inmynoggin

[inmynoggin]

FRANKENSTEIN BY MARY SHELLEY

I like to read novels that fit well with my external setting - it intensifies the novel’s effect. Frankenstein has been on my list for years but I knew that I could only read it around Halloween. So here I am, finally having read Frankenstein around Halloween. Of course the fact that the weather was grey and hazy helped set the vibe for reading the novel, but I think that Frankenstein is so powerful in and of itself that I could read it by the beach and still feel its full effects. I don’t think I could critique even one portion of this novel: it really is the perfect ghost story as Mary intended it to be. Of course, it’s not a traditional ghost story, but I think that’s what is so powerful about it, it is the earliest traditional science fiction novel and I think that carries some weight on it’s own. It was truly revolutionary. 

I think that if I was a contemporary of Mary Shelley, I’d descend into a depression upon reading this book, knowing I could never write better than her. I could ramble for hours about what I loved about the novel but I think I’ll highlight just two elements. Firstly, her writing style is perfectly Romantic and captures human condition its the most potent and poetic form. Not only does she put into words what is usually so difficult to, but she does it with such skill and finesse. Every word is so carefully placed in order to evoke the most feeling from the reader. I could feel Victor’s torment, the ‘monster’s’ anguish, it was all so alive in front of me. I have never been much of a poetry reader at all, I often find it contrived and can never really understand it, but I think my reaction to some extracts from Frankenstein are the closest I’ll get to savouring poetry. 

Another aspect of her craft was her characterisation. I don’t know if Shelley intended to create such a complex character in Victor but, in my understanding, he’s almost the anti-hero. The monster did terrible things but it was almost understandable… Frankenstein was just a man who decided to act the way god would, it’s almost just that things crumbled around him. The monster just wanted to be accepted, and Victor thought that just ignoring the problem would solve it… Their relationship is very complex I think. 

Another complex relationship is that of Victor with Elizabeth/Henry. Now, it may just be my wishful thinking and misunderstanding of relationship conduct in the 19th century but I feel like there could have been homosexual undertones in the novel. I’m sure critics before me have noticed this too but Victor and Henry’s relationship was so loving and nurturing in the way that Victor and Elizabeth’s wasn’t. Whether or not this was Shelley’s intention I don’t know, but I don’t think it matters. It was perfectly written this way, with only slight allusions and unsaid moments. There didn’t need to be any more focus on Frankenstein’s relations, it was, just as the whole novel was, perfectly written.

[inmynoggin]

THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE BY SHIRLEY JACKSON

Commonly regarded as one of the best horror novels of the 20 century, The Haunting of Hill House is a poisonous and treacherous tale of the twisted mind of Hill House. Stephen King said that reading about Hill House was like walking into the mind of a madman, and I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s so easy for readers to go into this novel with the expectation that it will be terrifying, but Shirley Jackson goes so much further than the average horror novel. 

The principle effect of this novel is that it unsettles you. It’s filled with bone-chilling scenes, sure, but what holds the most power in the novel is the maddeningly erratic characters. The main group consists of four outsiders, individuals who we know very little about, and have a hard time relying on completely. We are introduced to the four of them in the first chapter, an outdated method in contemporary writing but still effective in making the novel feel like an old fashioned murder mystery. All four of them spend their days at the house lazing and chatting in falsehoods and deceptions. It’s this gulf between them that is so unnerving, we never fully understand why any of them do anything ever. Take Eleanor Vance, our main (anti)heroine, for example, we feel sorry for her and find her dully pathetic but we want her to be accepted just as much as she wants to be. However, she lies to her housemates about almost every part of her life, making the reader feel she is unreliable and untrustworthy. 

Even the way the characters interacted felt totally foreign. Here was a group of complete strangers, and yet from the jump Theodora and Eleanor became fast friends. Only, when the house began to frighten them, they turned on each other with cutting words and pointed degradations. It felt unnatural, yet that’s exactly the point. One of the major themes in this novel is psychology versus the supernatural. How can the mind survive in such a toxic environment? 

The plot itself is very well developed and considered, but like all the great writers, Jackson doesn’t need to rely on the plot to create an unnerving work of horror. She uses the character, setting, and relationships to draw upon the void of fear that lingered beneath the surface of the novel. 

[inmynoggin]

THE SECRET HISTORY BY DONNA TARTT

As a wannabe writer, this novel made me shrivel back into my shell once I found out it was Donna Tartt’s debut. Every aspect of the novel was artistic yet accessible and elaborate yet unpretentious. Let’s talk characters. Least exciting first: our narrator, Richard Papen. He’s one of those interesting narrators who could not even be considered the main characters in their own lives (e.g. Nick Carraway, how could he be the main character when Gatsby exists?). I suppose it’s intentional, though, creating a character bland enough that you, the reader, can project yourself onto the character so that you feel more involved. It certainly works. Richard Papen gives us access into the inner workings of Julian Morrow’s Classics class without disrupting it.

Edmund ‘Bunny’ Corcoran. I liked him or his openness of character, inviting Richard in and treating him like an old friend. However, over time this perception soured as I realised what a rotten, cringeworthy, pathetic loser Bunny was. Bunny encapsulates everything I hate because, essentially, he’s everything I’m not. This makes it easier for me to accept his fate. 

Charles and Camilla Macaulay. Angelic and antique at first but slowly become more and more perverse and toxic. Interestingly enough, I never took to Charles even though I think the reader was supposed to initially. I don’t know, there was just something in his character that I couldn’t quite latch onto and so I was sceptical of him. I find Camilla the most inscrutable of the group. I also never really took to her… I just felt like there was always a clear distance between the twins and the rest of the characters, an effect I’m sure was not unintentional. At the end though it became much clearer what I was supposed to feel about them, and I was satisfied with the ending in every respect. Francis Abernathy was the most intriguing to me from the start. I thought he would serve as a much graver character, but I am glad that he turned out to be one of the easiest to read - it was refreshing when every other character works with smoke and mirrors. I found him the coolest stylistically with his pince-nez and red hair. His particular was tragic in a way that was totally pathetic and desperate when you think back to his prime, at the beginning of the novel. But I suppose the fates of the characters was there to prove that they had become hollow shells of what they once were. Henry Winters, the final element needed for this disastrous reaction. He always was my favourite. I won’t lie: his morals and intentions became an incredibly grey area during and in the aftermath of Bunny’s murder, but I still couldn’t bare to reject him. By nature I simply love the withdrawn, intellectual character (case in point: Ivan Karamazov) and he was the definition of this. I loved how he played with Hampden like a chessboard and his friends, the pieces. I still don’t know if he had good intentions for the rest of the group, or even if his love for Camilla went deeper than just for the purpose of betraying Charles, but I’d like to believe it was true. I like to think that beneath Henry Winter’s stony facade he still had his morals and was working for the benefit of the group and Camilla in particular. I’m not persuaded though. 

There’s so much more that could be said. I could rattle on for hours about Tartt’s gut-wrenchingly beautiful prose, or her choice of poetry and references throughout the novel. But I think she encapsulates the enchantment of the novel in this one quote: “a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs”.

[inmynoggin]

THE NOISE OF TIME BY JULIAN BARNES

This novel was suggested to me as a possible text for comparison with Grass’ The Tin Drum. This review isn’t in any way in connection or comparison with any other novel, but I will say this: in the way that The Tin Drum  wilfully and skilfully hides fro, the atrocities of the time its set in, The Noise of Time is in constant connection with the political landscape in which its set. 

It is fundamentally a political commentary mixed with a biography. It touched on the personal life of the composer in question - Shostakovich - but in essence its a novel about Power and art, and the toxic and destructive times when they intersect.

As a lover of history, I found the historical accuracies and depth particularly fundamental for the novel’s authenticity. I think it succeeded in depicting the turbulent times that man and art have had to go through. I say ‘man and art’ instead of Shostakovich and his music because I think that one of the most skilful and thought provoking effects of the novel is that, although it is written about one man’s experiences with Soviet power, it really applies to a multitude of other situations through time and space. This abuse of power and its poisonous effect on art applies to all artists, all across the world and history.

It also discusses other more personal effects of Power, in particular how fear of the Power wears a man down, forcing him to either suffer by opposing those forces or, if he lives long enough, sees himself sell out to that Power. 

My one critique, hardly worth being brought up but there regardless, is that sometimes I felt as though Barnes was spelling. I’m not criticising his writing - there’s no doubt he is a master story-teller, but it was just sometimes he analysed and broke down the literary techniques for us. Personally I like certain things to be left unsaid so that those readers who understand can understand and those who don’t at first glance have to look a bit harder. I just feel like sometimes he exposes his genius too easily. 

I think the main reason why I enjoyed the book so much was because (other than the historical aspect of course) the overarching message was something I believe strongly in: Art belongs to Art. It doesn’t belong to the bourgeoise, it doesn’t belong to the Stalins of the world, it doesn’t even belong to the masses. It belongs to itself and anyone that can see themselves in it. It shouldn’t be regulated or squeezed into parameters that suit Power. It has to speak, it mustn’t be silenced. 

[inmynoggin]

THE DA VINCI CODE BY DAN BROWN

There are many aspects I find admirable about The Da Vinci Code. Although I can say that I have read other thrillers that, in my opinion, surpass the DVC, I can understand and appreciate why it is the best selling thriller novel to date.  I think the main allure and intrigue was with the plot. The issues it delved into were quite unlike anything I have ever read about. The research Dan Brown put into the DVC is truly commendable  (from both a historical and literary standpoint) and I believe that it’s this research that allowed him to write convincingly and authentically.

 I’ve never been a fervent art buff but I do love history and I found the blend of ecclesiastical, renaissance, and pagan history and the added effect of conspiracy theories truly absorbing and I felt as if Brown left no stone unturned in his own quest for the grail and the mystery that shrouds it. However, sometimes I felt like he sacrificed the more personal aspects of the novel in exchange for the richly complex plot. For example, I felt as though the characters of Sophie and Robert were constantly fulfilling or discussing tasks pertaining to the grail search. I know you could argue that this was the whole point of the novel and was the main reason why they were thrust together in the first place but there was hardly ever a moment where I felt as though they were organically forming a relationship - romantic or otherwise. 

However, this being said, by the end of the novel, I felt as though Jacques Sauniere was my own grandfather, and I could clearly see Silas and Teabing in my mind’s eye. Yes, for everything I said, I certainly couldn’t accuse Brown’s characters of being two dimensional. Maybe it was just the sudden romantic interest between Sophie and Robert that caught me off guard.

 Regardless, overall it was an incredibly enjoyable, fast-paced, intricate novel that introduced some new and radical concepts to me (especially since I went in with very limited biblical knowledge). I’d recommend.

[inmynoggin]

THE TIN DRUM BY GÜNTER GRASS

This novel, often described as one of the greatest of the last half of the 20 century, is quite unlike anything I’ve ever read. It has such life (or, as David Lodge described it, anti-life) that it almost seems to be throbbing as it sits on my desk next to me. I wish I could write a whole academic paper on this novel, but unfortunately my brain cannot seem to collate my ideas into a structured constellation of opinions and so I’ll just have to attempt a structured word vomit.

The first thing that Grass has an immeasurable talent in is conveying very powerful images with his words. There were many images and descriptions in this novel (most of them disturbing in some way), but I think it can be agreed that the jewel in the crown is the horse’s head. I can still see in my mind’s eye the gruesome image of an eel, coated in a porridge-like substance, being wrenched from a decapitated horse’s ear. Truly scarring for the reader and the characters alike. But what’s really skilful is the fact that it makes total sense (or at least as much sense as is possible in an absurdist book such as this). When Oskar, Jan, Matzerath and Mama are walking along that beach, headed toward this fateful symbol of his mother’s life, it feels seamless. I could understand it’s relevance in that moment, even if I didn’t know the relevance it would hold later on. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to un-see that black, glossy mane, writhing with eels. 

What gave the book such depth and longevity was not the fact that it was over 500 pages, because many books are that long but don’t contain this same level of complexity, but really the detail. Now, I may be just repeating myself over and over because really everything that can be praised about this novel is directly the outcome of Grass’ masterful way of writing. With such few pages, Grass was able to tell an entire life story, to the point where Oskar’s life feels just as complex as a real person. I know that that’s what a writer should be able to do, but it’s very rare that they pull it off with such conviction. You know that unnerving feeling you get when you really stop and think for a second about the fact that every person around you has just as complex a life and existence as you? Well, Grass was able to embody that feeling in this novel. I can agree that many writers are able to create a three-dimensional character, whom I believe is living and breathing before me, but it is rare that it ever reaches the level reached with Oskar Matzerath. That probably made no sense, but if you’ve read this, then it will have to some extent.

Without spoiling it too much, I was also very satisfied with the ending. A lot of absurd novels like this tend to fall into a habit of ‘absurding’ their way out of complex situations that are hard to rationally get out of. The Tin Drum may have had some of those moments occasionally, but I really liked how Grass put in the work to make the novel come full circle - going into the same amount of depth as he had during the main body of the novel to conclude with a strong, clear ending. I loved the side-by-side image at the end of Oskar on the escalator, his thirtieth birthday, his whole life behind him, and his whole life in front of him. Overall just a really effective ending. 

I love it when you can tell when a writer has put specific thought and care into a narrative, and hasn’t just gotten lazy. I know that any novel at this level of prestige won’t be written lazily but I really liked the creativity that Grass employed when describing the three main deaths. They were all so potent and striking in their individual ways that, from a writing standpoint, I am in awe. 

As you could probably tell, there’s not much I can criticise it for. However, online there were points brought up by others. A frequent one is that the novel tries to down-play the atrocities of the Holocaust. I think that it’s easier to understand this criticism when you take into consideration the controversies surrounding Grass’ own life, but I can’t really comment on my own because I simply didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary with his narrative of the Second World War. Maybe it was because I believed that whatever spin was put on the War in the novel was a direct portrayal of the unreliable narrator of Oskar, rather than Grass’ own personal views coming through. 

Another criticism was that the novel slowed down too much after the end of the war. I could agree to a certain extent by saying that I felt a tingle of fatigue towards the end of the second ‘book’ and the beginning of the third ‘book’ but I certainly wouldn’t say that the content was irrelevant or unnecessary. I think that it showed Oskar’s life as it was after the war; drawn-out, hopeless, searching. 

Many have said that The Tin Drum has encapsulated everything that needs to be said about the 20th century in just three words: barbaric, mystical, bored.

[inmynoggin]

‘SALEM’S LOT BY STEPHEN KING

As I’ve said before and will undoubtedly say again: Stephen King NEVER fails. I realised about a week ago that it had been a while since my last King novel and I was instantly drawn to ‘Salem’s Lot. This is partly because it was the only “classic” King novel I hadn’t read yet. Being his sophomore novel, it retains the oldish style King that is instantly recognisable for someone who has read Carrie (his debut), for example, and then one of his latest ones, like Mr Mercedes, for example. It is a quality that undoubtedly adds to his work. That doesn’t mean, however, that I believe that his work gets worse in any way as time goes on. Rather, as he got older and more experienced as a write, his books take on a different feel. It was a fantastic display of King’s imagination at work, with the number of interesting characters and subplots reminding me why he’s one of the greatest storytellers. 

I think that King’s ability to birth whole towns, with a broad cast of characters included, is one of his greatest talents. Like many of his other books, (Needful Things, It, Under the Dome, etc) he is able to really flesh out his fictitious town and make so that the reader almost lives there for the period in which they are reading. Jerusalem’s Lot was very interesting, as a town in itself, because it played such a pivotal role in the plot. It seemed to be like its own character, contributing just as much as Ben Mears or Matt Burke. In this way, Jerusalem’s Lot appeared to be the real antagonist, rather than Straker and Barlow. 

In relation to the characters, I thought it was very crucial to note how the novel’s heroes played different roles in the town but all had a strong connection and deep understanding of ‘Salem’s Lot, which gave them the ultimate advantage. Mark Petrie, one of the most likeable young characters King’s every written, is important as he provided the initial connection to these vampires, what with his encounter with Daniel Glick. Ben Mears had a childhood connection to the Lot, however he was immediately seen as an outsider by the Lot’s natives. However, his nightmarish tethering to the Marsten House from his youth provided the group with the will power to stop the creatures that were inhabiting the town. Matthew Burke was the local teacher and brains behind the operation. He ultimately served as a director and educator to the group. Jimmy Cody M.D., was the local doctor and was just an all-round good guy really. His connection to Burke and his willingness to accept the unacceptable was very important in building this team. Father Donald Callahan, local priest, was important in terms of the lore behind vampires. He held a certain quality that shielded the gang from the unholiness. At least for a time. I suppose in the gang one could include Susan Norton. She was a local through and through and, although this sounds like I’m minimising her importance, her outcome ultimately gave Ben a reason for revenge. She was important in her own right but, considering she didn’t contribute much when it boiled down to it, her importance was more to do with giving an incentive to fight on. The important thing about all these characters, as I’ve said, was that they were all local. 

King’s imagination was truly at work with this and the image of Jimmy Cody’s grizzly death provided material for future nightmares. I remember reading Danse Macabre before this and King describes for a few paragraphs that very scene. Although I tried to dance my eyes over it as I didn’t want to spoil myself, I couldn’t help it and the image was deliciously cruel for my horror-loving mind. Overall, a definite page-turner. A very good Stephen King novel and a very good novel in general. Although, I would recommend reading this around Halloween time, as I wasn’t able to get the full effect due to the fact it’s March. 

[inmynoggin]

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS BY THOMAS HARRIS

Red Dragon, The SotL predecessor, will also be quoted in this. 

Very often, maybe once or twice a year, will I come across a novel that puts me in utter turmoil over its sheer brilliance. More rarely than this is when said novel is not a Stephen King creation. This is an example of such. The Silence of the Lambs (and Red Dragon) are novels of the highest level and have such a chilling and mind-bending power over the reader that it really is impossible to put down. 

Thomas Harris creates such deep and consuming characters that have their own personal attractiveness to them. In Red Dragon, Francis Dolarhyde and in Silence of the Lambs, Jame Gumb. Two of the most sinister and twisted souls in literature undoubtedly. Francis Dolarhyde’s peculiar childhood and his modus operandi haunt me to this day. The skill to pull off that sort of complex character is bewildering. Jame Gumb is unlike anything I've ever experienced. The sheer imagination of Harris to think that one up, the transsexual facade, the woman suit, the tapes of mom. Pure genius. I cant possibly begin to express my awe and so I know that this is turning out to be just the ramblings of a fan in amazement.

I could quote some of the most effective and emotive scenes like Lecter’s escape scene and his line about the vest that Buffalo Bill was trying to make and so many others but really I can’t quite articulate my thoughts on all this except wow, just wow.  

Just, know that this Hannibal series is everything and more.

[inmynoggin]

LOOKING FOR ALASKA

I was roughly eleven years old when I read Looking For Alaska by John Green for the first time. I was on a road trip with my family and I had bought it at Barnes and Noble along with a copy of Paper Towns. From then on, I loved John Green and everything he created. I’ve read all of his books and I think that, before watching this show, I would’ve cited maybe Paper Towns as his best? I’m not too sure. It was always a close call between Paper Towns and Looking For Alaska. Now, over a decade after its publication and many other Green novels following it, I think I can confidently say that Looking For Alaska is John Green’s best to date. 

I’m trying to be careful with my wording so that I don't insinuate that Green hit his peak in 2005 with Looking For Alaska, because that's not what I mean at all. His newer works have all been special to me in their own way but I think that overall, Looking For Alaska had something that the rest of them didn't. Maybe it’s because it’s his first that it had something special to it, I don't know. 

Watching this adaptation of Looking For Alaska really emphasised that for me. What is most evident to me now and what I can point to as the reason for it’s success is that I really think it is timeless. I know it’s only fourteen years old and that it will eventually become outdated but I think that the fundamental elements of it are powerful enough to effect every generation. This show made me feel a longing and urgency just as Miles felt in the first episode and, pretentious as it is, I can’t help but crave my Great Perhaps.

The cast of this was spot on. Can't complain at all, that's it. Perfect.

Miniseries really are the way to go. This was done so accurately and was able to fit in just enough of the book to keep it going fluidly. Of course it’s important, though, to let a miniseries like this end when it was supposed to though. Miniseries like this run the risk of what happened to 13 Reasons Why, and we know that that was a travesty of the most devastating kind. 

[inmynoggin]

JOKER

The Universe works in mysterious and erratic ways, meaning there is no pattern or promise in anything. However, there was no chance that the year 2019 was going to pass without me seeing one outstanding film. That was a guarantee. Granted, I thought that it would be the long-awaited, bated-breath Tarantino. It wasn't. But, I guess showbiz has a funny way of playing with you. All I heard before seeing the Tarantino movie was rants and raves about its excellence and, because I was let down, I decided to ignore the rants and raves that came along with Joker. I wasn't going to be let down again. Fool me once... 

Joker turned out to be that movie. The first movie in a long long time that felt like a real movie should. I thought that it was very powerful and stylish and that it had dignity, but also sorrow. It was real, which was the most salient point of the whole thing. In the face of Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker, I could see hundreds of faces, all of them sharing the same pain. 

Joaquin Phoenix’s performance was Oscar worthy without a single doubt. His weight loss fit the character perfectly, down to each protruding vertebrae and his sporadic and forceful laugh was nailed. Each peal was the perfect combo of anger, fear, sadness and humour. He didn't over act which, for an unskilled actor, would’ve been a very tempting style to slip into. His eyes and facial expressions were very potent and carried much of the performance. His voice portrayed the perfect balance of feeling helpless yet terrifyingly dominant. 

The plot was masterful and full of twists and turns. It was the perfect balance of a slow burn and an action film. The soundtrack was fitting, the script was realistic and masterful and the casting was, of course, a win. 

I was so pleasantly surprised that I can finally say with real conviction that this movie deserves all the hype it got. 

[inmynoggin]

IT CHAPTER 2

Okay, okay, it’s been approximately 36 minutes since I finished IT and I’m a little bit rattled. I’m not sure if this will make any sense and I have a lot to say but this means too much to me to just let even the tiniest of details slip away. So:

If it’s not already clear, IT holds a very special place in my heart and it is undoubtedly my favourite book. That’s why this movie and everything it covered is pretty crucial to my peace of mind. The first movie, IT (2017), was great. Yeah there was little inaccuracies but hey, creative license and all. Can’t complain. But in the same breath, chapter 1 was able to avoid many of the hardest elements to tackle. For example, the Paul Bunyan scene, Mike Hanlon’s parents’ deaths, the werewolf scene and more. It may seem like I’m nitpicking but I’m just trying to be analytical and fair. 

Thus, we come to what this rant really is about: chapter 2. 

The short verdict is that I was intensely pleased with it and that I am grateful that it wasn't tarnished as a whole. However... key words AS A WHOLE. That means that yes, although I liked it a lot (hell, maybe even loved it!), there were a few things I need to get off my chest. 

Firstly, I totally understand that IT is an extremely long book packed full of content so I sympathise with the filmmaker having to cut and paste some aspects. Fine! A good example of this is by cutting Stan’s birdwatching hobby or Bill’s wife subplot clean out of the picture. They were not essential and they just would’ve taken up more time. That's okay. What I cannot accept, however, is when they try to half-bake a plot point. I found that they did this with the Beep Beep Richie moments. The phrase Beep Beep Richie is important in the book and is an ongoing joke between us Losers, but in the movie it felt as if they had tried to squeeze it in once in a while just to tick the box but by then it just wasn't enough. Again, irksome but not a dealbreaker as far as my opinion is concerned. 

Another thing. I was just as sad as the next guy when Stan killed himself but to be frank with you, it made me mad. Stanley Uris did a cowardly thing that day and although I don't believe that his suicide makes him any less of a Loser (capital L), it most certainly doesn't make him some type of martyr like how the film suggests with the note at the end. I know the film industry loves a happy ending, and for a second I thought that Eddie wasn't going to meet his inevitable demise because of this, but I think that IT isn’t that clean-cut. Just because they defeated Pennywise doesn’t mean that what Stan did wasn’t selfish and frustrating, because it was. It was heartbreaking that he didn't feel secure in the Losers’ power and maybe understandably so but still, they needed him. It doesn’t matter that much, it’s just that I wish there was more sorrow surrounding Stan's death rather than honour. 

Now on to the last and by far the most frustrating part of the entire movie. Like I said time and again, I loved this film and nothing can change that, and although I totally understand creative license for a director, some things just shouldn't be done. This went against that. I have to be careful when I’m phrasing this next paragraph because what I’m saying could very easily be misconstrued. I love Richie Tozier. I love Eddie Kaspbrak. I love their relationship. Some fans out there like to imagine that maybe there was something a little more than just a friendship between the two of them and that’s totally fine! That’s healthy fan interpretation! Now what I will not stand for is the filmmaker blatantly going against the text to please the viewers. The whole plot point of Richie being gay and in love with Eddie was just too blatantly inaccurate. I think that it was clumsily incorporated and I personally felt disappointed as a fan of the novel. I would’ve preferred if they had alluded to their relationship as it would’ve kept both their shippers and the book fans who want accuracy happy. It’s not the issue itself, more the way they executed it. There was no hint of such feelings in the first movie either, so, again, it was another half-baked plot point. It was trying just a little too hard to give the fans what they want and it’s blatancy was just totally inaccurate. 

Although it may sound like I'm tearing it to shreds, those all mean little to me in the grand scheme of things. The most important thing is that it was executed well and I was able to happily and rightfully say goodbye to this interpretation of the Losers Club. I loved the casting and, as a Stephen King fan, I truly appreciated his little cameo. 

This story is a big part of who I am and represents something in everything. It’s not everyday where you find a story like this which can change lives and inspire others. It holds a lot of good memories and these movies are a very big part of that.

[inmynoggin]

EUPHORIA

Where do I even begin with Euphoria? Well, let’s begin with the foundation: the narrative. I truly truly believe that Euphoria is one of the best series I’ve ever seen at depicting what high school is like. The way that the characters talk to and text each other is so realistic and it gave off the impression that a teenager could well have written the script, that’s how accurate it was. I felt as though the creator, Sam Levinson, saw 13 Reasons Why and understood that it was being marketed as a realistic and candid view of high school and he decided to really one-up them. Which he pulled off flawlessly. After watching Euphoria it’s hard not to see the zipper running up the back of 13 Reasons Why, if you catch my drift.

Next, the casting. Spot-on. Zendaya (Rue), loved by pretty much everyone ever and so she was able to attract attention to the show and she’s a phenomenal actress. Hunter Schafer (Jules), another great actress and I don’t think that there was any casting that fit better than Hunter Schafer for the role of Jules. I loved that Jacob Elordi was able to strip away his image associated with his more immature roles like The Kissing Booth (no hate, though, because I enjoyed that movie), and he played his complex and damaged character, Nate, very well. Practically every cast member was a great choice in my view.

Now onto the plot itself. Euphoria had an extremely hard-hitting subject matter and one that is not easy to stay safe with while dealing with. Rue’s battle with drugs was really heartbreaking and frustrated me while I was watching it because she had every opportunity to give that side of her life up but she just couldn't live without it. I loved Maddy and Cassie’s subplots and I hope that we see more of them next season because I think that it could be very beneficial to see how both of these strong characters deal with their respective relationship issues. I liked how Jules’ backstory of her transition was involved but it wasn’t fixated on and how they didn’t make it define her character. 

However, just based off of personal opinion, I don’t think I liked Jules very much. At the beginning I did and I liked how she was a good influence on Rue but towards the end I felt that she became manipulative. I think that she wanted someone more exciting than Rue but didn’t take into consideration that Rue is dealing with issues herself. There was nothing about her that I hated so there's a high possibility that I could like her again if she returns next season with a different approach to her relationship with Rue.

Euphoria is, in my opinion, one of the best shows to come out in the past few years and I can’t wait to see what’s next.

[inmynoggin]

SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE BY KURT VONNEGUT

This tale was recommended (although, not directly) by Stephen King. I have taken it upon myself to read every book that Stephen King has recommended, which I’ve found in the appendices of his books Danse Macabre and On Writing. This was one of them. 

I’d heard about Kurt Vonnegut before I read Slaughterhouse-Five and knew of him as A GREAT AMERICAN WRITER and I also had heard of Slaughterhouse-Five before I read it and knew of it as A GREAT ANTI-WAR NOVEL. Armed with this knowledge, I knew that I couldn’t be let down upon actually reading Slaughterhouse-Five. And I wasn’t.

Slaughterhouse-Five has got to be one of the greatest contemporary novels I’ve read, which is heavily due to Vonnegut’s artistic and masterful storytelling abilities. Not only is Slaughterhouse-Five fantastic due to the way it’s told but also due to it’s complex and original storyline. 

The plot of Slaughterhouse-Five is unlike anything that I’ve ever read and has so many different elements and themes. On the one hand, you have the strongest theme and, arguably, the antagonist to this story, The War. On the other hand you have the story of Kurt Vonnegut himself and his journey through creating this very novel. Due to this aspect, the novel takes on a meta-physical perspective. On yet another hand, wrapped up inside the Vonnegut memoir is the story of Billy Pilgrim. Throughout the whole story of Billy Pilgrim, one wonders many times if this life of Billy Pilgrim is even real or if it’s just a plot device that Vonnegut uses to analyse a bigger issue: WAR. 

Billy Pilgrim has a very interesting take on life due to his encounter with the Tralfamadorians (more on that later). He doesn't live his life in a linear sense in the way that the rest of society does, but more understands that life is more of a never ending cycle and that when you die, you're not actually dead but just passing through that precise moment and will eventually experience your life again. It’s a very intriguing concept and one that isn’t so heavily focussed on during the novel, probably due to the fact that Billy’s busy with the war and his own personal life. 

Tralfamadorians, from the planet Tralfamadore, come and visit Billy, and take him away from Earth and keep him in a zoo, as an Earthling exhibit. Their mannerisms and physicality is very interesting and becomes more interesting when you find out (just as I did, precisely thirty seconds ago) that Tralfamadorians are a long-running occurrence in Vonnegut’s many works. Perhaps the Tralfamadorians are being used in some broader way, perhaps symbolism or thematically. 

Anyway, Slaughterhouse-Five is a definite must read for anyone interested in anything, really, Science-Fiction, Fiction, Biographies, War, History, etc. So it goes.

[inmynoggin]

WE’LL ALWAYS HAVE SUMMER BY JENNY HAN

With this being the third and final instalment of Han’s The Summer I Turned Pretty series, I was expecting a fresh, new twist and, eventually, some closure... I think it’s safe to say I got just that.

So let’s recap, shall we? First instalment, it’s the first summer that the Fisher boys have paid attention to Belly and so her relationship with Conrad blossoms. Second instalment, among other things, a major flip from Conrad to Jeremiah. Third instalment? She’s engaged to Jeremiah. Quite the natural progression, I guess.

Honestly, going into this book I was nervous. I had absolutely no idea who Belly would end up with and I had absolutely no idea who I wanted Belly to end up with. I remember thinking that whether it be Jeremiah or Conrad, I would be content regardless, although a small part of me would miss the other option. What I was really afraid of, though, was a complete derailing of the story that would lead to Belly ending up with... neither Fisher boy! That would have felt like a big fat slap in the face, and quite frankly would’ve made the entire storyline leading up to this pointless. Luckily, no such thing happened and the world maintained order on that front.

I loved both Conrad and Jeremiah as characters and as love interests for Belly so it took me a while to decide who I was backing in terms of Belly’s affections. In book one, I couldn’t decide. In book two, I really couldn’t decide. But in book three, I realised that the end was in sight and that Belly would have to choose and that, deep down, I wanted her to pick Conrad all along. Usually I have a good gauge for who each character will end up with but in this case, no clue whatsoever. This made getting my way all the more pleasant when the end came.

Anyway, I’m truly sad to finish another Jenny Han series and I wait with bated breath for another. All I have to say is that I thoroughly enjoyed myself while reading this (and the previous two) instalments and that I’m glad that I can rest easy knowing the Belly ends up with my choice.

[inmynoggin]

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD

I remember two years ago when I first heard the rumours that one of my favourite filmmakers, Quentin Tarantino, would be making a new movie. Not only that, but that the cast would be comprised of some of the biggest and best names in Hollywood: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Al Pacino, not to mention Uma Thurman’s daughter Maya Hawke. Not only that but that it would concern the 60’s and Charles Manson. I thought that this movie would be absolutely perfect.

I was wrong.

Let’s start with the most prevalent issue with the film: there was no plot. It was blindingly obvious, too. With a good 25 minutes of the film showing Leo’s character’s westerns I began to wonder why Tarantino was just filling time. There was no urgency in the plot and it had no direction. My interpretation is this, Tarantino wanted to do Manson, he wanted to show Sharon Tate, he wanted to show the bromance between Leo and Pitt’s characters. It was all too much and with no real focus on any of them. I think that he just wanted too much and didn’t know how to use it all and make it work. So it didn’t.

On some rare, but nonetheless apparent, occasions, a movie with no plot can achieve cinematic magic. What it has, though, that keeps it afloat is a driving and enthralling script. After all, Spielberg did say that a movie is 70% script. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood (written by Tarantino, a writer that’s famous for his killer script) had a poor script. So poor that it was clearly un-Tarantino. Take, for example, the scene where the Manson hippie punctured Pitt’s character’s tyre. Usually, in a Tarantino scene like this, some epic one-liner will be dealt, reminding us in style that Tarantino can create some of the coolest characters of all time and then some violence will be dished out just for that final touch. We got the violence and nothin’ else. Disappointing to say the least.

The movie had several inconsistencies in movie making style. It felt very mish-mashes with the infrequently used voice-over and character titles and the non-matching fonts. I guess that is me nitpicking but it just felt wrong.

Of course, Tarantino can certainly be counted on in terms of style. He didn’t let us down in that aspect. The music, the lights, the outfits. They were very 60’s, very satisfying. Robbie, in the guise of Sharon Tate, looked godly in all her outfits and really hit the nail on the head in terms of stylistic accuracy. No one can do visuals like Tarantino.

Recently, Tarantino has been questioned over Robbie’s involvement in the movie. She had very very few lines as Sharon Tate and seemed to be there for purely aesthetic purposes. At least, that’s what was claimed. I think that, although it was bizarre how she spoke so little, I do understand what Tarantino says in response. The argument is that we were watching her in action as a tribute to her nature and for that, very little lines were needed. It got through to me anyway, that by watching Robbie as Tate I could see that Tate had a very innocent and pure nature to her and that her eventual, heartbreaking murder was something so upsetting and was a dark ending to a positive life.

All in all, yes, disappointed but, hey, you can’t please everyone and I haven’t lost all faith in Tarantino because of this letdown.

[inmynoggin]

DISOBEDIENCE BY JANE HAMILTON

Disclaimer: I didn’t read this by choice. I finished my previous book and had no other option for the weekend that I was away so I gave this award-winning book a chance. I can pretty comfortably say that I was happy that I did. It was one of those books that is very relationship-driven and so at any given time I could’ve theoretically put the novel down, not picked it up again and known that nothing totally drastic would have happened. I didn’t put it down though, it’s not in my nature to do that to a book. Also, it was a good read so it wasn’t in my interest to do that.

The book concerns 17 year old Henry and his Mid-Western nuclear family. However, he discovers his mother is having an affair. The novel focusses on the family and their progression and, in particular, his mother’s journey through this affair. The Shaw family was a very interesting one, as is Henry’s friend, Karen. In that sense, Hamilton did very well in creating such a strong blend of individual and authentic characters. They all had a part to play and added an extra dimension to the interactions between one another - just as real people effect their families.

There really is not much to say about Disobedience as a whole. I can say to you that it is most definitely worth your read and that I can see why it has attracted such critical acclaim. It’s plot is less in the forefront while Hamilton has put serious care into creating the complex and authentic family setting in the Shaws.

[inmynoggin]

IT’S NOT SUMMER WITHOUT YOU BY JENNY HAN

The first time I read this series (and this instalment in particular) was about 3 years ago. That fact will help one to understand how I couldn’t remember a single scene of any of these books. I decided to reread them due to this fact and because, from experience, i love Jenny Han’s work.

Han’s YA fiction (The Summer I Turned Pretty series and the To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before series) is some of my favourite in the field. It is so unequivocally teen and sometimes, it’s really comforting. Although I am a teenager, oftentimes I’ll look up and realise that I haven’t really appreciated teenage life. Jenny Han’s novels seem to manifest everything a teen girl’s life is and makes it far more magical and opportunity-riddled.

Usually, others’ opinions don’t impact mine but when I read a review of this series which complained about the self-absorbed nature of Belly Conklin... and it got me thinking. Whether Han meant for Belly to be so self-obsessed, I don’t know, but it is pretty apparent that there were times when bigger issues - issues that go beyond Belly- are brought to light and somehow, Belly always thinks her love life to be the centre of it all. This didn’t impact my overall opinion of the series and it didn’t make me like Belly less but it was some food for thought in terms of characterisation.

This instalment in specific was a good, solid follow up. The problem of the house following Susannah’s death was a very natural progression in terms of plot and I loved Han’s ability to keep the balance between the boys. Of course, Jeremiah so far hasn’t been portrayed as anything but the good brother but Han has done very well in keeping Conrad’s character (the brooding, aloof, bad boy) balanced with the good aspects of him so that we are constantly reminded that the decision between the two of the boys will be a hard one.

I think that many will agree when I say this: To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before is better as a series than The Summer I Turned Pretty. Regardless, like all of Jenny Han’s work, this series is perfect for a summer read because (and this is said as no way an insult) the actual writing is not exactly challenging. It’s light and enjoyable.