There is something so cinematic about Nick Hornby's writing. It isn't surprising that so many of his books have been optioned and that he also recently wrote a screenplay. His characters all feel real, but in a fanciful way.
In Juliet, Naked, we are given a scenario that, if over simplified, would come across as wildly unrealistic. A woman in her late thirties, living is a seaside town in Northern England, is unsatisfied with her 15 year relationship with a man obsessed with an obscure rock singer who disappeared from the public eye 20 years prior. The woman then, in an act of spite towards her long-term partner, posts an unfavorable review of the release of the obscure rock star's demos from his most famous album, Juliet. The striped down version is known as Juliet, Naked.
The woman's review sparks the interest of the real musician, who then e-mails her. They continue their e-mail flirtation for a while. Her long-term partner then cheats on her with a woman who teaches at the same college as him, and gives the woman a reason to leave - guilt free.
The rock star, now living Pennsylvania with his estranged wife and their six-year-old son. We learn the rock star has several children he hardly sees, all with different mothers. After his marriage ends, and one of his estranged daughters' suffers a miscarriage in England, he travels to London to see her, but also to meet his internet flirtation - Annie.
The aged obscure ex-rock star, Tucker Crowe, suffers from a heart attack while in London. Yadda yadda yadda - he asks Annie to take him to her quaint little sea side town to recuperate. Here he meets Annie's ex, Duncan, who is his biggest fan.
Anyways - Annie falls for Tucker, Tucker seems to like her as well...and the end is open for our own interpretation.
This story might seem silly and contrived, but there seems to be an honest sense of reality here. Mainly having to due with fan perception versus reality.
We all claim to know what's happening to our favourite stars, or those we love to hate, because some jerk-off from TMZ or Perez Hilton tell us. The truth is that we cannot presume anything. And that those living their lives out loud, in front of the cameras, are creating their own imagine, but those who hide have stories we cannot know.
The other aspect of the story that struck me was the relationships it presents. The main character, Annie, is given a chance to redeem herself after spending 15 years with a cold and dull man who's only passion was for a rock star who hadn't produced anything new in over 20 years. The fact that Annie got to know the real Tucker, the man Duncan would never understand, is part of the nice little package that draws the two points together. Meaningful relationships vs. Superficial fantasies.
The book ends with message board postings from the Tucker Crowe fan page. The messages suggest that Tucker releases a new album after his long absence from making music, and the posters, including Duncan, rip it apart. There is one curious post from a woman who goes by "Uptown Girl" who states that she and her husband love it. The romantic in me hopes that this woman is Annie. Even if Tucker isn't her husband, it is my wish that she finally makes herself happy.
Normally I wouldn't read a book like this. A fake book. I understand that it is, a "real" book - in that it has text and a story (sort of). I read this because it is a tie-in to one of my favourite TV shows Californication starring David Duchovny. This book, Good Hates Us All, is Hank Moody's best novel, his "Gatsby" as his friend Lew Ashby put it. The novel that was optioned and brought him to California from New York.
The book I read, by Jonathan Grotenstein, was not this novel. Hank wouldn't have written this. The story seemed contrived and not at all compelling. I Googled Mr. Grotenstein and discovered he is a professional poker player and has written at least one book...about poker. Stick to what you know, Jonathan.
It would have been more interesting if the network had put one of the writers of the show on the project. Have those who write Hank's dialogue write his words.
The main character is never named, which I guess is fine, but all the other crazy characters end up named - in a way that makes them hard to keep track of. The story doesn't seem to have a well thought out plot and seems to jump around in a way that makes the reader question what's important and who's important. Things happen that don't make sense and seem like filler.
In the show, Hank's agent, Charlie Runkle, says that all Hank's book have an element of truth in them. In this version of God Hates Us All, I can't find the real life basis. Who is supposed to be Karen, Hank's soulmate? Is it the super model, K.? Or the psychotic arsonist, Daphne? Neither seem to represent a flattering version of Karen.
I read it because I was curious, but now I wish I hadn't - these aren't the fictitious Hank's words, these are the words of some dude trying to be as cool and edgy as he imagines Hank would be.
It just ends up being silly and unconvincing.
Nice try.
Up Next: Juliet, Naked by Nick Hornby (a book I have high hopes for)
There isn't much to say about this book. I find David Sedaris's work delightful. His stories are amusing and honest. He's open with talking about his idiosyncrasies, as well as his family and loved ones.
I wrote a blog on My Quarter-life Crisis blog in the summer called What Would David Sedaris Do? My topic was about how one writes about people they know without making them mad, upsetting them, or making them uncomfortable.
One of Sedaris's essays is about how his sister felt uncomfortable telling him a story, as she was concerned he would run off with it as if it was his own to tell. He mentions how his family, after his successful books, would end all their stories by saying, 'You can't write about this,' or 'This is just between us.'
The same essay makes mention of one of his books being optioned. The concern wasn't that the screen writer and actors would get his family all wrong, but that shockingly, they would get them right.
I pretty much recommend anything by David Sedaris.
Next: God Hates Us All by Hank Moody*
This book is full of essays so new they feature commentary on events that happened only a few months ago. Unlike Klosterman's last essay collection, Eating the Dinosaur is full of new, never been published pieces. In order to review a book like this I should really just say something about each essay:
1. Something Instead of Nothing: This one is about why people answer interview questions. Aside from self-promotion, it's strange to answer questions in an interview type situation. Subject matter aside, Klosterman breaks up his arguments in a strange way, he writes several mini-chapters within each essay. 1, 2, 3, 1A, 2A, 3A, 2A, 2B etc. it's a bit annoying to read something like that. I mean it's an interesting way to write, but a bit hard to follow at times. You have to remind yourself of what you just read a few pages back, "Oh, were back to that topic..."
2. Oh, The Guilt: This one is about Nirvana's In Utero and The Branch Davidian disaster from the 90s. I didn't know about the Branch Davidian thing, so the references were a bit lost of me. The gist of the essay is that Nirvana tried to make an album that people would hate because they felt guilty for being so popular, or something to that effect. There is reference to the show Lost that I enjoyed. It was about how the character of Jack was listening to a song off of In Utero before he was about to try to jump off a bridge - due to his guilt over leaving the island. Sorry if my geekdom just went into overdrive there for a moment.
3. Tomorrow Rarely Knows: This one is about the problems that arise when considering how time travel might actually work. Most of the references are about how time travel has been used and portrayed in films. The title of the book comes from this essay, as Klosterman discusses travelling back in time: "What's the best reason for exploding the parameters of reality? With the possible exception of eating a dinosaur, I don't think there is one."
4. What We Talk About When We Talk About Ralph Sampson: This one is about a basketball player who failed to dazzle in the 80s. I didn't get much out of this one.
5. Through a Glass Blindly: This one is about voyeurism. Klosterman talks about being about to see a woman in a neighbouring apartment through her window, and how she would be able to do the same. He never saw anything creepy or wrong, and enjoyed just seeing her doing everyday things. He had no desire to create some sort of story for her. I thought he probably should have bought some drapes, but that's just me.
6. The Passion of the Garth: This one is about that period in Garth Brooks' career when he became "Chris Gaines." This one is pretty amusing - I never really knew too much about it when it happened, but I knew it was a failure. The essay explores other artists failed attempts to create a persona.
7. Football: I read this and I don't know why.
8. ABBA 1, The World 0: About how everyone loves ABBA. Also, another Lost reference/joke in this one. I love that Klosterman watches Lost.
9. "Ha ha" He said. "Ha ha": This one is about how annoying laugh tracks are, and I understand why. But I have realized that I tune out laugh tracks. In the essay he mentions that laugh tracks are still used by shows such as How I Met Your Mother and Big Bang Theory, and I honestly can't recall really noticing ever. Even last night I didn't notice the laugh tracks while watching those shows. I read this essay last week, so you'd think I'd be more aware of them, but I'm not.
10. It Will Shock You How Much it Never Happened: This one is about Pepsi's recent rebranding. They used Barack Obama and the recession to sell pop. Trying to engineer false optimism. He also ties in Mad Men, a show about a 1960s advertising firm.
11. T is for True: This one interested me the most because it mentions Weezer and Rivers Cuomo. This essay is about three people who are very literal when it comes to what they create and say. He uses German filmmaker, Werner Herog, Rivers Cuomo, and Ralph Nador as examples. The issue with Cuomo is that his songs are all very literal. The lyrics usually talk about very specific events. Klosterman discusses that this is how Weezer's songs have always been, but fans, or former fans have only been annoyed by it since Pinkerton. I believe Klosterman is defending Cuomo, but I'm not so sure.
12. FAIL: Is an essay about Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber) and the points he makes that are correct, but irrelevant now because he murdered people. Klosterman is in no way defending the Unabomber, just stating that some of the things he wrote about in his manifesto weren't entirely crazy. I also learned why he was known as The Unabomber. "Un" is because he sent letter bombs to Universities, and the "a" is because he sent them to airports.
Well that is my review of Eating the Dinosaur. Hope it serves you well.
Up next: Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim by David Sedaris.
The Wild Things is something of a companion piece to go along with the new film, Where the Wild Things Are, directed by Spike Jonze and written by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers. This novelized version of Maurice Sendak's illustrated children's book, Where the Wild Things Are, provides an expanded story and landscape for the story.
In the acknowledgments section Eggers writes that it was not his intention to write the book like Sendak's, nor was it his plan to translate the film into a novel - it was to be a fusion of all versions of the story. Now I have not yet seen the film, so I cannot speak to the similarities and differences, at least not yet.
The story is like a twisted Wizard of Oz/Alice in Wonderland type tale. The young boy, Max, is dissatisfied with his home-life. He runs away and happens upon an abandoned sailboat. He sails off into the ocean until he reaches the island where he meets the wild things. He declares himself their king, but that doesn't equal a peaceful kingdom. Things on the island aren't much better than things were at home. In fact, at home he didn't have to worry about his family eating him.
In the end, there's no place like home.
It's never really said that Max's time on the island is a fantasy or dream (or nightmare, really). Max believes that he's been away from home for what feels like years - but that might speak to childhood. As children we feel like time goes so much slower than it does when we're adults. On the island Max tried to be the adult - the one in charge - the king, but in the end he was just a little boy who wanted to go home.
The book is for everyone, not just the kids. It's definitely a book about childhood - which is something every adult needs to be reminded of every so often.
I'd been holding off on reading this book for some time now - mostly because it is the basis of one of my favourite films. I'd always heard that the books took place in England, rather than Chicago (like the film) made me scared that the differences between them would be too vast.
To my surprise much of the dialogue is the same and the characters - only in the book they're British, Laura's hair is dark, Rob's last name is Fleming, not Gordon, and Marie DeSalle is black, and Marie has a more prominent role in the book.
There are differences, don't get me wrong, but I was surprised how well the film followed the book - a rarity in adaptations.
I'm at a place in my life right now where I am reevaluating things - my past, my future. Though I doubt I'd ever have the balls to call up guys from the past to ask why they didn't want me - the concept has crossed my mind. I understand why someone would want to do that - even if it's painful.
This book took me longer than it should have to read. Fall makes me tired, I can't seem to speed through books the way I did in the summer.
Anyways, there isn't much to review here - Nick Hornby just seems to tap into the real in ways that average people understand - that must be why so many of his books have been turned into movies.
I'll begin this review by stating that after reading this book, I'm not sure I could handle the movie. The images in my head were enough - do I really need to see this truly terrifying and sad tale play out on the big screen? I may give it a go, but I'm scared to see it.
It was a really good book - but really sad. The story is simple, yet complex. A father (the man) and son (the boy) walk along an abandoned highway (the road) headed south to escape the cold. Oh, I should mention it takes place in post-apocalyptic America. There are no names for places and things anymore - just ash and death.
They encounter many disturbing things - things that showcase the darkest side of human nature. The side that allows for some moral flexibility when it comes to survival. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad? The man and the boy are the good guys, but the boy often questions this when they are forced to act selfishly in order to survive.
There are no chapters in this book - which reflects the story. A life with no order. No days of the week, no months, no years, no knowledge of seasons. Though it makes it hard for the reader to know where to stop, it allows for an interesting flow.
The story is about a father-son relationship in peril. The man, while trying to survive himself, is protecting his son, and wants to keep his innocence (several attempts are made to shield him from the horrors of this new world).
I can't really say much else without giving away the ending. But I will say this, The Road is both hopeful and hopeless. There are no laws in this world. Just ideas of good and bad, good and evil.
If anyone sees this film in October, let me know how it is. I need to know if I can stomach it or not.
My first two reviews were for books recently published - this one was published way before my time - 1965. This, among other reasons, might be why I must file this novel under: WTF?
The description on the back states this is a satire - okay, so maybe I don't fully understand the genre of satire, but I couldn't help but think "what exactly is this satirizing?"
The edition I read was a 152 page paperback and compared to my other readings this summer, this took me far too long to finish. I'll admit to reading other readers' reviews of this on Goodreads.com to see if I wasn't alone. It seems Pynchon is a writer that is either loved or hated.
i didn't hate this book, but I can't say that I loved, or even liked it - it was really nothing to me. The issue was that I couldn't properly invest in the characters because too much was happening and it didn't seem logically. Things that one might assume to be important turned out to be seemingly insignificant. And I'm all for books with open endings, but this brand of post-modernism isn't for me. The book starts to end with what you think will make it all make sense - it doesn't. You finish this book feeling used.
Why spend pages and pages describing the sexual encounters between the main character, Oedipa Mass, and the lawyer if it wasn't really going to be revisited again? It's the type of book where either everything is important or nothing is. I have no clue what's what.
I don't really feel like describing what this book is about because I don't really know - I do, but I don't. If you really care read the description on Amazon that reeled me in, but be warned, it isn't as clear as they make it seem. Maybe I'm just dumb, but this book was a bad choice for me, as I like to read late at night, right before bed, and I just couldn't focus on what was happening - it was all over the place.
I see that Pynchon has a new book out - I may skip it though. Even though he's one of those mysterious reclusive writers, I can't really see myself investing in his back-catalogue, let alone his new material.
I tried it, let's move on.
Next on my shelf: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.
This book was written for me. Generation A. Generation Allison? I think not, but it resonated with me like none of his other books have before.
For those of you who follow my principal blog, My Quarter-life Crisis, you'd know that I've been anticipating this novel all summer. I even made it a goal that I would complete the first four books in the Coupland canon of fiction before this came out on September 1. In fact, since the beginning of spring I've been reading a lot. I've immersed myself into literature this summer and I think Generation A has helped me realize why. I'll explain later.
This novel takes place in the near future and human carelessness and selfishness has wiped out the world's bee population. No bees equals widespread plant failure. The world has been reduced to synthetic replicas and hand-pollination. The story begins with five people from all over the world each being stung by lone bees.
Zack: A young corn farmer from Mahaska County, Iowa, who hates corn. He was left this farm after his father died of flesh eating disease. He was harvesting corn naked while driving a combine with satellite cameras filming him for a paying observer.
Samantha: A young trainer at a gym from Palmerston North, Wanganui, New Zealand was stung while making an Earth sandwich with a girl from Spain.
Julien: A Worlds of Warcraft addict from Paris, France. He had just been kicked out of a gaming centre and was sitting outdoors (not his usual style) when he was stung.
Diana: An ex-church lady with tourettes from North Bay, Ontario. She was stung when she was arguing with her crazy neighbour after she caught him abusing his dog. Her ex-lover (her pastor) and his wife arrived at the scene as well. They all witnessed the sting.
Harj: A call-centre employee from Tricomalee, Sri Lanka. He was being interviewed by the New York Times regarding his website where he sells celebrity room tones when he was strung.
The five are each isolated in clean, empty rooms - save for a bed and a few minor Ikea furnishings. They spend weeks there answering questions and submitting to blood tests. They are each released back into the worlds from whence they came and are left to deal with their new found fame.
Before they could get accustomed to their new lives they are scooped up by the same people who tested them before and sent to a remote island north of British Columbia, Canada - the site of the last known bee hive.
What are they asked to do here? Tell stories. Yep, each member of the B5 (the name they are given in the media) is asked to tell several made-up stories to the others. Serge, the scientist in charge, sits and keenly observes.
Without giving away the ending I'll address the part that made me realize why I bury myself in an endless stream of books. The topic of reading comes up a lot in this novel. Particularly the feeling one gets when one reads: peaceful solitude. It's just you and the world that exists inside those pages. There is no future, no past, just you and the book, the words. One is okay with loneliness when one is reading a book. Books are an individual experience - one of the few left in this modern world.
Technology has turned us into a tribe - we have X number of Facebook friends, X number of MSN contacts. We live in a world where we share our experiences so openly. Reading is the last refuge away from the tribe - away from the hive. In one of the B5 member's stories (I can't remember whose) the main character is left behind after the rapture because he refused to accept text-message speak as a form of language. He was isolated from the herd.
I recently watched Douglas Coupland's documentary, Souvenirs of Canada. In the film they show him putting together an art exhibit about things he finds distinctly Canadian. Towards the end of the film he says he did it because he's nostalgic for something that isn't even gone yet; pre-nostalgia.
That is how I feel about language and reading. I feel like I'm so primitive - like us book readers will soon be extinct. I like my alone time with my books. I think I would have been the sixth person stung. If you want to know why, read the book.
I'll be honest, I've never formally reviewed anything. Even when I worked at a magazine I only wrote short, promo-like blurbs about products and stores and people - but I didn't actually review them - not really.
I'll start off by saying this review is going to be quite bias because for those of you who know me well know that I credit Dave Eggers as the author who inspired me to go into writing. I've forever been fascinated with life writing - and A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius turned me on to a style of writing I'd never read before. I could go on and on, but this isn't a review of that book.
Zeitoun reflects a new phase in Eggers' career - telling the stories of those who have suffered great losses and great injustices. His previous book, What is the What, tells the story of a man who lived in Southern Sudan during the civil war and was a Lost Boy brought to America. Zeitoun is the story of a family before, during and after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Sounds like thousands of stories, right? Wrong. The Zeitouns are a Muslim family. Abdulrahman Zeitoun, an American citizen but native of Syria, his American wife Kathy, a Muslim covert before she met her husband, and their four children endured more than just the storm.
The story begins like so many I've read about Katrina. Those who fled and those who didn't both suffered in different ways. In this book, Kathy and the children fled for what they thought would only be four days - staying in a crowded house in Baton Rouge. Abdulrahman (known just as Zeitoun by most) stayed to watch the house, and monitor his rental properties (he owned his own painting and contracting business, and owned several rental properties in the city). The initial storm was not as bad as predicted, but the levees breached and the city was all but drowned.
Zeitoun, with a used canoe, began surveying the neighbourhood for damage. He helped rescue several people, and even fed some local dogs who's owners had fled and left them locked inside. Seems like a feel-good story right?
The story takes an unexpectedly sad turn when Zeitoun, his tenant Todd, an acquaintance Nasser (also of Muslim faith), and a virtual stranger who happened upon them, Ronnie, were all arrested without cause in one of Zeitoun's rental properties - a house with a working phone.
I'll stop here, so not to spoil the story. The story of Zeitoun shows both sides of human nature: the selflessness of those who stayed and helped, and the selfishness that those who stayed and stole.
With no proper legal system in place during such a disaster police officers and National Guards were making snap judgments. There seemed to be no protocol during Katrina - no sense of order.
Zeitoun tells the story of one man's struggle, while also telling an entire city's. It's an individual story about a family - about a man. A story that goes beyond the storm, but would not have happened without the storm. Zeitoun is about an unimaginable aftermath. An aftermath that begs the question, 'What is the world coming to?'
Because I have so many loyal fans (2-3 approx.) I thought maybe they'd like to read another blog in addition to the one I currently have. Sure, why not?
This blog is strictly for book reviews and I'll still update My Quarter-life Crisis as often as usual. I'll also still write about books there too - but here I'll write less often - only after I complete a book.
It might work - or it might fail miserably.
