marinaandthedialogisms-blog

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE MEEK ONE Fyodor Dostoyevsky

⋆⋆⋆

This is my first Dostoyevsky, and it's a very short tale, so I'm not going to overanalyse his writing, obviously. I'm pretty sure there's great psychological merit to this story somewhere, and the tragedy behind it will be appreciated my many, but it didn't quite make an impression on me. It's not a slow read, like you might expect from, say, Dickens, regardless of the size. It's just not very interesting, in my opinion. The main character sounds like your classic Woody Allen persona, that guy whose mind is always working, overthinking, creating problems that are not there. Of course, this first-person narration is conducted by a man going through a troubled time, barely remembering the events he's describing and repetitively changing his mind about them, so he's not a very reliable narrator. Nonetheless, his personality shows through his confusing words, making you understand, though he doesn't, how sad it must have been for his young wife to accept she'd be living like that for the rest of her life. That's always a sensitive question, too, having a 16-year-old girl paired up with a 41-year-old man, who's her best choice in contrast with the 50-year-old wife-killer who first wanted to marry her. She's underage, her parents died, and her aunts are terrible people who will offer her hand to anyone who'll pay them money, or at least free them of the burden of feeding her. So, basically, whatever flaws the girl carries, they're reasonably justified by her terrible upbringing, young age and lack of future prospects. The pawnbroker is not a bad person. He's just too plain. And when he keeps repeating the same sentence over and over again, it's not cool like Vonnegut's "and so it goes", it's just very annoying. I believe the author meant for his protagonist not to be a likeable character, though. Which is rarely something I like in a book. To sum up, this is a tragic story, but not tragic enough that will make it interesting. It's not anything properly. It just is.

I would recommend this book to... fans of Dostoyevsky looking for something they never read?

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

ROOFTOPPERS Katherine Rundell

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

This is so cute. The plot doesn't have much to it, and if I'm being honest it's a 4.5 rating, rather than a 5. But since we can't cut a star in half, let's go with 5. Rundell's writing reminded me A LOT of Neil Gaiman. But not in a bad way, she's not trying to copy him or anything, it's just a matter of style, really. The plot, though, has got a lot of Philip Pullman to it. Parents - or, in this case, guardians - are reckless, children are always bleeding and eventually engaging into really violent fights, and there's a touch of mystical identity to it, represented by the cello. I bumped into it on my favourite bookshop, after inadvertently buying a French copy of "1984" on their website and getting store credit upon evidently returning it. The title was cute, the cover was cute and, as was bound to be, the story was cute, too. It starts in England, but it's set in Paris. We have all these polemic issues, like sexism, childism, corruption and the failed foster care system. The music bits are surprisingly easy to picture, too. It wasn’t hard to imagine the cello melody when it came up.

SLIGHT SPOILER The only thing I don't quite like is the abrupt ending. We have all these characters and situations and they're all left aside. It feels like the first book in a trilogy, only it's not.

It felt a bit like finishing “A Series of Unfortunate Events”, only the plot wasn’t as complex and I hadn’t been led into buying 13 books just to find out the author had zero answers for my questions.

Also, who knows? A second book might eventually come.

END OF SPOILER

It's a really easy read. Had I not been swamped with work and having a stomachache on top of it, I'd have finished it in two days tops.

I would recommend this book to readers who enjoy cute stories with cute titles.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

LADY CHATTERLEY’S LOVER D. H. Lawrence

⋆⋆⋆

Few things are sadder than men talking about female sexuality; both physically and psychologically. Hey, girls! Did you know that women either: a) don't like sex and refuse to do it; b) don't like sex, but stand still until their man finishes off because it's their duty as wives; c) pretend to like sex, while not feeling anything; d) only take pleasure if their partner stands still and they do all the acting; e) are either black or Connie? By the way, Connie is repeatedly repulsed by sex WHILE DOING IT. So it's terribly difficult to know whether she feels that way because of the psychological repression her cultural and social background has instilled on her or whether it's just pure rape. Now, to my favourite quote: "And his finger-tips touched the two secret openings to her body, time after time, with a soft little brush of fire." Let me tell you a secret, Mr Lawrence, we have THREE secret openings, not two. The hole that pees is not the hole you penetrate. Not that you seem to like it at all. Even the characters that do enjoy sex are described as enjoying it because their animal instinct makes them want to do it, and not because they actually take pleasure in it. And all men have this disgusting "modern romance" approach to love, as if the more rational you get the more you ABSOLUTELY KNOW that love doesn't exist. I hate this condescending talk that is getting more and more pronounced these days. Learn it, people, once and for all: there is no universal truth when it comes to love. What makes you happy is not going to make everyone else in the entire world happy. We’re different, and we can’t disregard this information whenever it seems convenient to our speech. By the way, there's not the faintest mention to Connie's clitoris. Lawrence seems to be a big fan of the vaginal orgasm myth. Let's face it, it's probably every other man's fantasy not to have to stimulate their sexual partner before/ during/ after sex. Lawrence is just a (lazy) spokesperson for the community. I just shudder to imagine him writing about lesbian sex. Now, to why I'm giving this book a 3-star rate. It's so much fun! Everyone's so hopeless! Clifford is such a baby dick! Connie's so unbelievably naïve! And it's a million times more enjoyable than "Sons and Lovers", though the male characters here are just as tiresome. Also, some of the sex scenes are really hot. And most of them are really funny. Like the 39-year-old dude naming his penis John Thomas and talking on his behalf. Or Connie not knowing what a “c*nt” is. They are basically two teenagers learning about sex together, only they are way past their adolescence. SLIGHT SPOILER

I never expected a happy ending. I was sure Connie was going to change her mind and go back to her narcissistic husband, or that her narcissistic husband was going to have her lover killed. It was actually a decent turn of events.

END OF SPOILER That's it, really. I'm just glad we live in a different time, when men and women are both able to enjoy sex, and to initiate their sexual life without having to get married first. Or deciding not to have sex until they're married, too, of their own account. After all, nothing more beautiful than the ability to choose. 

I would recommend this book to erotic readers looking for a little laugh at old notions of sex.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

REVIVAL Stephen King

⋆⋆⋆⋆

If you told me, back in 2014, that I'd ever give Stephen King a 4-star rating, I'd probably tap you on the shoulder apologetically and walk away.

I've always loved every quote of writing advice credited to him, and it actually pained me. I wanted to like the man, but after trying to read "Under the Dome" I just couldn't believe I'd ever do. It's one thing to come across poorly developed plots and bad narrative structure, these are things that can be singled out as one-time mistakes. But when you don't like the writing, you probably won't ever overcome that.

What I really hated about "Under the Dome" was the author's short-story-like writing. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love short stories. That said, short sentences, objective descriptions and lack of dialogues don't work in a 800-page novel.

I had come to terms with the fact that Stephen King would be one of those things I'm really sorry I can't bring myself to enjoy, like Asian food or the Foo Fighters, but one of my dearest friends started reading his books and became a giant fan, so eventually I agreed to try again.

Let me start with what I don't like about this book. It still feels like a giant short story, which inevitably makes me wonder whether he really needed all 403 pages to tell his tale. Also, it's obvious that this book pays tribute to H. P. Lovecraft, so why reference him in the story? Lame move.

Now, as I was halfway through the novel, it took me back to 2013, when I took this Film Adaptation module at Anglia Ruskin University, and our first assignment was to read a bunch of short stories by Raymond Carver and H. P. Lovecraft and create new film plots by putting together bits of stories from both authors. People came up with some interesting things, I tell you! And, well, maybe King happens to be good friends with my old lecturer, because "Revival" reads like the exact mix of Carver's and Lovecraft's style. On one hand, you have Jamie's ordinary life story; on the other hand, you have Lovecraft's sci-fi horror. It doesn't seem like a good fit, I know, but it is nevertheless.

I've always regarded Lovecraft as an extremely creative guy who lacked the right writing skills to turn those ideas into enjoyable stories. King settles that. He turns the scientific talk into believable dialogue and impressive action, instead of a slightly narrative technical report. And he makes Jamie's character really likeable, which is more than I can say about Lovecraft's main characters.

But King's top achievement in this book, in my opinion, is called Charles Daniel Jacobs. He's like Michael Scott, from the American "The Office". You like him, you fear him, you pity him, you admire him, you despise him. You never know how you'll feel next. Is he a genius or is he insane? Is he salvation or damnation? WHO KNOWS.

The soundtrack is also pretty interesting. What do I mean, “the soundtrack”? Well, there’s a lot of musical references in the book, under the pretext of one of the characters being a musician. Great rock and country songs.

SLIGHT SPOILER

Charles has a wife and kid who die drastically, and the description of their physical conditions after the accident is pretty vivid. It reminded me of a really strange and also really interesting book called “Miss Corpus”. It’s the kind of visceral stuff that isn’t there just to shock you, which I really like.

Most of the time, when we have graphic violence, or even nudity, on books and films, it doesn’t feel organic. It feels like it’s there solely to shock the audience, as if the writer/filmmaker first thought “and here we’ll have a graphic scene” instead of coming up with it naturally because the narrative flowed that way. You know what I mean?

Another good example of visceral writing that works really well is Natalie Portman’s dialogue in “Jackie”, talking about holding bits of JFK’s brain on the way to the hospital.

END OF SPOILER

I didn't fall in love with King, but I'm certainly curious to read some other stuff he wrote. Probably not the classics, though. I'd probably have trouble sleeping and I'd be sad if I didn't like them.

I would recommend this book to Lovecraft’s fans and people who like classic American music.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

IS EVERYONE HANGING OUT WITHOUT ME? Mindy Kaling

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this book as much as I was supposed to, because 1) I've read both Amy Poehler's and Tina Fey's autobiographies in 2015 and they're probably my two favourite people alive; 2) I didn't know Mindy Kaling was a screenwriter, I just assumed she was a full-time actress. I was wrong. Being younger than Fey and Poehler and having never been married, or had children, Kaling's thoughts and experiences were even more relatable. I assume most female comedians are low-key human beings who know how to have fun, as opposed to pretend to have fun doing things they don't like just because that's what the cool kids do. That's the best life philosophy you can follow. Another thing all three women have in common is their awesome ability to use the funniest similes. Like when Kaling admits to having playlists that contain only two songs on repeat 15 times, "like I'm a psycho getting pumped up to murder the president". As a comedy writer, this is my go-to move. I just love a good simile. Now for particulars. Even though there are references to Kaling's Indian descent, they are mostly related to physical traits and food. It's just not her focus. Nevertheless, this does work in her favour when she wants to talk about other cultures and not be considered racist. She can pull it off. Is this a good thing? Maybe. You should read and take your own conclusions. I don't know what else to say. It's comedy writer’s memoir. We get what she wants us to get from what her life's like and who she is, and we find her funny, of course. I love it that she doesn't focus on romance, but she's not a modern romancer as well. Like she says in the most relatable chapter ever, "Someone Explain One-Night Stands To Me", "I would feel sad if I didn't have my Sexually Liberated Friend there to tell me fun, frank tales of desires fulfilled. I just don't think I could ever do it myself". Which goes back to what I said about knowing how to have fun. I probably still like Poehler's and Fey's autobiographies a bit more, but I'm not even sure it's really the books or rather the people who wrote them.

I'm about to google all the episodes Kaling wrote for "The Office", obviously, so I'll end this review by saying anyone who considers themselves regular human beings on the outside, but a tad more talented and smart on the inside than they get credit for should like this book. 

So I would basically recommend this to all of you writers and other creative professionals.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS J. K. Rowling

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

Before you start, let me warn you that this review is absolutely full of spoilers. I didn’t even bother adding the “slight spoiler” section here, because this is not at all meant for people who have never read the Harry potter series before.

It seems like, after rereading books 1, 3, 5 and 7 last year, I'm left with the even numbers to close the circle this year. This book was almost 100% still clear in my mind, but I don't recall having read it more times than the others. What I think happens is that the correspondent film adaptation is the most faithful of the seven, leaving almost nothing out. I know this book has terrible fame, what with people claiming to have almost dropped it several times as they read it, and critics vouching it to be the most gruesome of all Harry Potter books. I myself have never looked at it like that. The grimmest of the seven for me will always be the sixth, and if you've read it as many times as I have you'll probably understand why. A few things seem to have passed unnoticed before, though, that have caught my eye this time. First of all, Mrs Norris is treated by Madame Pomfrey in the hospital wing, just like any witch or wizard would be. That shows how Dumbledore and most of the people in charge of the magical community feels towards inhuman magical creatures, treating them like equals, something Voldemort and his pure-blood possy would never have allowed. Another thing is the terrible way Ron and Harry treat Lockhart, both before and after his Memory Charm backfires. I mean, yes, the man is a pain-in-the-ass criminal who tried to blame the whole Chamber of Secrets business on Hagrid and was running away instead of looking for Ginny, but Ron and Harry are supposed to be above all this payback behaviour. They are cold tyrants the entire time. Harry even takes pleasure in humiliating Lockhart on the way to Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, as described in the following sentence: "Harry was pleased to see that he was shaking". Their taking Lockhart to the Chamber of Secrets serves no purpose other than making the man supposedly pay for his crimes by erasing his own memories. Any good soul would have felt a little guilty, especially when they come across him in book 4, sentenced to live the rest of his days in St Mungus in a deplorable state. I'm rereading that one eventually this year, so I'll be able to confirm it then, but as far as I remember, although they feel sorry for Lockhart, they are not at all ashamed, and they keep finding excuses in his past to make it okay that he got such a nasty punishment. The action scenes are a little disappointing, too. From Harry's killing the basilisk to Riddle's disappearance there's a total of two pages. But there's Fawkes, the most fascinating of all fantastic beasts, doing what it (he?) does best, so it's okay. I'm going to finish this review with two of J. K. Rowling's most brilliant quotes, both of which are in the last pages of this book: "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain." "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE TIME IN BETWEEN María Dueñas

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

What a great book. Two of my dearest friends, a couple, gave me this for my birthday, and I have to say I didn’t know what to expect at first. They are both very artsy, way more than I am, so they’re really into contemporary art, which I’m usually not very fond of. When I looked it up, though, I saw the book had amazing reviews and the writing was rather classic in terms of style, not to mention the story included a little bit of history. That’s when I knew I was going to like it, I just had no idea how much! My favourite thing about it is how apparently bland the protagonist, Sira, seems to be. Normally, she'd be your regular secondary character, the heroine's best friend, the girl whose only mission in the book is to put some sense into the main character, or maybe function as some kind of redemption when the main character comes back from the dark side and needs to apologise to someone to show he or she is still human and gain the reader's sympathy back. In “Little Women” standards, she would no doubt be Beth. Sira doesn't read much, nor is she completely without an opinion. She's not the centre of attention at any party, but she sure deserves a second glance here and there. She's reserved, but not friendless. Charming, but not irresistible. To sum up, Sira is one of us. You’re never going to hear me say millennials are worse than baby boomers. Puh-lease! We rock! We don’t have unrealistic expectations, we’re just not about to bust our asses off so we can enjoy life in the fullest when we’re sixty. I have to admit, though, that my generation in particular is obsessed with uniqueness. We all want to be essential, thinking ourselves much greater than we actually are. In the end, no one really cares about other people as much as they care about themselves, which makes this eternal pursuit of recognition as pointless and fake as wars. Of course I'm not making this comparison just for the sake of it. This is a book about wars, and about people trying to pick sides in a time when the only accurate information you could get came from actually walking around and understanding what the current government were doing for the people. No media involved. (This concept remains true, but, thanks to the internet, we have multiple sources of information now, so it’s not as drastic as back then).

It's a long book, divided into four segments, each representing a new turn of events in Sira's life. Being common is what makes Sira invaluable, by the way. Though it seems like wars rely on strategy, when both sides can be equally strategic all that is left is luck. You don't want to be linked to either side in case things take an unexpected turn and the enemy rises to power. Looking neutral is the best gift you can get.

I’ve talked about this in a previous review, but contemporary authors have a way of taking into consideration the male-driven environment of past decades without falling into stereotypes when it comes to female leads. This is certainly the case here. On top of that, Sira’s story begins with her dropping her oh-so-decent fiancé to go live with a Don Draper kind of guy, unmarried. Despite the fact that the latter turns out to be a giant pile of garbage and walks out on her with all her money, it’s pretty clear that she doesn’t owe her old fiancé anything, especially not an apology. If this had been written 30 years ago, the author would probably have led us to despise her, thinking things like “that’s what you get for making a good man suffer”. BLOODY HELL NO.

SLIGHT SPOILER

Still on that note, I just absolutely love that she doesn’t turn into a single mother after all. Of course it wouldn’t be anything to be ashamed of, but it would certainly reinforce the idea of women having to take care of their bastard babies by themselves because they “didn’t pick the right guy to begin with”. Plus, we’re all tired of the whole principle of us turning into our parents in the end, no matter what. Believe it or not, some of us have freewill.

END OF SPOILER

Dialogue is interesting, characters are well-constructed, the female main character's life is not driven by romance and the descriptions are vivid without being too long or too dull. Also, most of the time the author can successfully mix real events with fictional plots without sounding too historical, so it's an easy 5-star rating for me.

I would recommend this book to people who enjoy historical fiction, like Philippa Gregory or even Alexandre Dumas, and anyone who likes Carlos Ruiz Zafón’s stories.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE END Lemony Snicket

⋆⋆⋆

WTF??? This is a great book, if you're willing to forget the fact that it's the final instalment of a 13-book long saga... but you can't, can you? I mean, I'm not buying the whole "you can't know everything" moral as a way to justify the complete lack of information this book brings. Unless I'm supposed to reread the extremely confusing stories both Ishmael and Count Olaf tell at separate times during the narrative and put the pieces together, I'm not sure Handler knew what he was doing either. YES, I'M CALLING YOU DANIEL HANDLER NOW JUST TO PUNISH YOU, YOU WICKED MAN.

Seriously, what's behind Count Olaf's last scene? Where does Lemony Snicket's revelation of who Beatrice is lead us? Why the hell are V.F.D. babies so precocious? And was V.F.D. just a pointless organisation made of people who spent their entire time fighting against each other merely for the sake of it? I could even forgive that last bit and consider it a war metaphor, but everything else is too absurd to justify such a well-thought reference.

And you know what’s really messed up? Chapter the Thirteenth arrives, and you know it’ll be the last, because every single one of the previous books have thirteen chapters, so you’re absolutely desolated when the author doesn’t explained a single thing... but then you come across Chapter the Fourteenth! You’re filled with hope again. That’s it. Now you’re going to get all the answers you’ve been waiting for. But hell no. It’s just more of the same. Now you’re doubly disappointed. 

What am I supposed to do now? Look for conspiracy theories online to understand everything this last book failed to explain? I’ve done that, but I’m still not pleased.

As for character development, everyone pretty much ends up the same, except for Sunny. Let’s just admit it, Sunny is by far the best character in this series. She’s got multiple skills, she speaks just enough to be comprehended, she makes the most brilliant references in her short speeches, she’s got her priorities straight and she’s quite an independent woman/baby.

It’s hard to analyse the character arc of the secondary characters, as I gather most of them have died, but it’s really open to interpretation.

I wonder if Handler will be a transmedia genius and explain everything through the Netflix show. He’s already inserted a few elements in the first season that were either not in the books or only introduced much later in the series. I’m not getting my hopes up, but if he does do that he’ll deserve a special seat right next to the Wachowskis. For now, I’m just going to hold a grudge against him for an indefinite period of time.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I love how every single one of the 12 other books are one way or another referenced throughout the story. There’s Olaf trapped in a bird cage, just like he trapped Sunny in a bird cage in the first book. There’s the Incredibly Deadly Vyper making quite an important appearance after running away in the second book. There’s the storm and enclosure in an island from the third book. There’s the peer pressure from the fourth book. There’s a giant commonplace book, a concept first referenced in the fifth book. There’s a weird drink everyone is unconsciously forced to drink, like in the sixth book. There’s a group of people “raising” the children again after the fiasco of the seventh book. There’s a medical operation conducted by unqualified people, like in the eight book. There’s the Oz effect from the ninth book. There’s the Baudelaires unsuccessfully trying to warn a group of people of imminent danger, like in the tenth book. There’s the Medusoid Mycelium from the eleventh book. And there’s death by harpoon gun, like in the twelfth book.

END OF SPOILER    I just can't.................

I would recommend this book to no one who’s read any of the previous books, it’s just too painful.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE NIGHT CIRCUS Erin Morgenstern

⋆⋆⋆⋆

It's a lot to take in. As I was reading this book, I felt something I knew I had experienced before, but wasn't exactly sure when and what it was. It has come to me now. Let's call it a "serene confusion" - the feeling of not grasping the full meaning of what you're being told, while being inexplicably aware that this was the right amount of meaning you were supposed to get in the first place. I felt the same way when I read Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. As much as you think you’re following every clue, deep down you know you’re lost. The story is told through gradual release of intricate information that does not fall a chronological order, but rather a sensible line of thought. That's how I know I shouldn't have understood any more than I did. There's a clear three-act division, marked by both the protagonists' arches and the development of the circus itself, and it takes place all over the globe, between 1873 and 1903. What's great about reading current novels set in the past is that today's authors usually know how to make female characters strong without taking for granted the period in which they are inserted. I'd say Morgenstern is particularly gifted when it comes to that. In fact, my favourite thing about the book is her writing. It's extremely compelling and mysterious; poetic even. I’ll allow myself to appeal to synesthesia here and call it velvety. It fits perfectly with the poignant environment of the circus and its constant battle between reality and illusion, fascination and fear, attraction and aversion. No wonder the story revolves around a game.

There are three alternated storytelling units: a description of the circus’ attractions, which ends up acquiring a new meaning in the end; Bailey’s involvement with the circus, starting long after the story begins, but catching up with it eventually; and the development of the game, which takes up most of the book. Included in the latter, we have chapters with and without the main characters, as well as chapters in which they are included, though they are not the centre of that particular piece of narrative. Unfortunately, I've never been a great fan of magic tricks and such, otherwise I might have been distracted enough not to notice a few things that bothered me. I think there are far too many secondary characters, and this ends up preventing plots to be properly developed. Some of them begin in the middle of the book and simply die without conclusion. Not to mention the fact that some characters have conflicting roles, like Isobel and Poppet. Do we really need two different characters who can foresee the future? The same is true for the Burgess sisters. Oh, and by the way, why does Tante Padva exist? Or even Widget? I don’t know, it feels like Morgenstern’s editor made her reach a certain number of pages, and that’s why the book is so unnecessarily long.

But these are structural problems. Like I said, I felt really drawn to her writing, so I would definitely read another of her novels.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I don't buy Celia and Marco's Shakespearean love. Yes, there's all this magic involved, but come on! It's too sudden and too powerful for two people who barely even meet throughout the years. And this is coming from someone in a long-distance relationship. I'm not saying it had to be rationally explained, it just had to make sense, which for me it doesn't - not really. Many of the events in the Harry Potter universe, for example, have as far from palpable a meaning as possible, but J. K. Rowling slowly develops an explanation for every single one of them throughout seven long books. Maybe if Morgenstern had chosen less characters to write about, things would have been different.

END OF SPOILER I don't really know why, but I've imagined Natalie Portman as Celia and... the guy from Green Day as Marco! Go figure...

I would recommend this book to people looking for fantasy stories outside the young adult session.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

LONDON TRANSPORTS Maeve Binchy

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

This is a great compilation of powerful female characters trying to stay true to themselves against the world's wishes (and by "world" I mean people, of course). Basically, we have a succession of London stations, each serving as title for a different short story, with different characters. Sometimes the tube and the surroundings of that particular station have an active participation in the story, whereas some other times it's just there. It's not the strongest point of the narrative, though. It doesn't quite matter which station corresponds to which story. It’s more of a guideline, really. Of course, having lived in England and visited London a few times, this was a specially masochist choice of reading for me. It always is. Come back to me, England! It took me quite a few transports to realise Binchy had written those stories in the 70's. They're so contemporary and alive! She talks about abortion, unequal payment, betrayal, xenophobia and abusive relationships, among other themes. Which proves we’re still very much lagging behind when it comes to equal rights... I won't talk about each particular story because there are 22 of them. Nevertheless, a few things have to be commented upon. Binchy does this thing in which you think she's just stated something outrageous, but then the sentence turns into something completely unexpected, mostly becoming incredibly ironic criticism. Like when a Londoner housewife who's a compulsive shoplifter is walking across Oxford Street planning her next robbery and this third-person intrusive narration comes up: "She made sure that her wallet (...) was safely zipped into the pocket inside her coat. You couldn't be too careful these days, with teams of pickpockets coming to London from abroad." There are other interesting passages as well, like when an "old spinster" visits a porn shop, looking for a book to learn what to do in bed now that she's about to lose her virginity, and she finds it very hard to choose the right book, since there are "no men in raincoats (...), no minister figures with moustaches and sunglasses salivating over pictures in filthy books", not to mention every single volume seems to be "wrapped in cellophane".

Binchy's writing style is very simple and not at all boring. Her endings are well-constructed, as well as her beginnings, and she seems to have had quite a clever mind. The stories go from light-hearted to emotional to creepy. They are very different in tone and format from each other. Very few of them have male characters as protagonists, and even so the stories are about the women in their lives. Most of the 22 tales are about abusive relationships and the (terrible) way society makes us look at our love lives as women. SLIGHT SPOILER

My favourite story is probably the one where a woman works as a secretary to other women who should clearly have been promoted a long time ago, if it weren't for the sexist environment they work in. She helps them get there by mixing social tricks with professional rights, confessing that she is perfectly aware that these tings are silly and shouldn't matter, but unfortunately that's what you have to do to get attention in a male-driven society without bending to their misogynistic rules. END OF SPOILER

An important, unassuming book for women of all ages, I suppose. 

I would recommend this book to everyone who enjoys light-hearted stories.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM - THE ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY J. K. Rowling

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

Oh, this film. So cute and quirky and nonetheless powerful. As a proud Hufflepuff myself, I can't help but truthfully admiring Newt as both a wizard and a person. He was responsible for protecting and cataloguing all magical beasts that could be found around the world, in addition to being a sweet, kind human being to every living creature he came across. Yes, it sounds like an eulogy, let's proceed. I believe this was the first script J. K. has ever written - and it shows sometimes, which is not necessarily a bad thing. She appears to copy rules from a book. Well, if more screenwriters who don't direct their own projects were to follow her example, it would make things a lot easier for everyone involved. That's how I work, too. Straightforward and objective lines.

Jacob is such a dear, isn’t he? In my opinion, he’s not just there to be a comic relief. He’s there to prove wizards and muggles can coexist together without fearing or despising each other. Look how well he blends in with the crowd once he understands how the magical world works!

Queenie is not a random character either. She’s clearly undermined by her sister (and the entire magical community) just because she’s good looking. The woman can read minds, you people! That kind of power renders its owner the post of maximum leader in other franchises, you know? Just putting it out there...

There are a few hidden jokes I hadn’t noticed watching the film. It’s easier to identify them here because every time they come up J.K. writes a single sentence below that says: “A beat”. And I thought I was the queen of deadpan after binge-watching “Parks and Recreation” twice... Well, maybe I’ll just use this as an excuse to binge-watch it for the third time!

You know what else you can find in this script? Cute beasts, anti-bullying campaign, criticism to the war, criticism to the United States, a non-romantic main plot, several British expressions you were missing from the Harry Potter books and the best advice ever given: "worrying means you suffer twice".

Well-deserved Oscar win, bringing home the first Academy Award for the "Harry Potter" franchise.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I like it that Newt and Tina take so long to start flirting and do it so sweetly in the end. They have clearly been bullied at school, and I’d bet they were never romantically involved with anyone, despite the fact that they’re probably in their thirties. Romance doesn’t have to be experienced guy finds inexperienced girl, falls in love and becomes a monogamist. That’s not worth an inspiring sigh, but rather a feminist shrug. Not to mention sometimes innocence can be much more beautiful.

END OF SPOILER

Is J.K. behind the scripts of the upcoming Cormoran Strike TV series? I hope so, I liked her style.

I would recommend this book to Potterheads, adventure lovers, Disney fans and anyone with a pulsing heart.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE PENULTIMATE PERIL Lemony Snicket

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

Oh, God. There's only one left! I was delighted to see most of the (living) characters of the series together for the first time! Especially after watching the Netflix show, though I'm not sure I liked that one much. I still picture the actors from the film when I'm reading.

It’s hard to make an elaborate review of a random instalment in a 13-volume series, especially when the books are comparatively short and everything you say will be a spoiler. Let’s just say the story gets better and better as we find out new information that help us understand why Mr and Mrs Baudelaire were killed in a fire and why Olaf is so obsessed with their fortune.

Not that we get an actual explanation for anything. At this point, it's become really hard to tell who's on which side of the schism. People keep changing their minds, we're always discovering dubious stuff that has happened in the past, adults get dumber and dumber with each new volume and V.F.D. just couldn't be a more confusing organisation. Literary references are on fire in this particular book! Maybe the author looks at this series the same way J. K. Rowling looks at hers, understanding that readers are getting older as the characters get older, too. The story matures as the series progresses. Even more for Sunny, who has to endure all this pressure so early in life and ends up ageing a lot faster than her siblings. She can make decisions as wisely as any of the other two.

SLIGHT SPOILER

Can somebody please explain why there are so many twins and triplets involved with this organisation? The old ladies who used to help Olaf, the Quagmires, maybe the Snickets and now the Denouements... Oh, and there’s a pregnant lady, too. Who knows, maybe she’s giving birth to quadruplets.

As for Esme and Olaf, thank God that awful woman has come to her senses! Abusive relationships are terrible, no matter how villainous the abused party can be.

As for adults being dumb, I’m still fighting the urge to facepalm every time I remember the tribunal/fire scene. It was way too much.

END OF SPOILER I'm really looking forward to the ultimate volume. Where are the Quagmires? How long has it been since everything happened and Snicket started putting the pieces together? Is the Baudelaire's ending really that awful? I DON’T KNOW. I  would recommend this book to all of you who can’t stand how stupid adults can be after reading eleven volumes of this series.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE ABC MURDERS Agatha Christie

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

So simple. So good. It's just so easy to give an Agatha Christie book 5 stars. She mastered the uncomplicated detective narrative with a classic twist in the end, and nobody seems to have successfully matched her style. It's like last year's Academy Awards. What's so special about "Spotlight"? Well, the fact that it's a really good film, period. I first put this book on my TBR list when I was a teenager just because I liked the title. My mom doesn't read much, but I remember her telling me she used to read Christie's novels when she was young and loved them - especially the Hercule Poirot instalments. Who was I to turn down motherly advice? I looked up a few titles and this one made the list, though it took me 10 years to actually buy it and read it.

This Harper Collins collection is really cool. They look awesome together in a shelf! Do I have the money to buy them all? No, but one can stare at them side by side on display in their favourite bookshop and dream... Let me start with the only downside of this and most of Christie's and other authors of her time's works: it can be sexist sometimes. But that's just it, the time when it was written. And it's not even that she puts men as superior in nature to women, she just establishes a few features as being deterministic female flaws. If anything, her female characters are outstanding and much more interesting than her male character. Besides, the one person who takes the trouble to say that women are bound to be "catty" to one another in the book turns out to have a controversial character, so there. This was my first Poirot instalment, and, even though the story is told in the same manner of every single Sherlock Holmes book, with a male friend narrating the detective's adventures, I didn't even stop to make that comparison before I started this review. Which is definitely a good sign. Like I mentioned before, the female characters in this book are really something. Megan Barnard in particular. These are intelligent women who like their independence and have to pay a small price for it. The men, on the other hand, are less impressive. Excuse me if I'm not inclined to feel any sympathy towards Donald Fraser when he's obviously a controlling, jealous man, regardless of his former fiancé having given him reason not to trust her.

Unlike Conan Doyle’s series, Christie’s stories are less scientific and more psychological. Let me elaborate on that. Although both authors and their respective characters work with observation and logic, Sherlock focuses on marks, fingerprints and physical evidence in general, whereas Poirot (and other “investigative” characters created by Christie, whether they are professional detectives or not) goes for dialogue and action, trying to extract the truth from subtle comments and odd behaviour.

For some reason, I imagined Sam Waterston as Poirot, with his hair dyed black. And Jude Law as Hastings. And Troian Bellisario as Megan. And Margot Robbie as Thora. And Rachel McAdams as Mary. And Jeremy Renner as Franklin. The rest was just entirely made up.

SLIGHT SPOILER

The ending is almost beautiful. The way Poirot talks to A. B. cust is quite simple, and yet very moving. We can’t help but feel sorry for the poor man. I like to think that this was intentional criticism to the war. All in all, wars have no positive outcome for anyone, and the brainwashed veterans end up talking about their service with so much pride that they don’t even see how poorly they’ve been treated during and after the war.

END OF SPOILER

There's no way I'm stopping here. I'm definitely going after other Poirot adventures soon enough.

I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys detective stories that are more interesting than violent.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

GREAT EXPECTATIONS Charles Dickens

⋆⋆⋆

Charles Dickens should have been a poet, not a novelist. He can write beautiful, perceptive sentences, such as these: "And could I look upon her without compassion, seeing her punishment in the ruin she was, in her profound unfitness for this earth on which she was placed, in the vanity of penitence, the vanity of remorse, the vanity of unworthiness, and other monstrous vanities that have been curses in this world?” "It was one of those March days when the sun shines hot and the wind blows cold: when it is summer in the light, and winter in the shade." "He did this with the air of a Jack who was so right that he could afford to do anything." However, I must admit I never take much pleasure in reading his novels. I find it a dull job, what with the bad dialogue (it's really hard to write good realistic dialogue, like Mark Twain does, or Alice Walker), the excessive lines (Virginia Woolf must have been a Dickens fan) and the melodramatic behaviour of the characters. I’m more than ready to admit that it might be a matter of taste. In fact, every time I decide to put myself through another of his novels, I think of one of the most famous Brazilian authors of all times, a man called José de Alencar, whose stories are great, but whose writing I can’t bring myself to enjoy. I've rated both "Tale of Two Cities" and "A Christmas Carol" 3 stars, but I'd say this one is a 3 and a half. It's got less exclamation marks, and two outstanding female characters. I don't care much for Pip, to be honest. He’s just yet another young boy who comes across a big fortune and doesn’t know how to handle the situation until he’s old enough to realise what an idiot he has become and how much he has already lost as a human being. He’s 19th-century Justin Bieber. But Joe is a good person and his happiness depends upon Pip's happiness, so there you go. 

Biddy is an amazing character, though limited by circumstances. She just might be a {girl} Bill Gates in the making, as Beyoncé would have put the matter, but she was born in the wrong place at the wrong time. The entire dialogue between her and Pip when he condescendingly tells her that he wishes he could love her, but just can't is fantastic. She tells him plainly that she'd marry him, alright, because she doesn't have great aspirations. He’s so offended by that remark that I just couldn’t stop laughing. Estella is a great character, too. Her complicated origins, mixed with a strange bringing up, turn her into this cold, bitter woman who decides she'll never be happy, but won't complain about it all the time either, like your regular Dickens's character would do. The fact that Pip falls for her not despite her bad attitude towards him, but because of that just comes to show that classic literature wanted men to be ridiculous, abusive pricks. Some people still have this notion nowadays, that if someone treats you badly it means they like you. COME ON. If someone tells you no, go away and look for someone who'll tell you yes. Stop harassing people who don't want your attention. There are too much characters, few of which move the story forward. I had to stop a minute every time I stumbled into Wopsle or Trabb or Hubble to remember who they were. I also think that Miss Havisham could have been much better explored, and that Orlick’s actions are just too random for his own sake.

Now, can someone please explain to me why on Earth the author decided to insert random horror elements to the story? Occasional ghosts and such? They literally do nothing for the story. It's like he's trying to turn the book into a Gothic novel. Maybe he should have read the Brontë sisters more thoroughly.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I love it that Pip keeps looking at Biddy as his "last resort" and, when he finally decides to GIVE HER THIS AMAZING HONOUR, she's already someone else's wife. I mean, she probably never seriously considered him a worthy option at all.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of old guy/young woman couples, so I don't like how things turn out for Joe and Biddy. Especially since he watched her grow up in his own house, which is even grosser. But this was socially acceptable at the time, and at least she didn’t marry Pip.

END OF SPOILER Dickens is a classic. I'll probably continue to read his novels, even though I don't like his writing much. He's the kind of guy you should respect - even when he's not your cup of tea. I’ve already bought “Oliver Twist” and “David Copperfield”, so I’ll give them a shot eventually.

I would recommend this book to people who like long stories, mild twists and turns and good old melodrama.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

AN EDUCATION - THE SCREENPLAY Nick Hornby

⋆⋆⋆

Okay, so the script in itself is great, but I can't just go along with this Lolita bullshit. That's why I can't go past 3 stars. Of course I knew what the story was before I read it, I saw the film years ago, but still. I don't usually read prefaces, but this one was 40 pages long and consisted of Nick Hornby's description of the whole process of writing, producing and selling the film, so I gave it a go. 

Regardless of his sounding like your regular self-centred author who thinks he's the brightest person in the world, I really enjoyed learning about the process of making a film in the UK, especially since I'm not that familiar with the British film industry. I did study Film & TV there for a year, but what can I say? I was 21, I wasn’t staying, so I didn’t bother learning about the industry itself. Instead, I focused on improving my writing skills and, well, mapping the Cambridge pubs.

In addition to enlightening us about the Film scene in Britain (and unmercifully dissing Orlando Bloom), he also comes up with these great insights - like the good Nick Hornby we know. Here’s my favourite: "... it's salutary to be reminded that what one thinks of as personal taste, an aesthetic that has taken years to achieve, is actually little more than the inevitable product of being born in a certain place at a certain time."

Like I said before, I hate these romantic paedophile relationships we sometimes come across in books and films. I remember not liking the film as much as I thought I would when I watched it in 2013, but reading the script now I think the story’s grown on me just enough for me to be able to enjoy it. Though I still despise her getting involved with David, I liked Jenny's character much better than I did 4 years ago. She blames her parents for letting her get involved with David, and you know what? She's right. I know it's not intentional and I know it's the beginning of the 1960's, but she was 16 and they should have known better. Fortunately, they had done right before, forcing her into getting a good education and qualifying for a place in Oxford, so it's not like they ruined her life - they just almost sold her to an adult man who was twice her age. SLIGHT SPOILER

There's an alternative ending in the book. Apparently, they decided to change it at the last minute. Well, they shouldn't have. I hate it when there's absolutely no narration in the film up until the very end, when they need to tell the audience how it all ends, but can't make it into a proper scene, so an off-screen voice comes out of nowhere and settles it. Maybe that’s one of the reasons I wasn’t able to enjoy the film as much as I did the script.

The old ending, the one that got discarded, brings this new, mature Jenny that has learned from her mistakes and become a sensible young woman without losing her sense of adventure. Much, much better.

END OF SPOILER One more thing: I just love the printing in this edition (check photo above). It looks as though everything was written with a fountain pen. Just beautiful. Nice smell, too.

I would recommend it to people who like scripts and to all the young girls out there who think (much) older guys are irresistible - maybe you’ll learn a thing or two.

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

THE GOOD LUCK OF RIGHT NOW Matthew Quick

⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆

If you don't feel refreshed after reading this book, I don't know what will give you this feeling. After losing his mother to cancer, Bartholomew starts writing letters to Richard Gere. Yes, it sounds random. Yes, it is very unexpected. But it makes perfect sense once you read his letters and understands what's going on. I've never been a fan of Richard Gere's. I'm always suspicious about actors who keep playing the same role and marrying multiple younger women. Bartholomew helped me sympathise with him, though. His letters reminded me that something as frivolous as a celebrity idol can sometimes make a huge difference in someone else's life. Nevertheless, this book does not concern Richard Gere. It concerns Bartholomew, his mother, his priest, his young therapist, his young therapist's abusive boyfriend, his friend from group therapy, his friend from group therapy's sister and the Dalai Lama. 

Some people stand against religious icons that end up becoming as famous as our regular celebrities. It would be naïve of me to assume this rule applies to all, but I like to think that fame, in this case, helps calling attention to their cause - and money, much needed when it comes to charitable initiatives.

Anyway, between Dalai Lama's lessons and personal philosophies, this book reminds us that we are a huge community that should be working towards general satisfaction and happiness, rather than getting rich - or even happy - at someone else's expense. It also vouches for the humanity within each and everyone of us. Helping people in need is much easier and fulfilling than neglecting them and criticising whatever choice they made that led them to become miserable - we just forgot that notion along the way. As the Dalai Lama once said, and Bartholomew reproduces in one of his letters: "We must recognise that the suffering of one person or one nation is the suffering of humanity. That the happiness of one person or one nation is the happiness of humanity." Moving on to character construction, Quick builds these people with so much care and detail that we can actually imagine them with a beating heart, walking across the street and smiling at us for no reason whatsoever. Also, both (living) women portrayed in this book have suffered some kind of abuse. This is not just fiction. Most of us know at least half a dozen women who have been physically or psychologically abused, we're just not aware of that. It's still difficult for women to speak up against their abusers because society keeps finding ways to put the blame on the victim instead of admitting to have a cultural and educational problem that needs fixing. Still on character construction, taking into consideration that we see things through Bartholomew’s point of view, sometimes it feels like everyone else is too crazy, and he should just stay away from them. However, he’s just as extraordinary as the others, not a bit less “crazy”. That’s what’s absolutely beautiful about it, actually. It makes you see that “normal” is a very personal, and therefore impossible notion.

Speaking of personal, two things in this book reminded me of past events in my life. First, the “good luck of right now” theory made me think about this made-up theory I came up with as a child. I couldn’t measure the enormity of the universe, so I thought that, somewhere on the other side of the world, everything that was happening to me or to people I knew was happening to someone else, too. Like, if I went on a picnic with my mom and I ate an apple and a piece of cake, someone my age in Japan, or wherever, was doing the exact same thing with his or her mother. I guess it was some sort of early conception of parallel universe. Call me Einstein. 

The other thing was Bartholomew’s relationship with his mother when she was about to die. The whole “pretending to be Richard Gere” stuff. About 5 years ago, my grandfather spent his last months in a hospital, and at some point he couldn’t identify us anymore, so instead of asking him questions to see if he remembered me, I just took my daily 5 minutes with him at ICU to grab his hand and sing a few songs he loved to listen to when he came to the city and stayed with us. Mostly Brazilian music from the 1930′s. He wasn’t opening his eyes anymore, but he grabbed my hand back and, when I asked him whether he remembered those songs, he nodded. 

I agree with Bartholomew that, when things come to a certain edge, we should just play along and make it as comfortable as possible for those we love.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I believe the stray cats in the end are a metaphor for people like our characters, who don't have a proper job and are not therefore considered worthy citizens. But they are. They were born, they are here and they should have the right to a decent life simply because they exist. We are taught to hate on a daily basis, like we were supposed to kill each other for the survivors to prosper. This is insane! Let's love each other! Let's love!

Also, I like it that we kind of put the pieces together about Father McNamee’s relationship with Bartholomew quite early, but we have absolutely no idea how the latter is going to react when he finds out, so it’s still a surprise.

END OF SPOILER

The world sucks, but each of us can make it suck less.

I would recommend this book to people who liked “The Curious Incident of the Dog at the Night-Time” and everyone in need of a boost of hope. 

[marinaandthedialogisms-blog]

FRANNY AND ZOOEY J. D. Salinger

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Let us all take a breath now. I love dialogue. It's my favourite thing to write. I love quotes, I love character interaction and I love Hemingway. That said, God Almighty, how those people love to talk! Salinger appears to be the book equivalent of Woody Allen. I've never read "Catcher in the Rye", so I can't be sure. But I'm pretty sure. His characters are people who never stop talking, even when they shut their mouths, because their brains will just keep the conversation going uninterruptedly. No wonder Franny takes up that strange praying habit of hers. I had no idea this book wasn't "Franny and Zooey", but rather "Franny" and Zooey", the first being a short story, and the second a novella. I thought it was about two extraordinary women living ordinary lives, or rather two ordinary women living extraordinary lives. Have you watched “Grace and Frankie”? Something along those lines.

On the contrary, Zooey is a man, Franny is barely past her teen years and they are siblings. Zooey is 25 years old and Franny is 20, and they both still live with their parents. She’s in both stories.

It took me a while to finish "Franny" because I just couldn't stand her boyfriend Lane saying the word "goddamn" over and over. SO ANNOYING. I guess it was meant to make the character look annoying, so congratulations are definitely in order. The ending is brilliant, very “short story”-like. All the good ones write that kind of ending, like queen Katherine Mansfield, for instance. I’ve been trying to write that kind of ending for years, but I always end up with some very polished paragraph, closing up the story perfectly. Is it because I’m a Capricorn? I don’t know, maybe.

My favourite thing about both stories is that the plot revolves around the fact that happiness and knowledge can't coexist well together. It's not that a wise person can't be happy, but pain is intrinsic to knowledge, isn't it? Mrs Glass puts it very well: "I don't know what good it is to know so much and be smart as whips and all if it doesn't make you happy." At the same time, people with a thirst for knowledge won't find happiness the other way around. So there you go. A problem without solution.

I don’t have much to say about the Jesus prayer. I was raised a Catholic and consider myself a Christian, though I disagree with several things the Church as an institution is pro or against. I think Zooey is right when he says we can’t all be as holy as Saint Francis, but he’s too much of a pessimist, so I don’t give his ideas much credit. The Jesus prayer is actually much closer to Buddhism than Christianism, so it doesn’t even matter what Zooey has to say about Jesus.

SLIGHT SPOILER

The Glass children reminded me a lot of the Cash children, from the film "Captain Fantastic". Of course, they are a lot more troubled, considering they've acquired all this knowledge while living in our capitalist society instead of isolated in the woods.

I also think that “Zooey” ends too abruptly. I’d rather Franny found the answer she was looking for instead of simply having a half-epiphany that didn’t solve her inner troubles.

END OF SPOILER

Well, well. Not a very impressive book, but certainly a good one.

I would recommend it to agnostics, pessimists and fans of Woody Allen.