all three of these cases is that the vengeance is not entirely justified. Miles does nothing to Mrs. Whiting, and yet she punishes him. John Voss kills three people, none of whom hurt him in any way. Miles is partially responsible for the break up of his marriage, but he is not an evil person. And yet, Janine feels the need to punish him to making her life miserable.
This book is very good. I think Russo captures perfectly the struggles of Small Town USA, as well as the anger and pain we all feel from the way others have treated us.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Abide With Me, by Elizabeth Strout * * * *
Tyler Caskey is a minister in Maine. He has two daughters, and his wife has recently died. That is the premise of this moving novel by Elizabeth Strout. There is not much plot to speak of, in the sense that there are very few big events in the novel, other than Tyler's wife dying, which is revisited several times in the book.
Strout describes well the life of a minister in relation to the congregation. There are certain expectations, and when those expectations are not met there can be trouble for the minister. Tyler, in the eyes of his congregation, is not meeting those expectations. I think the congregation, as presented in this novel, is incredibly selfish. It is almost as if they refuse to recognize Tyler's grief at the loss of his wife, as well as the struggle he is facing in raising one daughter alone (the youngest is living with her grandmother). Yes, Tyler is letting some of his responsibilities fall through the cracks. Yes, he is no longer the preacher he used to be. But he is grieving his wife. The sad thing is that this is a pretty accurate picture of some congregations. The minister is not always given the understanding that he/she deserves or needs.
This is not to mention that several members of the congregation behave worse than Tyler. One member is having an affair with a woman. In this sense the congregation fails to live up to its own standards it sets for its minister.
There is a switch in the book. In the beginning it seems as though Tyler is doing okay. Sad, yes, but managing to function. Most of the focus is on his daughter, who refuses to speak, is disruptive in school, etc. Obviously, she is grieving for her mother. By the end of the book it is obvious Tyler is grieving, in a very hard and serious way. By the end of the story he is no longer able to function. His sadness and inability to move on almost seems to creep up on him slowly until he has a complete breakdown and almost loses his congregation.
Faith, obviously, is a central theme in this book. Tyler never really loses his faith, or belief in God. What he loses in the end is his ability to rely on that faith to carry through his time of suffering. The faith of his congregation is at times doubtful because they are too concerned with gossip and power to concern themselves with actually having faith. Tyler's wife, Lauren, has a faith in which she blames God for her death. Strout describes well what happens to faith in times of sadness: faith that holds, but cannot be lived out, in times of struggle on the part of Tyler; and a faith that shatters when disaster strikes on the part of Lauren. There are more aspects of faith, yes. But between Tyler and Lauren I think one can see the two main reactions to suffering and death.
The only thing I do not like about this book is some of the language. This is especially true in the storyline of the church member who is having an affair. That storyline is important to the novel, but some of the vulgar language I find to be out of place and unnecessary.
Tyler is a very real character, going through a very real struggle. The same is true of his daughter. The novel is well written, and depicts well the pain we all sometimes feel when we lose someone we love.
Strout describes well the life of a minister in relation to the congregation. There are certain expectations, and when those expectations are not met there can be trouble for the minister. Tyler, in the eyes of his congregation, is not meeting those expectations. I think the congregation, as presented in this novel, is incredibly selfish. It is almost as if they refuse to recognize Tyler's grief at the loss of his wife, as well as the struggle he is facing in raising one daughter alone (the youngest is living with her grandmother). Yes, Tyler is letting some of his responsibilities fall through the cracks. Yes, he is no longer the preacher he used to be. But he is grieving his wife. The sad thing is that this is a pretty accurate picture of some congregations. The minister is not always given the understanding that he/she deserves or needs.
This is not to mention that several members of the congregation behave worse than Tyler. One member is having an affair with a woman. In this sense the congregation fails to live up to its own standards it sets for its minister.
There is a switch in the book. In the beginning it seems as though Tyler is doing okay. Sad, yes, but managing to function. Most of the focus is on his daughter, who refuses to speak, is disruptive in school, etc. Obviously, she is grieving for her mother. By the end of the book it is obvious Tyler is grieving, in a very hard and serious way. By the end of the story he is no longer able to function. His sadness and inability to move on almost seems to creep up on him slowly until he has a complete breakdown and almost loses his congregation.
Faith, obviously, is a central theme in this book. Tyler never really loses his faith, or belief in God. What he loses in the end is his ability to rely on that faith to carry through his time of suffering. The faith of his congregation is at times doubtful because they are too concerned with gossip and power to concern themselves with actually having faith. Tyler's wife, Lauren, has a faith in which she blames God for her death. Strout describes well what happens to faith in times of sadness: faith that holds, but cannot be lived out, in times of struggle on the part of Tyler; and a faith that shatters when disaster strikes on the part of Lauren. There are more aspects of faith, yes. But between Tyler and Lauren I think one can see the two main reactions to suffering and death.
The only thing I do not like about this book is some of the language. This is especially true in the storyline of the church member who is having an affair. That storyline is important to the novel, but some of the vulgar language I find to be out of place and unnecessary.
Tyler is a very real character, going through a very real struggle. The same is true of his daughter. The novel is well written, and depicts well the pain we all sometimes feel when we lose someone we love.
The Yiddish Policemen's Union, by Michael Chabon * * *
'The Yiddish Policemen's Union' takes place in Sitka, Alaska in an alternate version of history in which Jews from Nazi Europe are granted asylum in Sitka. As a result of this there are only two million deaths of Jews in the Holocaust, as opposed to the estimated six million in reality. The plot revolves around the murder of Mendel Spilman, the supposed Messiah for the Jewish people. Meyer Landsman, the novel's main character investigates this murder throughout the course of the book. This is not a typical 'who done it' book, but it is a mystery with a conclusion that, itself, ends up being quite convoluted.
The overall plot of the novel is a little too complicated. Granted, it is a mystery novel, which usually is not my taste, but I think there is sometimes far too much going on to really enjoy the plot of the book. There are a lot of characters and sub-plots to remember, making it difficult, sometimes, to keep up with the main plot of the book, who killed Spilman and why? At times the rich plot works out well, but for the most part I found it all too much to keep straight.
I find the invasion scenario a little unlikely as well. I am referring to the idea that the United States government would back a plan in which a relatively small group of ultra-conservative Jews would invade the Holy Land and depose the millions of Arabs (who know a thing or two about holding off invaders) currently living there. I do not doubt that the United States would do something to that effect, only that they would do so with a very low chance of success.
The idea of Messiah is widely discussed in the book. The idea behind the invasion of the Holy Land is to hasten the coming of the Messiah. This is sad in the sense that it shows the Jews (of this novel, at least) have given up hope that the Messiah will come. This highlights, I think, the suffering the Jewish people have endured over the centuries. They have suffered so much that they no longer have faith in the promises God has made. Again, this refers only to the Jews in this novel. The novel highlights how the Jewish people have been pushed around and rejected to a few millenia now, and as a result of that they have no hope left. Altogether a sad commentary in and of itself.
Chabon also does a good job of showing the tension that sometimes exists between two cultural groups, in this case the Jews and the Tligit people (Alaskan Indians). The Jews think the land is theirs, the Tligit feel the same way. There is tension between the two groups who are both fighting to find, and keep, their place in the world. Both groups have been kicked out of their homes and resent anyone coming into the land they actually do have. The difference in culture, obviously, plays a role, but more than anything it is the fact that they both are looking for a home to call their own.
Landsman is a fascinating character. In one sense he is trying to escape everything around him. Through his drinking, leaving his wife, and rejecting the Jewish faith, he can be seen as trying to get away from it all. The ironic thing, though, is that he cannot. He tries to escape the guilt he feels about the loss of his child, but continually finds himself at his best friend's house, who has two children with one on the way. He tries to escape his ex-wife only to have her become his commanding officer. He tries to escape the conservative Jews living in Sitka only to find himself surrounded by them as he investigates the murder of Mendel Spliman. In a sense, I think Chabon is telling us no matter how hard we try we cannot fully escape the things from which we want to escape. They remain with us, or near us.
The conclusion, I think, has something to be desired. Spilman's killer is Landsman's uncle, Hertz. Hertz killed Spilman because he did not want him to be exploited as the supposed Messiah. He does this with Spilman's consent. Meanwhile, the plan to invade the Holy Land begins and, so far, is working. Both 'payoffs' did not quite do it for me. Spilman has gone into hiding and could do so again. We are told he is tired of hiding, but I feel like hiding is preferable to death. And, again, I find myself doubting the validity of the 'invasion plan.'
Despite the end, though I think this is a very enjoyable read. It has humor, but also has the mysterious aspect, enough of which to engage the reader. Chabon, who also wrote 'The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay,' is a very talented author who has a knack for making the reader want more.
The overall plot of the novel is a little too complicated. Granted, it is a mystery novel, which usually is not my taste, but I think there is sometimes far too much going on to really enjoy the plot of the book. There are a lot of characters and sub-plots to remember, making it difficult, sometimes, to keep up with the main plot of the book, who killed Spilman and why? At times the rich plot works out well, but for the most part I found it all too much to keep straight.
I find the invasion scenario a little unlikely as well. I am referring to the idea that the United States government would back a plan in which a relatively small group of ultra-conservative Jews would invade the Holy Land and depose the millions of Arabs (who know a thing or two about holding off invaders) currently living there. I do not doubt that the United States would do something to that effect, only that they would do so with a very low chance of success.
The idea of Messiah is widely discussed in the book. The idea behind the invasion of the Holy Land is to hasten the coming of the Messiah. This is sad in the sense that it shows the Jews (of this novel, at least) have given up hope that the Messiah will come. This highlights, I think, the suffering the Jewish people have endured over the centuries. They have suffered so much that they no longer have faith in the promises God has made. Again, this refers only to the Jews in this novel. The novel highlights how the Jewish people have been pushed around and rejected to a few millenia now, and as a result of that they have no hope left. Altogether a sad commentary in and of itself.
Chabon also does a good job of showing the tension that sometimes exists between two cultural groups, in this case the Jews and the Tligit people (Alaskan Indians). The Jews think the land is theirs, the Tligit feel the same way. There is tension between the two groups who are both fighting to find, and keep, their place in the world. Both groups have been kicked out of their homes and resent anyone coming into the land they actually do have. The difference in culture, obviously, plays a role, but more than anything it is the fact that they both are looking for a home to call their own.
Landsman is a fascinating character. In one sense he is trying to escape everything around him. Through his drinking, leaving his wife, and rejecting the Jewish faith, he can be seen as trying to get away from it all. The ironic thing, though, is that he cannot. He tries to escape the guilt he feels about the loss of his child, but continually finds himself at his best friend's house, who has two children with one on the way. He tries to escape his ex-wife only to have her become his commanding officer. He tries to escape the conservative Jews living in Sitka only to find himself surrounded by them as he investigates the murder of Mendel Spliman. In a sense, I think Chabon is telling us no matter how hard we try we cannot fully escape the things from which we want to escape. They remain with us, or near us.
The conclusion, I think, has something to be desired. Spilman's killer is Landsman's uncle, Hertz. Hertz killed Spilman because he did not want him to be exploited as the supposed Messiah. He does this with Spilman's consent. Meanwhile, the plan to invade the Holy Land begins and, so far, is working. Both 'payoffs' did not quite do it for me. Spilman has gone into hiding and could do so again. We are told he is tired of hiding, but I feel like hiding is preferable to death. And, again, I find myself doubting the validity of the 'invasion plan.'
Despite the end, though I think this is a very enjoyable read. It has humor, but also has the mysterious aspect, enough of which to engage the reader. Chabon, who also wrote 'The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay,' is a very talented author who has a knack for making the reader want more.
Sarah's Key, by Tatiana de Rosnay * * *
In 'Sarah's Key,' the main character, Julia, a journalist, is given an assignment by her boss to write a piece on the Rafle du Vel' d'Hiv, an operation carried out by French police in which thousands of Jews in and around Paris were rounded up and sent away to concentration camps. In her research, Julia becomes attached to one family in particular, the Starzynski family. She soon discovers a connection between the daughter of that family, Sarah, and her own in-laws, a connection that no one wants to remember or explore.
I enjoyed, as much as one can, the part about Sarah and the roundup. I found those sections of the novel to be very moving. It never ceases to amaze me what humanity is capable of. Sarah endures things most of us do not even dream about. De Rosnay does a wonderful job capturing the horror and the fear that dominated Nazi Europe. Stories like Sarah's need to be told to remind us of what has happened in order to keep the same things from happening again. Again, I think de Rosnay tells this part of the story perfectly. She paints for the reader an accurate picture of what Jews went through during WWII.
However, I simply could not get on board with Julia. One, I think there is too much emphasis on her personal life, her love life specifically. Yes, the emotional impact of the Holocaust is important, but I think de Rosnay spends too much time in Julia's when she could have spent more time on Sarah, the real victim in, and center of, the story.
I also think Julia acts on entirely selfish reasons. Her in-laws make it abundantly clear they have no interest in finding out about the Starzynsky family. Julia blatantly disregards this to satisfy her own curiosity. That is the key in all of this. If Julia is seeking this information to help her in-laws in some way, that would be okay, but that is not what she is doing. The novel continues to come back to, 'I have to know.' Julia is curious about this story and shows no regard for the feelings of those around her in her pursuit to satisfy that curiosity.
Julia's selfishness is also revealed in her encounter(s) with William, Sarah's son. When they meet in the end she finally has a chance to ask him what she has been dying to know for some time, 'do you hate me.' Her question is not, 'how are you handling this new-found history of your mother's life,' it is 'do you hate me for telling you.'
This novel is, essentially, two stories. Sarah's story is deep, emotional, and gut-wrenching. Julia's story is not. Her search for answers appears noble, but in the end comes down to her own desire to have answers for herself.
I enjoyed, as much as one can, the part about Sarah and the roundup. I found those sections of the novel to be very moving. It never ceases to amaze me what humanity is capable of. Sarah endures things most of us do not even dream about. De Rosnay does a wonderful job capturing the horror and the fear that dominated Nazi Europe. Stories like Sarah's need to be told to remind us of what has happened in order to keep the same things from happening again. Again, I think de Rosnay tells this part of the story perfectly. She paints for the reader an accurate picture of what Jews went through during WWII.
However, I simply could not get on board with Julia. One, I think there is too much emphasis on her personal life, her love life specifically. Yes, the emotional impact of the Holocaust is important, but I think de Rosnay spends too much time in Julia's when she could have spent more time on Sarah, the real victim in, and center of, the story.
I also think Julia acts on entirely selfish reasons. Her in-laws make it abundantly clear they have no interest in finding out about the Starzynsky family. Julia blatantly disregards this to satisfy her own curiosity. That is the key in all of this. If Julia is seeking this information to help her in-laws in some way, that would be okay, but that is not what she is doing. The novel continues to come back to, 'I have to know.' Julia is curious about this story and shows no regard for the feelings of those around her in her pursuit to satisfy that curiosity.
Julia's selfishness is also revealed in her encounter(s) with William, Sarah's son. When they meet in the end she finally has a chance to ask him what she has been dying to know for some time, 'do you hate me.' Her question is not, 'how are you handling this new-found history of your mother's life,' it is 'do you hate me for telling you.'
This novel is, essentially, two stories. Sarah's story is deep, emotional, and gut-wrenching. Julia's story is not. Her search for answers appears noble, but in the end comes down to her own desire to have answers for herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)