Perhaps it’s because I had a late start getting interested in graphic novels, but I hadn’t heard about Doom Patrol until last year, when I came acrossPerhaps it’s because I had a late start getting interested in graphic novels, but I hadn’t heard about Doom Patrol until last year, when I came across the TV series and loved it. A dark, super weird and surreal group of fucked up “heroes” with very strange powers? Yes, please! This was just the antidote to the Avengers and Justice League (boooooring!) that I needed.
Grant Morrison’s ideas are really… out there, for lack of a better word. They are also totally genius. He weaves concepts like secret societies, occult religions, stream of consciousness writing, existentialism and dream sequences into the genre, giving a wonderfully bizarre flavor to the superhero schtick and I loved it!
As this volume is the first of a sort of reboot of the series, it assembles a “new” Doom Patrol, and brings together Cliff Steele (a race car driver's brain stuck in a big robot body), the Negative Spirit (who merged together Larry Trainor and Dr. Eleanor Poole in a single multi-gendered and multi-racial and radioactive energy being), Crazy Jane (a woman with dissociative identity disorder, and every one of her 64 distinct personalities have distinct powers) and Dorothy Spinner (the Ape-Faced Girl), under the guidance of Niles Caulder, the mysterious Chief (a know it all in a wheel-chair... where have I seen that before...). They reform Doom Patrol after fighting off the Scissormen (henchmen who cut you out of reality, literally) and Red Jack – and we get just a glimpse of Mr. Nobody, opening the door to their future antagonistic relationship.
The artwork is very 90s comic: a bit clunky, with faded colors, but the writing more than makes up for the visual style. That said, I’m not sure this is a graphic novel for everyone: it might be too literary, erudite (Zen koans in a graphic novel?!), baroque and dark for casual comic book readers, but if you enjoyed the series and are curious about where it came from (or if weird is never weird enough for you), I can’t recommend this enough!...more
Yup, another Batman comic. What can I say: since we went to see the "Joker" movie I have gone full Harley Quinn and will happily read anything featuriYup, another Batman comic. What can I say: since we went to see the "Joker" movie I have gone full Harley Quinn and will happily read anything featuring my beloved Clown Prince of Crime.
Tom King served me a war between Joker and the Riddler on a silver platter: who was I to say no? While I have been reading his Batman comics a little sporadically (i.e. all in the wrong order, and originally because they were the prelude to Joelle Jones’s Catwoman series), I have also been enjoying them – as much as I am likely to enjoy Batman stories. In “The War of Jokes and Riddles”, we get exactly what the title implies: the Joker and the Riddler go to war over the right to kill Batman.
Considering they are both violent, insane criminals, things escalate and get bloody fast – something King does not shy away from, which I appreciate (the tendency to gloss over what the bad guys do bothers me, not because I love the gore, but because I find it to be a less honest approach to story-telling). In order to curb the bloodshed, Batman himself intervenes, and invites them to debate the matter over a fancy meal.
A really good, dark comic, with a great new twist on the "knock-knock" joke. ...more
My old friend Mike passed away in August (what a way to begin a book review; sorry about that…). He was quite the scholar about occultism, and he was My old friend Mike passed away in August (what a way to begin a book review; sorry about that…). He was quite the scholar about occultism, and he was extremely knowledgeable about Aleister Crowley, whom he admired very much - while understanding that he was kind of an awful person. I had meant to tell him about this book, but I never got a chance to do it. I think he would have found it funny, and then would have proceeded to point out all the historical inaccuracies… Reading this made me feel like I was sharing one final joke with him. You’ll be missed, Admiral Straw.
There was no way I could resist reading this book: I had an interest in the occult in my twenties, and Mr. Crowley’s work is hard to avoid when you immerse yourself in that subject. I also read a few books and articles about him, because I have always found him to be a rather fascinating person (though to be honest, I could never tell when he was being serious and when he was just trolling the Hell out of anyone who spoke to him). If you’ve ever read one of his books, you know he wasn’t a Satanist – though he could be a massive jerk who often used his scandalous public persona to distract everyone from what he was actually up to. So a story of his life, presumed death and afterlife told in his voice sounded too good to pass up.
While the world is under the impression that Crowley, “the wickedest man in the world”, passed away in 1947, he has actually faked his death and sought refuge in the mystical realm of Shangri-La, where, after seventy years, he has decided to pick up the pen once more and rectify the record about his rollicking and enigmatic life… and afterlife.
The idea that Crowley was heavily involved with British Intelligence is fairly popular with his biographers (my favorite story has always been that Churchill recruited him because his knowledge of the occult could be used to mess with Hitler’s obsession with it), and Thornton really took off with that theory. But while the focus on intrigues and politics is great, there isn’t much in this book about his occult and spiritual work. I get it: that’s not the point of the story, but as it was such an integral part of Crowley’s life, it does feel like there’s a little something missing by not exploring that aspect of his “work”.
What we get instead is the tale of Aleister's work as not just a secret agent, but a double and occasionally triple agent of MI-1, his actions during both world wars, his travels to Asia and America - and a lot of anecdotes about all the drugs and sex. And I mean all of it!
Thornton did his homework: though he obviously creates a few characters, tweaks some chronology and skips over certain things, he know his subject well, and succeeds in using Mr Crowley's own writing voice to spin his yarn: the prose is that perfect blend of almost purplish erudition and horrible crassness that was characteristic of Crowley - who was, after all a poet and writer of great talent, if sometimes questionable tastes. If you don't like dirty words, you might want to avoid this.
Overall, a fun read that might be hard to completely get unless you are already familiar at least a little bit, with Aleister Crowley's life, his work and the endless rumors that circulated about him in his life time. It's obvious that Thornton had fun writing this, and I and can see why: when your subject delighted in telling outlandish tales about himself, that no one would believe, only to have them turn out to be true, you can really let your imagination run wild! But I wanted the final part to feel a little more wrapped up...
This was just what I needed (along with a big glass of pinot noir). Thank you Joe, for bringing it to my attention: I ranMore like 4 and a half stars!
This was just what I needed (along with a big glass of pinot noir). Thank you Joe, for bringing it to my attention: I ran over to the comic book store at lunch to get it and just devoured it! I am just crazy for the vintage 50’s look, but I also love a bit of murder-mayhem on the side, and “Lady Killer” gave me both at the same time! AND a heroine who looks just like my favorite Venture Bros. character, the amazing Dr. Girlfriend, to boot!
Josie is a housewife and mother who couldn’t look more respectful. But she is also a skilled assassin who will fool any mark with her flawless charm. She is balancing her family and professional life perfectly until her boss decides to "retire" her a bit earlier than she'd planned - for rather misogynistic reasons, I might add. But Josie isn't one to go away quietly...
The artwork by Joelle Jones is simply stunning, and I loved every frame of this deliciously dark and fun graphic novel. The social commentary on the era's views is maybe a bit more subtle than I would have wanted, but it was the perfect amount of playfully gory for me.
Josie is a fantastic character and I found her story very original and fresh. There's something quite appealing (to me, at least) in an elegant lady who is in control of her own life and choices, and who will not let anyone make decisions for her.
For "Mad Men" fans who desperately wished Betty would have stabbed Francine in her silly face. Stylish, fun and bloody! More like this please!!...more
Updated review and rating after a re-read in July 2021. And yes, I picked it back up because I've been watching the "Loki" show and I am now screamingUpdated review and rating after a re-read in July 2021. And yes, I picked it back up because I've been watching the "Loki" show and I am now screaming internally with a mix of glee and heartbreak.
--
“Every sacrifice, every plan, every action I undertake is in service to Asgard. Before you pass judgment on me, consider what you have gained, and what you might have lost if not for my actions.”
I am clearly on a Viking-kick lately: Gaiman’s “Norse Mythology”, Harris’ silly “The Gospel of Loki” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), “Eaters of the Dead” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)… I read Vasich’s short-story collection earlier this year and I loved it: the man is witty and he clearly knows his subject inside and out. It also doesn’t hurt that he chose to write about my favorite Norse mythology character, the Trickster god Loki, and that he is generally sympathetic to the character. Don't get me wrong: he knows good and well that Loki was no saint, but he understands that characters like that don't behave the way they do for no reason... After devouring “Nine Naughty Tales of the Trickster” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I was curious to see if he could be as riveting with a novel.
If you have read stories about Norse Mythology before, you won’t really find new material here, but what Vasich does is nevertheless brilliant: he took a few specific (and rather well known) stories from the Edda (namely the building of the wall of Asgard, the abduction of Idun, the capture of Fenris and the bonding of Loki) and wove them together in one continuous narrative leading to the inevitable Ragnarok. Let me just say that I love that he took stories usually told in a few pages and fleshed them out until they were several chapters long, making the tales I already know feel so much richer and more complicated than previous version. This is what I had actually hoped Gaiman would do in his “Norse Mythology" (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... use the traditional tales as inspiration and foundation for an even grander tale. Of course, the tone of this tome is very dark, brooding and violent; quite a contrast to Vasich’s humorous, salty short stories based on the same stories, which I admit I did not expect. He develops the characters, gives them dimension and takes them a little bit further than the usual simple archetypes they are often represented as.
An aspect that really struck me is the position in which Vasich puts Odin: the predetermination of the gods’ fates is a heavy burden to carry for the Allfather, who here exists in the past, present and future simultaneously. He is never quite sure if what he sees has already happened, is currently happening or is an image of something that will come to be. This emphasis reminded me strongly of those Greek myths about the fruitless efforts of mortals and gods to escape their fates: their attempts to avoid the outcome of various prophecies only ever seem to make the result happen faster, and with more devastating consequences. Vasich’s representation of Loki is also interesting: the misfit Trickster originally means well, but some things about him are held against him no matter what he does, turning his heart and intent more and more sour and he feels the constant slights of the Aesir and their arrogance. This leads him down the dark path of anger and revenge, that culminates into Ragnarok. I recently read a great graphic novel about Loki that embraced the idea that he's a kid who did everything he was told to do and got punished anyway, and Vasich's writing follows a similar logic - that I greatly appreciate.
The writing is clean and the descriptions simple but rich enough that I could visualize everything perfectly as I read. Vasich’s prose is not as enchanting as Gaiman’s, but he is a wonderful and talented story-teller nevertheless, and this book might be my favorite retelling of the Edda so far. Very highly recommended!...more
After reading Gaiman's "Norse Mythology", I did what any good book-junkie does: hunted down more books on the topic. With a title like "Loki: Nine NauAfter reading Gaiman's "Norse Mythology", I did what any good book-junkie does: hunted down more books on the topic. With a title like "Loki: Nine Naughty Tales of the Trickster", this was an easy sell for this long-time Loki fan (on that topic, I would like to say that the Marvel movie franchise has ruined my brains, because I can now only picture Thor and Loki as Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston...)
Loki is a very complex god. Clever and contrarian, taking pleasure in stirring the pot and upsetting everyone in Asgard. He is not merely a nuisance: I actually think he is the most multi-layered god of the Norse pantheon: the others often have the same predictable behavior over and over again, which is why it is so easy for Loki to throw a wrench in the gears. Thor smashes giants with his hammer, Odin growls at everyone, Balder is just the nicest and handsomest thing anyone has ever seen... If you had to deal with people who behave like broken records for thousands of years, wouldn't you want to shake things up a little bit?
As it eventually becomes clear when you read stories about him, Loki is devious and treacherous (and occasionally ridiculously destructive), but he has a higher purpose than just running around pissing people off: gods are complacent and without his mischief, they would never really change, evolve or even really think too much about anything. His mischief is often their call to action, and let's face it, when he does something stupid, it tends to bite him in the ass. This collection of short stories does a great job of showing both his light and comical side and his nasty, ambitious and murderous streak.
The short stories are written in a fresh and entertaining way, and yes - "naughty" is in the title for good reasons! Nothing in this book will be new to people who have read a bit about Norse mythology before, but the engaging tone and humor make these short stories very enjoyable. While I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second half, I found the way Vasich concludes the collection to be very daring: I wasn't expecting the final few twists. Very clever!
A funny, dirty little book: my only complaint would be that it was not quite dirty enough to my taste, which I guess makes me a pervert... Vasich wrote a novel-length story about Loki which I am now looking forward to reading....more
I absolutely loved the show "Hannibal": Bryan Fuller's aesthetic and his touch for atmosphere and rhythm is amazing; and of course, what Mads MikkleseI absolutely loved the show "Hannibal": Bryan Fuller's aesthetic and his touch for atmosphere and rhythm is amazing; and of course, what Mads Mikklesen did with the character was wonderful. Hannibal Lecter has always been my favorite villain, and he elevated him to another level. Refined, sophisticated, elegant, flawlessly polite. Oh, and of course, he is an excellent cook... Didn't the food on the show looked to die for? Pun intended...
Now relax: there's no recipe indicating how to cook human parts in this book. But if you enjoyed the show, you might want to check it out. It was written by the food stylist who had the pleasure (and often massive challenge) of preparing all the decadent and gorgeous food the characters prepared and ate on the show. Recipes often have little stories related to the episodes in which the dishes appeared, there is breathtaking food photography every few pages, practical shopping and entertaining advice, and as much dark humor as one can infuse in a cookbook.
While Hannibal points out to his dinner guests that nothing he serves is vegetarian, there is a surprising amount of vegetarian dishes in the book! From faux foie gras, to beet pâté and vegetarian osso bucco (basically a clever way of presenting eggplants and leeks to look like the original dish), there are a few really interesting and creative options for people who like their food cruelty-free. But mostly, this is what I would call a challenge cookbook: the dishes are often on the complicated side, requiring ingredients that will demand a bit of hunting (pun not intended this time), such as organ meat. That being said, more simple substitutions are often indicated, in case you feel self-conscious about going to the butcher shop and asking if they have any lamb testicles in stock.
It seems unlikely to me that I will be cooking much out of this book (though I am dying to try to make prosciutto melon peacock tails, because wow!), but it is an absolute pleasure to flip through: I guess it does require a certain twisted sense of humor to appreciate - but fans of the show will find it an absolute delight....more
I read Caroline Kepnes' "You" in November, and I loved it: it was a fast read and that perfect blend of fun, creepy, trashy and surprisingly sexy - anI read Caroline Kepnes' "You" in November, and I loved it: it was a fast read and that perfect blend of fun, creepy, trashy and surprisingly sexy - and it was narrated by the most sympathetic psycho I've ever read about: Joe Goldberg. And I don't mean to say that I condone Joe's stalking and murdering ways. But in the day and age of Internet dating and of unbearable hipsters ruining everything, it's hard not to get where he is coming from...
Well, our hopeless romantic psychopath is back, literally with a vengeance. The lovely but oh-so-suspicious Amy he hooked up with at the end of "You" screwed him over big time, and Joe is not the kind of guy who lets that slide. He loved her, for Pete's sake! So he abandons his beloved book store and follows her to LA to make her pay. But before he gets a chance to punish Amy for having been naughty enough to leave him, he meets - quite literally - Love. And Love can never know about Joe's less than savory past...
"Hidden Bodies" is a little different from "You", which was a creepy but genius use of second-person narration, where Joe expressed all of his fucked up feelings to Beck. This time, it's Joe's inner monologue we are treated to. He is still has his dark humor, his hatred of vacuous pop culture and his uncanny ability to put the reader on his side. I confess that I find being in Joe's head just plain fun. His anti-California rants alone are worth reading the entire book, and his terrible taste in girls is one of the many ingredients that make Kepnes' books addictive. You want to find out what crazy shit this new girlfriend is going to pull and how Joe will end up "managing" it. Part of me really wants him to just find a nice girl and settle quietly without having to get rid of ex-boyfriends and other random interlopers. Yup, I am sympathizing with the serial killer…
Joe really hates snobs and phonies. In "You", the Ivy League babies and the Brooklyn hispters were the target of his vitriol, but now, its the Hollywood brats, wannbe actresses and star-fuckers driving him nuts. "Less Than Zero" is referenced a couple of time, to my great delight: Joe is East Coast at heart, and anyone behaving like a Kardashian is sure to get his murderous impulses going. Maybe that's why I'm almost always on his side… Seriously: everyone needs to get over guacamole and if someone un-ironically calls you "Old Sport", kick them in the shin and run for the hills.
If you enjoy delightfully trashy thrillers, you'll love "Hidden Bodies", but you definitely need to read "You" first! I will admit that it was a bit slower than the first book, but time passes fast in Joe's company! I can't wait to read the sequel!...more
Updated review with thoughts on the TV series at the bottom.
--
If this book doesn’t make you amp up all the security settings on all your social media Updated review with thoughts on the TV series at the bottom.
--
If this book doesn’t make you amp up all the security settings on all your social media platforms, nothing will.
Remember Jeanette in “How I Met Your Mother”? The psycho who stalked Ted, justified it by saying “I couldn’t bear the idea of not meeting you!” and because she was hot he thought that was adorable? Joe, the narrator of this supremely disturbing novel, is probably Jeanette’s twin brother.
Joe meets Beck when she comes to buy a few books at the store he works at in Greenwich Village. She’s hot, she likes the same authors… Every bookworm’s fantasy, right? He spies her name from her credit card receipt and next thing you know, he is in full stalker mode. Because it is so damn easy to find everything you need to know about someone in the Internet age, especially someone with a unique name like Guinevere Beck… and especially if said Miss Beck tweets incessantly and has a public Facebook profile…
It’s impossible to say more about the plot without giving the juicy bits away, and as this is a deliciously trashy thriller, I don’t want to ruin it for anyone. Suffice to say, that book basically reads itself. The fast pace, the dark humour: a highly addictive combination, at least for suckers like me! Stuffed with cultural references and daily life details and concerns, this book also feels disturbingly real. This could happen. This might be someone’s diary. This is definitely happening to someone somewhere right now…
I have to say kudos to Kepnes for her incredibly clever use of second person narration: it is not easy to make that narrative style engaging, especially when you are seeing a story from the eyes of a psycho-stalker, but she pulls it off. You can’t hate Joe, or be flat-out horrified by him, even if he is delusional and creepy. Attraction is something that teases everyone’s psycho switch at some point in their lives, so he is bizarrely relatable (for anyone who hasn’t experienced the surreal experience of online dating, that shit turns EVERYONE into a stalker, it’s creepy). I confess I freaked myself out when I realized I was rooting for the guy, and even empathizing with him at times… I hate pretentious hipsters and readers of shitty novels too… But I am not sure that I’d let that sentiment drive me quite as far as Joe goes…
Joe is obviously an unreliable narrator: he is obsessed and delusional – but he seriously made me think about the possibility that crazy people attract each other. We soon find out that his beloved Beck is not exactly a paragon of virtue, and that Joe is not the only person who has an unhealthy attachment to her. The further you get into the book, the more you realize these two psychos might just deserve each other; just like in “Gone Girl”, except I actually liked the characters in “You” and hated everybody’s guts in “Gone Girl”…
4 stars for a very entertaining, creepy read! I will definitely be looking for the sequel!
--
I was excited about the TV show, because despite the trickiness of using Kepnes' masterful use of the second person narration for a visual media, this story was basically made to be a fun and suspenseful Netflix binge. Merry Christmas to me!
While I am not sure about the casting for Joe (I imagined him hotter, like an American James Norton or something), I really loved the TV adaptation, which expands on various side characters, but especially develops Beck into something more layered than the aggravating little Brooklynite Joe fell for on the page - and Elizabeth Lail is perfect. So while it's is not strictly a faithful word for word adaptation, it keeps all the good bits (including the green pillow and the red ladle!) and the hip/trashy vibe that made the book so fun. Oh Joe, my lovable psycho, I knew you'd be a blast to watch! Looking forward to season 2....more
Pagnol is my favorite writer. He knew when to be funny and when to be touching, created larger-than-life characters and unforgettable stories about huPagnol is my favorite writer. He knew when to be funny and when to be touching, created larger-than-life characters and unforgettable stories about human nature. “Jean de Florette” and “Manon des Sources” are stories I have been reading all my life, and it is very difficult for me to summarize them. The first book is about greed, and how it can rot people’s hearts. The second book is about revenge, and how sometimes life doles out the cruelest punishments without any human interference.
Some spoilers.
Ugolin Soubeyran is not very smart, but he means well. When he gets back to his humble abode near the small village of Les Bastides after his military service, all he wants is to grow carnations and make a simple living from his flowers. His rich, cunning uncle César (also known as “Le Papet”) is more ambitious: why not buy the fine farm of Les Romarins, that has a spring on its land? To make sure they can buy the farm on the cheap, they go plug the spring. But unfortunately for them, Jean Cadoret, a hunchback from “the city”, soon after moves in with his wife Aimée and young daughter Manon – he just inherited the farm from his mother’s estate. César is not worried: without water, they know that Jean won’t be able to get much out of his land, despite his grandiose plans to raise rabbits and grow squashes. Ugolin feels bad about the whole thing, but his uncle manipulates him horribly and they both watch Jean slowly exhaust himself to death trying to farm his land in the drought. They then sweep in, buy the farm from Jean’s now destitute widow and set about to unblock the spring. Little do they know that Manon, who was always suspicious of Ugolin’s servile friendship, has seen them…
A few years pass and Ugolin becomes a very successful grower of carnations. Meanwhile, Manon grows up into a beautiful young woman and lives a bit as a wildling, guarding a flock of goats in the hills. One day, she overhears two men from the villages gossip as they take a break from their hunt. She hears them confirm what she had known all along, that the Soubeyran blocked her father’s spring and caused his ruin; but they also let slip that the entire village knew about it and that no one said a thing, no one helped them - because Jean was a hunchback and because they were city folks. She then decides that she will get revenge, and that while Ugolin and the Papet will pay the harsher price, the rest of the village will go down with them for their odious complicity in her father’s death.
It’s a powerful, tragic, beautifully written story. It has the kind of universality that one usually encounters in much older books: I find it very reminiscent of Greek tragedies and Russian literature. The characterization is complex and finely detailed, the family-centricity of the tale and moral struggles make for a captivating, engrossing read. The ending is probably the most poignant conclusion to any novel I have ever read and I can never get through it without shedding a few tears.
Pagnol was a poet of nature, in love with the little corner of the world where he was born and this love flows off the page. His prose is clear, bittersweet and elegant. If you do not want to go explore Provence after reading this, read it again! He originally wrote those stories as a movie script and then novelized them, fleshing them out even more, painting an epic, lyrical story about family, the powers of the nature he adored and justice. These are remarkable and tragically underrated books (if I judge by how hard it is to get a copy of the English translation…).
The Claude Berri movie adaptation are stunning classics. Yves Montand and Emmanuelle Béart break my heart every time and Daniel Auteuil and Gérard Depardieu are magnificent. The cinematography is breathtaking and the music is haunting. I recommend watching them after reading the books: they are perfect, timeless masterpieces...more
I’m a big Hannibal Lecter fan (yes, I know how that sounds, and I don’t care) and it occurred to me, after binge-watcMore like 3 and half, rounded up.
I’m a big Hannibal Lecter fan (yes, I know how that sounds, and I don’t care) and it occurred to me, after binge-watching a bunch of episodes of the amazing series starring Mads Mikkelsen, that while I have seen the movie “Red Dragon” a few times, I had never actually gotten around to reading the novel. Maybe because my favorite serial killer plays such a small part in it, and I like it better when he has center stage? Maybe because I know the story so well, I tricked myself into thinking I'd read it? Who knows, but it slipped my attention somehow and as soon as I realized it, I added it to my October pile.
Will Graham was a brilliant FBI profiler… until he got too close to Dr. Lecter: the serial killer ended up in custody, but not before almost killing Graham when he realized the investigator was on to him. The traumatized man relocates to Florida, rebuilds his life and tries his best to forget about this unpleasant brush with death. But another serial killer is at work, and Graham’s old colleague Jack Crawford comes to seek his help to catch him before he commits another murder.
The readers knows who the killer, dubbed the Tooth Fairy by the tabloids, is from very early on, and the plot is built by crisscrossing his story-line with Graham’s investigation. Francis Dolarhyde is a man who survived a very abusive childhood and has developed a serious pathology and obsession with a William Blake painting: his belief that he can become a more fully realized version of himself (inspired by the painting) by killing people is rattled when he begins to develop romantic feelings for a blind coworker named Reba, the first person to be genuinely kind to him in years.
While a lot can be said about Harris' amazing ability to create great characters, he's not a particularly good prose writer. His writing is very matter of fact, almost technical and builds very little atmosphere, which means that its up to the reader to work and create the atmosphere in their heads. I'll have to re-read "Silence of the Lambs" (which I read many years ago) and see if it suffers from the same clunky style as "Red Dragon" - which is why the book gets 4 stars, regardless of how much I love the characters and story. Maybe I've been spoiled by the show, but other writers took his characters and ideas and make terrifyingly beautiful art with it, and the book reads very dry in comparison.
About the book series: I loved “Silence of the Lambs”, which is one of the best thrillers ever written as far as I remember. I was so excited when “Hannibal” and “Hannibal Rising” came out… and I got super angry cuz I thought both of them sucked. If you like Lecter as much as I do, do yourself a favor and stick to the first 2 books (and the amazing and disturbing TV show!)....more
The movie adaptation of Peter Shaffer’s “Amadeus” by Milos Foreman is one of my all-time-top-5-favorite-movies. It is powerful, breathtaking, hilariouThe movie adaptation of Peter Shaffer’s “Amadeus” by Milos Foreman is one of my all-time-top-5-favorite-movies. It is powerful, breathtaking, hilarious, deeply touching and thought-provoking. I went looking for the original play a few years ago, because I loved the story and the dialogue so much.
Shaffer’s play about talent, jealousy, faith and guilt is an incredible work of historical fiction. Antonio Salieri, the court composer of Emperor Joseph II of Austria, is the only one capable of truly understanding the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s music. Salieri has dedicated his life to music and has vowed to God to live a good, devout and chaste life if He would only give him the gift of musical talent. So when he realizes that the miraculously gifted composer Mozart is a vulgar, arrogant, over-indulging buffoon, he is understandably appalled, and begins to hatch a horrible plan to get this musical rival out of his way.
Shaffer’s pen turned an old theory about Mozart’s tragically premature death into an extravagant, poetic and devastating play. I would love to see this on the stage someday: in the meantime, I will simply watch the director’s cut DVD of the Foreman movie, laugh and cry myself silly and be awed at the beauty of this very crass man’s art....more
A literary tour-de-force, this book is a magnificent, perverse story of manipulation, seduction, betrayal and deceit. Published a few years before theA literary tour-de-force, this book is a magnificent, perverse story of manipulation, seduction, betrayal and deceit. Published a few years before the French Revolution, Laclos allegedly meant it as a slap to the face of the decadent aristocracy, their abuse of position and power, their immoral and depraved conduct and hypocrisy.
Told in a clever epistolary format, this is the story of an intrigue instigated by the bored Marquise de Merteuil; a former lover, the Comte de Gercourt is to marry a young and virtuous girl, Cécile Volanges. The Marquise wants to humiliate Gercourt by corrupting his innocent bride-to-be with the help of another former lover, the Vicomte de Valmont - a notorious Casanova. But Valmont has another scheme in mind: he wishes to push a pious married woman, Madame de Tourvel, into betraying her husband by becoming his lover. The Marquise de Merteuil then hatches a plan that would kill two birds with one stone... The two schemers proceed to artfully pull the strings of each other's vanity and ego, and turn their lives into an intricate game of chess where every piece/person is a pawn with the exception of the King and Queen.
This is obviously as juicy and convoluted as stories gets, but Laclos' genius lies not in creating the first soap opera: it lies in the brilliance of his characterization. Valmont and Merteuil are cynical, libertine and decadent, but through the numerous letters that weave the story, we come to know them as extremely complex creations. Their correspondance is delightfully twisted and it is a guilty pleasure to read those letters and laugh as they recall the sordid affairs they were both involved with in the past, but this cold and calculating behaviour has its roots in the constraining social structure that they must live in. Their cruel amusements soon looses their edge to become a horrifying symptom of a much deeper an subtler suffering that the one those seducers inflict on others.
A mind-blowing passage illustrates that the Marquise de Merteuil - one of the most impressive villains of French literature - fuels her rotten passions with the frustration of being a woman with a man's character and appetites in a man's world. To command the same respect as a man would in her position, while still slacking her lusts, she needs to be much stronger, much more implacable than any man in her situation would have to be… and it pisses her off. She presents a front of kindness and virtue as she distills a stronger venom than any man, who's social position would never be endangered by their libertine daliances. She is by far the most fascinating character of the book. To be honest, I ended up feeling sad for her: being smarter and stronger than the men in the room has never been easy. Neither has the act of perpetually wearing a mask to retain one's position and privileges. And we must remember that the Marquise would not have half the freedom she enjoys had she not been a widow to begin with…
Valmont and Cécile are also interesting to examine. The first is a selfish seducer who gets caught at his own game for the first time in his life and who has no defense against something he always considered himself immune to. He is a fiend, but he is also free to live his life as he chooses with very little consequences, and his over-confidence eventually becomes his demise. As for Cécile, she does start out innocent and inexperienced, but the Marquise makes a very astute point in noticing that she has the sort of character that yearns for intrigue and adventure and only needs to be exposed to it to get a taste for it. She doesn't have the capacity to understand what the long-term repercussions of her budding tastes are, which is where this game becomes dangerous for her.
It is also interesting to think of the context in which it was written: Laclos was considered almost as scandalous a writer as his contemporary the Marquis de Sade, who wrote books that were openly mocking what he considered to be the naive Rousseau-ist optimism pedeled by the philosophers of the day. He wanted to remind people that human nature is not intrinsically good and generous, that people are as capable of terrible things as they are capable of admirable ones. While Laclos had noble patrons, he scorches them mercilessly, and his satyre seems to have been so successful that queen Marie-Antoinette herself apparently enjoyed the book without ever noting the irony…
To the modern reader, morally corrupt characters like those found in these pages are nothing new, but we still live in a world where we can be judged on our sexual history, and a sexist double-standard is still applied; in the age of revenge porn, "Dangerous Liaisons" remains an important, and brilliantly written, story. I admire Laclos for putting this issue at the center of his masterpiece.
The movie adaptation starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich is visually stunning and very strong, but it nevertheless pales when compared to the original work. Of course, one must be willing to deal with the slightly archaic turn of phrase and expressions, but the reward of how Laclos made each voice so distinct and their banter so sharp and darkly funny makes up for the slower and more tedious passages. Highly recommended....more
I really struggle to find a good way to review “Watchmen”. It doesn’t feel like enough to say “This is great, and even if it has flaws, everyone shoulI really struggle to find a good way to review “Watchmen”. It doesn’t feel like enough to say “This is great, and even if it has flaws, everyone should definitely read it”, thought that would be the TL-DR version. Watching the new HBO series, which is a continuation of the dystopic alternate universe created by Moore in his masterpiece, made me think about the original work again, and I found I had things to say about it.
This is the graphic novel that got me interested in graphic novels, a medium I had snobbishly written off as shallow, juvenile and unintelligent. An ex-boyfriend put a copy in my hands about a decade ago, and I’m sure I protested, but I ended up reading it – and I changed my mind about graphic novels. Now I have a huge shelf full of them. I am picky about them, but I know they can be used to tell stories as complex, as challenging and as layered as prose novels.
Set in an alternate history, the universe of “Watchmen” is one in which masked vigilantes exist, but have outstayed their welcome: laws forbidding them from superhero-ing have been passed, and those who were active in the so-called golden age of vigilantes now live in retirement, more or less as simple civilians. The Cold War has brought a palpable tension in society, and the mutual annihilation of the United-States and the USSR seems inevitable. Through flashbacks, bits and pieces of character’s diary and another one’s memoirs, a murder investigation unearths a far-reaching and complicated plan to “save the world” from the seemingly unavoidable mushroom cloud.
The grittiness of the story appealed to me instantly when I first read it, because one of the main gripes I had with most graphic novels was the inane good vs. evil set up, where bad guys are all bad and good guys are all good and the lines between them are neat and clearly defined. I wondered who actually took that crap seriously when life was so obviously more complicated and nuanced than this. While the nuances in “Watchmen” are mostly dark and unsavory, they were definitely more interesting and realistic than the other nonsense I had been exposed to in graphic novel form. I liked that the characters were complicated, contrary, confused and ultimately struggling to do what they thought of as the right thing. Because that’s an important part of that graphic novel: even the most insane, twisted and fucked up ones among us are trying to do what they think is best.
The artwork is a little bland for my taste, the colors too faded, the comic book within a comic book thing gets tiresome, the long excerpts from the original Nite Owl’s memoirs can drag, and the ultimate ending is a little silly (though the TV show reused it brilliantly), but despite these flaws, the importance of that graphic novel cannot be underestimated. And it is a genuinely enjoyable and engrossing story – provided you like bleak stories filled with existential angst and have an appreciation for dark humor.
This should be a mandatory read, for people who love graphic novels and for people who hate them. If you’ve ever wondered what that medium was truly capable of, this might just show you how great story-telling is not limited by its format. Most of the graphic novels I love so much now could not have been written had it not ben for "Watchmen".
(Everyone likes to hate the 2009 movie, but I actually really loved it because it got rid of the stuff that had annoyed me in the book, and the photography and music were remarkable. The HBO series is also excellent, and brings the universe Moore created to a very topical place.)...more
"And after all, I had never been very good at obeying rules."
Update after re-read in 2023, and comments linked to the AMC tv series.
I am unrepentant"And after all, I had never been very good at obeying rules."
Update after re-read in 2023, and comments linked to the AMC tv series.
I am unrepentantly #teamlestat always and forever. I just adore Lestat de Lioncourt. He’s the coolest vampire ever, and probably one of the most amazing, charismatic and contrary anti-hero characters in horror and fantasy literature. I have always had a soft spot for him, and after losing my mind over the recent television adaptation of “Interview with a Vampire”, I decided to revisit the first three books of Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, and now just wrapped up what must be my fourth or fifth reading of the treasure that is “The Vampire Lestat”. This time, I absolutely pictured him as Sam Reid, who plays him masterfully on the new tv show, and I could hear his lovely voice narrate the text. I can safely say that he is the ultimate Lestat.
I know, I know. He can be really, really awful, and Louis’ narrative really paints him into a horrible abuser and psychopath. But I think that the genius of “The Vampire Lestat” is to flip the reader’s perspective on him and the events described in “Interview”. This was something that really drove me crazy watching the brilliant show with Sam Reid and Jacob Anderson: the show is a vivid portrait of a toxic and abusive marriage, and you occasionally get a glimpse under Lestat’s armor, which hints at an ocean of damage Louis is completely unaware of (Reid is amazing at those brief moments when Lestat shows vulnerability, especially in contrast to the casual cruelty he uses as a defense mechanism the rest of the time). While never condoning his truly appalling behavior, knowing that Lestat was himself the victim of horrible abuse, suffered repeated abandonment from the people he loved and endured unspeakable trauma… well, it excuses nothing, but it certainly explains some of his behavior and attitudes. So if you finished the first book (or the first season of the show) wondering how could Lestat be such a massive douche to Louis and Claudia, this book has the answers!
The scope of “The Vampire Lestat” is huge: it covers Lestat’s life before he was made into a vampire, what happened to him in Paris, his meeting the mysterious Marius, listening to his story and learning where vampires come from, his revisiting of the events detailed in “Interview with the Vampire” and what he plans to do next (rock out with his fangs out!). And holy shit, is it one hell of a roller coaster ride! I have mentioned before how much I love when Rice writes immersive historical sections, and I get more than my money’s worth in this book: both Lestat and Marius’ backstories are amazing deep dives into fantastic historical settings (pre-revolution Paris, imperial Rome, Gaul and Egypt) and I just lapped it all up happily. Marius is probably my favorite of Rice’s vampires – after the Brat Prince, of course - and these long sections about his life as a scholar and traveller were so wonderful. I also have a soft spot for Gabrielle de Lioncourt (and not just because she and I have the same first name and we would both rather read than do pretty much anything else): she is a woman who was too smart and too strong for the time and place where she was born, and while I believe that she did adore her son, I cannot begrudge her the urge to seize her freedom and run.
I am also a big fan of Egyptian history and mythology, and that Rice chose to have her vampires originate from that specific time and place is stupidly exciting to me. The story of Akasha and Enkil (which is explored even more deeply in “The Queen of the Damned”) is fascinating and chilling. But I didn’t even have to get that far to get hooked all over again: just a few pages in, and I was already mesmerized, like a little bird being hypnotized by a cobra before it strikes. I don’t find vampires sexy (they are dead, finding them sexy implies necrophilia, good luck changing my mind on that) but Lestat would have had me wrapped around his pinky in seconds.
There is also a deep philosophical element in "The Vampire Lestat": one of the main events that defines him as a mortal is a realization of the meaninglessness of existence and the feeling that he struggled with after that realization, and how, in a very existentialist way, it lead him to love life even more in its meaninglessness, to treasure beauty even more, and to love those he cared for with renewed intensity. His dialogue with Marius, and how Marius points out that they are both from a time that rejected superstition and how that makes them particularly well-suited for immortality is fascinating.
Re-reading the book made me so excited for future seasons of the tv series, because I cannot wait to see Sam Reid’s Lestat interact with Nicolas, Armand, Marius and Gabrielle… and I dearly hope we get to see him serenade Akasha.
As I was reading it, I was listening to the album "The Death of Peace of Mind" by the band Bad Omens almost on repeat; it's sort of how I expect Lestat's music would sound like. It's metal, but it's also really sexy, and the lyrics about longing for love, loss of faith and inner turmoil suit the character beautifully.
---
Original review from a few years ago:
I was raised by an unapologetic bookworm with rather eclectic tastes and whether its nature or nurture, I eventually turned into one of those myself. During my formative years, if I dared to say I was bored to my mother, she would simply throw a book at me and say “Read. You won’t be bored anymore”. It was very good advice, that I keep to this day: you will never catch me without a book in my purse! But the thing about my mother is that most of her library was not children/teenager appropriate, and she does not believe in censorship… so I read an awful lot of very adult books very young. I think that I picked up my first Anne Rice when I was about nine years old.
I have read many vampires stories since – some really good and some really bad – and Lestat remains to this day my all-time favorite vampire.
Granted, there was a lot of stuff I missed when I read “The Vampire Lestat” the first time because, well, I was nine. But rereading it as an adult made me appreciate it so much more. First off, the amount of historical research that went into creating this book is staggering. Say what you will about Anne Rice as a person (she sounds rather insufferable) but the woman does her homework and weaves an amazing, complex and intricate story that bounces through the Âge des Lumières France, Roman Empire Egypt, colonial era New Orelans and modern day California. I am a sucker for history, so when a historical setting is as vivid as Ms. Rice makes them, I find myself utterly fascinated.
Of course, the character of Lestat is what truly makes this book wonderful: he’s a brat, with an greedy curiosity and a devil-may-care attitude that he takes a bit too literally (“If I was a damned thing, then let the son of a bitch come for me!”)… This was my first encounter with a villain who is not really a villain because he’s a bad person and it might just be where my weakness for bad guys comes from! The things about Lestat is that while he can be an absolute monster, he’s also a tortured being who wrestles with a strangely twisted conscience, strong feelings and an insatiable need to be loved. When you read “Interview with the Vampire”, he seems like a selfish, pompous jerk; but his background, so wonderfully detailed in “Vampire Lestat” shows him for what he used to be as a mortal and how the sorrows of his younger days are still a burden he carries within him and tries his best to camouflage by acting like a rock star – ages before such a thing even existed. He is a complex hero/villain, who throws it all in your face with charm and panache – and that is just irresistible.
I am glad to see I am not the only one who like this book better than “Interview”: Louis is super whiny and kind of a drama queen, as where Lestat just rocks. The supporting characters are really well fleshed out: the relationship with his mother Gabrielle is wonderful, if somewhat disturbing. The introduction of Marius, who is my second favorite of the Rice vampires, is also a huge plus! His story is fascinating and his voice is just as delightful as Lestat’s, albeit less bratty. And of course, he tells us the massively awesome story of “Those Who Must Be Kept”! This sort of elaborate mythology that blends history with supernatural elements never ceases to fascinate me, and it is beautifully told.
I find that the writing also as a sensuality (for lack of a better word – I don’t think it’s erotic, but it’s definitely lush with feels) that “Interview” lacked. There is darkness, but also a humour and poetry to the language that makes it very unique and sumptuous. The philosophical musings about immortality, religion, love and art were a bit nebulous to me when I was young; it made the re-read very fresh because I understood the motivations and struggles of the characters a lot more, adding a new depth to the story.
To me, Anne Rice remains a guilty pleasure kind of read, but if you have never read any of her books before I’d recommend “Vampire Lestat” as a good place to start!...more
Updated review, with a few thoughts about the “Joker” movie at the end.
---
With the much-hyped upcoming “Joker” movie coming soon – and my various feedUpdated review, with a few thoughts about the “Joker” movie at the end.
---
With the much-hyped upcoming “Joker” movie coming soon – and my various feeds being bombarded with tantalizing trailers, reviews and opinion pieces (I found this article especially interesting: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...), I felt an itch to revisit the infamous origin-story graphic novel “The Killing Joke”. The Joker has always been my favorite thing about Batman comics: the Bat himself bores me silly, but his nemesis’ mercurial insanity never fails to be entertaining. Alan Moore’s bold idea, to dig at how and why an ordinary man could turn into such a demented villain, has both moments of genius, and moments of truly questionable story-telling choices. Alan Moore’s work always makes me react the same way: “This is great, but…”. And “The Killing Joke” is no different.
Told in alternating time lines, we see how an already unstable failed stand up comedian made a series of decisions that led him to have a very, very bad day, and how the Joker lures Batman to a decrepit amusement park in order to have a final confrontation.
I love how Moore illustrates the point that Batman and the Joker are in fact two sides of the same coin: their actions are motivated by a great loss that pushed them to the brink, and that Batman’s strict moral code (he won’t ever kill the Joker, even if that would make his life soooo much easier, given the frequency with which the bugger escapes Arkham Asylum) is mirrored by the Joker’s utter lack of rules.
It is a very brutal comic, in that very dark way Moore excels at, and while the fate he had in store for Barbara Gordon is a bit controversial (see “The Refrigerator Monologues” https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), it can’t fail to get the point across. One bad day, one final devastating news, one final humiliation or indignity. When ordinary people are pushed around to the point where their mind just snaps, what can you expect? We have no control over some of the things that happen to us. We have control over how we react to them… but do we? In an insane world, is sanity really the best option?
One problem I have with this book is the incredibly antiquated “oh, he fell into some chemical waste, that’s why his skin is white and his hair is green” thing. I’m sorry, but give me a freaking break here. You are Alan Moore, you created “Watchmen” and you can’t find anything more plausible to explain the Joker’s signature look? Feh!
An essential read for comic book fans, but far from perfect.
---
Todd Philips said that his movie was partially inspired by this comic – but it’s really more as if this comic had a baby with the movie “Taxi Driver” while “Clockwork Orange” watched them from the closet. And at the risk of sounding weird, I loved it. I thought it was beautiful, disturbing and very powerful. It’s nice to see a movie that isn’t a paint-by-number feature that requires zero brain cells, and it’s nice to see actual thought-provoking art on the big screen – very refreshing, albeit in a really heavy and upsetting way. I may be biased because I was always a big fan of the character, but I truly think the movie is a masterpiece (the use of music, colors and angles is enough to blow my mind, and then there is Phoenix's ridiculously immersive performance!)– and hopefully, it being a huge box office success will remind studios that people really do love challenging and compelling story-telling....more
Review/walk down memory lane, with random spoilers. You’ve been warned!
It has been a long time since I read this book, and I was very happy to pick itReview/walk down memory lane, with random spoilers. You’ve been warned!
It has been a long time since I read this book, and I was very happy to pick it up again. You see, I have a special relationship with it because that first introduction to Hannibal Lecter is responsible for my life-long sympathy and affection towards the so-called bad guys. My mother doesn’t really believe in censorship, and as I previously mentioned in other reviews, she allowed me to watch the movie adaptation of “The Silence of the Lambs” way, way too early. I was a pretty serious and unflappable kid, and after watching it, I asked her why Dr Lecter did the things he did. As she had already read the book, she actually took time to explain his backstory to me, and the reasons he had become Hannibal the Cannibal. She could not have foreseen that she made me forever sympathetic of villains with those explanations: in my child brain, I understood that terrible things had been done to Hannibal, so he eventually also did terrible things (yes, I know that’s not entirely right, but I was 8 or 9 years old, so cut me some slack about my analysis). He was not born bad, he had become so because of extremely bad luck and trauma no one should have to endure. The importance of character psychology in this story taught me that labeling people as good or bad is an egregious oversimplification, and that humans are much more complicated and nuanced than that. So the side-effects of watching this movie so young weren’t all bad, really (though I do wonder if I’d love the Joker, Frankenstein’s Creature, Lestat and Loki half as passionately as I do if Hannibal had not been around…)!
It was also my introduction to flawed but competent female leads (children’s movies with princesses rarely emphasized the princesses’ abilities to do, well, anything!), and the beginning of my love for them as well. I read the book many years after first seeing the movie (I think I was in high school by then), and I realized with delight that while Clarice Starling runs up against very sexist attitudes all the goddamned time, she never backs down. She is constantly reminded that most of the men she has to deal with don’t think she belongs, but she pushes on and uses her skills and determination to pull off what none of them have managed to do. At the end of the day, she accomplishes what she does because she is highly competent, not because she is pretty, and I found that extremely inspiring. Reading it now, I am impressed that Harris pulled off her characterization as well as did. He doesn’t directly comment on the gender discrimination she endures, but instead, subtly shows the extra efforts Clarice has to make to just do her job – an effort Jack Crawford, for example, wouldn’t have to make if he was in her position.
For the few people who haven’t heard of this story yet, it is about a manhunt for a serial killer nicknamed Buffalo Bill, a man who kidnaps young women and starves them for a few days before executing them and removing their skin. When the novel begins, this killer has been eluding the authorities, and even the finest FBI profilers don’t know what to make of him. The director of the Bureau’s behavioral science unit, well-meaning but manipulative Jack Crawford, decides to use a promising cadet named Clarice Starling to try and get insight on Buffalo Bill’s pattern from incarcerated serial killer/brilliant psychiatrist, the infamous Hannibal Lecter. But Lecter is bored with incarceration and will only cooperate if he feels… entertained. He certainly helps Clarice, but he also toys with her mercilessly as she races against the clock to try and save Bill’s latest victim from a grim fate.
This is the kind of story that could have easily gone all over the place: a serial killer preparing his next “harvest”, a game of cat and mouse between a very cunning predator and a vulnerable and ambitious young woman, the internal politics (and entrenched sexism) of law enforcement, Clarice’s own struggle with her past – but Harris is perfectly focused in “Silence of the Lambs”, and weaves those storylines together remarkably skillfully. I know the story inside and out, and I was still glued to the page by the frantic pacing, and I was also strongly affected by the delicate psychological developments that slowly reveals themselves as the plot progresses towards its dramatic and satisfying conclusion.
In his own way, I think Hannibal likes Clarice, not just as a psychological plaything: he sees potential in her, and though his methods are cruel, he pushes her to be a better and smarter investigator than she thought herself capable of being. The idea that he is not simply a psychopath, but beyond classification, is a fascinating idea that makes him entirely unpredictable. He may not be the main character in this particular story, but his shadow looms over every step Clarice takes after her first visit to his isolated cell.
Is it any wonder that after the deep mark this book left on me, the rest of this series always fell short of my expectations? Even the books focused exclusively on my darling Hannibal left me frustrated and disappointed after this crazy ride. I had forgotten the clever use of symbolism – especially when it comes to Buffalo Bill’s modus operandi: no detail was left to chance in this book, and it is all the more horrifying and entrancing for it....more
I think a lot about revolutions. I have always been the rebellious type, who questions the system and authority and wants to change things and leave tI think a lot about revolutions. I have always been the rebellious type, who questions the system and authority and wants to change things and leave the world better than I found it. But historically speaking, revolutions have always been bloody, messy affairs, and interestingly, the status quo that was supposed to be eliminated somehow always resurfaced (the very word revolution means a 360 degree turn, so you technically end up exactly where you started…). Sometimes it was a different version of it, but life never really seems to have improved after a revolution, does it? Is it because they are almost invariably lead by a hopeful idealist and an ambitious, power-hungry opportunist (Lenin and Trotsky, Guevera and Castro, Robespierre and Danton)? I really have no idea, I am not a political scientist. But I know that "A Tale of Two Cities" is a wonderful work that in no way romanticises the idea of revolution - or its aftermath.
“A Tale of Two Cities” is Dickens’ masterpiece. The opening and the ending sentences remain to this day some of the greatest and most moving quotes in English literature. He never tries to hide the atrocities committed by either side of the Revolution – the blood frenzy of the revolutionaries and the social injustices that the aristocrats were responsible for: he spares no one. He brings along a cast of colorful, typically Dickensian characters into this setting and weaves this amazing tale of revenge, mistaken identities, redemption and social commentary. Sidney Carton is the most wonderful reluctant hero and Madame Defrage is a supremely terrifying villain. “A Tale of Two Cities” is hard work, just like any other Dickens novel, but it is such a satisfying book to finish. It manages to be epic in scope, thrilling and deeply moving all at once, which is something only master storytellers can swing, and oh boy, did Dickens ever swing it! And because he is Dickens, there is a charmingly tragic love triangle, and the entire work is equality funny as it is dramatic. What I have always loved about his books is the sarcastic wit and dry humour that he infuses even his darkest tragedies with.
It is interesting that he chose to write a story about a politically turbulent era. His other novels often have more emphasis on class, and while the characters of “A Tale of Two Cities” are from all over the social scale, his other work never tackle periods of violent turmoil. He had read many works on the Revolution before sitting down to write this novel, and he was obviously horrified by the human suffering resulting from the Terror. He was always a strong advocate for social justice, but he was also lucid enough to understand that the mob mentality that took over Paris was senselessly destructive. He wanted to show that revenge can erode one’s humanity just as much as boundless power: I wonder if he wasn’t trying to be cautionary. Yes, fight for what is right, but do not let your yearning for justice turn into bloodlust.
If you are going to pick up one book by Dickens, this is the one I recommend you start with. It requires patience, but it is absolutely worth the time and effort. If it was imposed upon you in school, revisit it: when I first read it, I was in my early twenties and I didn’t understand a lot of what was going on (or it might be more accurate to say that I interpreted it differently), but re-reading it a decade later made me see it in a whole new light and I now consider it one of my favorite books....more
Updated review after a reread in September/October 2020. Thoughts about the new movie at the end of the review.
**
If anyone has ever wondered where my Updated review after a reread in September/October 2020. Thoughts about the new movie at the end of the review.
**
If anyone has ever wondered where my love of creepy stories, gorgeous British estates and snarky Englishmen came from, well one would have to look no further than Du Maurier’s classic novel. I think I snagged this one from my mother’s library when I was thirteen or fourteen and never gave it back. The way Maxim whisks his new bride off her feet seemed so romantic to my unexperienced teenage self, I had no idea back then that a memory can take more room in someone’s life than a flesh and blood presence. And that there are some things you should definitely, definitely tell your spouse…
A shy lady’s companion is staying in Monte Carlo with her obnoxious American employer. There she meets the mysterious and handsome Maxim de Winter, the recently widowed owner of a famous estate in Cornwall. To her great surprise, he proposes marriage and takes her back to his beautiful home, Manderley. But there, she is greeted by the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, who adored the late Mrs. de Winter, and makes it unambiguous that she thinks her new mistress does not belong in the house – some rooms of which have been preserved almost like shrines to the memory of the titular Rebecca. Our heroine tries to understand what was so special about her predecessor, but the secrets she will unearth are not at all what she expected…
The beautiful house, the byronesque husband with a dark secret, the crazy housekeeper, the haunting presence of the other woman… Daphne Du Maurier clearly loved “Jane Eyre” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), and as I reread it, I found myself thinking that this novel might be the first and possibly most successful fanfiction in history, because “Rebecca” absolutely is a Gothic novel in the Bronte’s tradition, as well as a psychological mystery of the finest kind. It’s still one of my favorite novels: I do have a weakness for a good Gothic story (and cranky men), but I value good writing above genre, and “Rebecca” has some extraordinary writing! The atmosphere, suspense and images crafted by Du Maurier are spectacular and highly evocative! Not to mention the fascinating story and the clever narration.
One of the things that strikes me with "Rebecca" is that is really is about the Other Woman. The metaphorical ghost of Mr. de Winter's late wife takes so much space, her influence is so obvious around the estate, her memory and reputation are so omnipresent that she truly does haunt Manderley. There is nothing supernatural in this novel, and yet this is the story of how a dead person controls the living from beyond the grave. A flesh and blood mistress would not have the importance that this shadow commands over the life of all those who are under the roof of the grand old house.
Let’s be frank, it’s easy to dislike the nameless narrator: she’s such a hopeless daydreamer, a rather spineless wallflower, and it can be hard to sympathize when she feels lonely and rejected (because she never asserts herself, gawd!!) and is way too eager to please her cold and mysterious husband Maxim De Winter. But the beautiful dream-like writing makes it hard not to fall along with her and feel like she (and you, the reader) got involved into something bigger and stronger than what she can reasonably handle. You begin to feel her anguish and confusion as the people around her all hint at things she doesn’t know, increasing her feeling that she simply doesn’t belong. But just like her, you become consumed with the need to find out what these people know that you don’t…
My recommendation is that you dive in along with her and devour this awesome and haunting novel. I don’t really think it’s romantic anymore (in fact, I find it hilarious that there was ever a version of me who thought this was a love story), but it’s still magnificent, complex and impossible to put down. Rereading it was a great pleasure: I had forgotten how beautiful and atmospheric Du Maurier’s prose was, and it also made me smile to realize how my love for this book had influenced my tastes, how it had become part of my reader’s DNA. If I had to take just a few books with me to a desert island, this one would definitely make the cut.
**
I’m going to have a little fit here about the movie. I do not know how to feel about it. Obviously, it doesn’t do the book any justice because so much of that narrator’s voice is conspicuously absent, and Ben Wheatley put a lot of emphasis on the “love story” aspect, which is… an interesting choice. For instance, the movie’s Maxim is a lot closer in age to his new bride, which is both good and bad: it’s good because hot damn, this is serious eye candy, but it’s a little odd because the age difference made the new Mrs. de Winter naturally less experienced and more naïve. Was the age difference reduced because of the current paranoia about power dynamics in sexual relationships? Maxim may be (view spoiler)[ a murderer (hide spoiler)], but at least he’s not twenty years older than his wife…? Shrug. So, no, it’s not Hitchcock. And no, Lily James is not Joan Fontaine, and Armie Hammer is not Laurence Olivier. Maybe my expectations were sky high because I loved Wheatley’s “High-Rise”, but I was expecting an atmosphere that I couldn’t feel, and I wonder how someone who has never read the book or seen another movie version would feel about this one. Seems a shame to make a movie of this arguably perfect story and the most memorable thing about it is the eye candy…...more
Loading...
