Thursday, September 27, 2012

THE SOMNAMBULIST ... kinda hits close to home =/


How to rate this book ... I really liked it but I might be biased because parts of the story hit close to home. And I know that's not a good thing if you've read this book but there are some things you grow fond of if only for the fact that it reminds you of something from the past.

I randomly picked this up because I was curious about the cover and the title. And then I read the teaser at the back ... I thought it was Jane Eyre-ish and I really liked that one so I went ahead and bought it but I think the only similarity is that they are both Victorian gothic. Still, I'm a fan of the Victorian era so the setting fascinates me.

This is tagged as historical fiction by a lot of people but I don't quite agree. The only historical part here are the references to violence against Jews but I'm not even sure the dates are accurate. I'm no expert but I think those years were when Jews are actually given civil rights (?) and citizenship in most parts of Europe and the violence didn't start again until early 1900's up to the holocaust. If I'm wrong then I'd love to be enlightened (anyway I'll just read about that history later on lol). As for the other parts, I think every story has some sort of history to it. If you chose a specific decade for the story that is not the present (that is from the past) then it's already a history. It's just a setting. I think the genre is mostly mystery, family drama, intrigue and romance.

The story telling is mostly first person, with the main character narrating but there are parts told thru a third person which is kind of confusing at first and when I got over the confusion it turned awkward. It's as if it was just plastered there just because. I guess it's because the distribution isn't even.

As for the story it was so obvious from the very beginning what Phoebe's identity was but I suppose that's what the author wants. It's not like a real secret because everyone around her knows except her. It's the consequences of hiding her identity that's actually heavier and there are other buried secrets that are more disturbing than that and that caught my attention as well. I don't think that it was stupid that she didn't know (as per the other reviews I've read) when everyone does because that's the point. Everyone else is hiding it from her.

I liked the characters, the intrigue, the setting and I guess the story overall. I'd like to read her next books too. :)

Monday, September 24, 2012

I am the Messenger


You know how some authors can be self-righteous when trying to come up with something that they want to use as a tool to restore a person's faith in mankind? This is not one of those books. This book has "awwwww" written all over it. I was smiling 95% of the time but also shedding tears of joy half of the time. Like i said: awwwww.


I finished this in less than 24 hours. Yes, it's mostly because I have a lot of time on my hands at the moment but there's no denying the book is very readable ... if you know what I mean. It's very light and simple. There are no elaborate plots, or complex dialogues, or poetical phrases to muse over. The book just spells it out for you and the author had fun doing so (All of his characters are a bunch of smart asses. Even down to the boy who patted down the Doorman and only had a brief role).

But having said that, I am the Messenger is also very thought-provoking. If this was a campaign (and it actually is, I tells ya!!!), then I'd say it's very effective. I wasn't expecting the book would turn out the way it did. Somehow I had different expectations when I read the cover summary. But I was immensely impressed when I realize what it's all about.

And the ending? ... at that time when it hits you and realize who it is behind Ed's mission like it asked on the cover? ... That's the best part you have to watch out for. My reaction? "Wow ... just ... wow"

Hands down ... one of the best books I've read this year. :) Kudos to Markus Zusak! You are officially one of my favorite writers ever!

Thursday, September 20, 2012

The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao ... made me a fan of Google Translate




Not really sure how I'm going to rate this book. I was thinking I should give this a full 4 stars (5 is highest), but in the end I decided for 3 1/2.  Not that it didn't deserve it. I did have fun reading the book and I did smile at the ending. Yes (and I don't think this is much of a spoiler since the title says it all), the main character died, but the ending did make me smile and murmur ... way to go, Oscar (notice the pun, would'ya?).

Now, when the LA Times reviewed the book and said: "It's impossible to categorize ... Diaz's novel is a hell of a book. It doesn't care about categories." ... they weren't kidding. It's a contemporary literature historical fiction, bit of SF (if only for the fuku) memoir (of some sort) all rolled into one. And pardon me if I forgot anything else.

Why 3 1/2, then? There are two things that killed this for me. First, I don't speak Spanish. I understand very little of it so I had to (yes) Google Translate the other's I couldn't understand. And second, I'm sure everyone reading the paperback noticed it too ... the book is swarming with footnotes. I mean, I get it, you'd want a better way to explain the history etc without ruining the flow of the story but it's actually very distracting especially if the footnotes take half of the page. And being me, I can't ignore the footnotes. I have to read them so it still ruined the flow.

So there. I can get why it won the prestigious award (and people may say these awards are nothing but a politics-filled joke) but I guess there are just books that only cater to a specific crowd. This one may not be something written for mine but, again, it is a fun read.

Oh and if you're not a native speaker like me, you might want to get the audio book as well. It just gives the book a different feeling. And speaking of the audio book, the woman narrator can get monotonous in some parts (maybe it's just me). Jonathan Davis was pretty cool, though.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

We The Living: A book to be read with an open mind



I was told I have to read her works chronologically (as in from which book she wrote first) to see how her philosophical and political views developed throughout her writing career so I read this book first. While this is not as popular as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (which I haven't read as of this post), I think this explains a lot about the author.

I wrote a paper about We The Living (A Deconstruction of -the character- Kira Argounova which maybe I should post on this blog but after I edit it again) for a graduate school application but, to be honest, I still can't figure it out. I mean, I'm not sure if I like the book or not. Or more specifically, if I like the main character or not (and, admit it, liking the main character has a lot to do when deciding whether you like a book or not). I decided it best to stay in the middle. Thus the three stars.

It's not the book, per se, that I'm trying to rate here because this is already a controversial piece. It's a very good historical fiction especially since the author actually lived through the Russian Civil War. If it's just the story, the genre and the writing style then this is an easy 5. There are lines from the main character that I can imagine being said with passion. As tragic as the ending is, I actually liked it too. It's realistic. Period. But I guess I should say I don't completely agree with Ayn Rand's philosophies in life which is explicitly written in this book through Kira Argounova. And she did say this is the closest to an autobiography she has ever written. Now when I say I don't completely agree, I meant I DO like some of her ideas and ideals. Like her view on God and heaven :

"God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God, is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibly thinks very little of himself and his life. It's rare, you know, to feel the reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.

And her individualism:

Don’t you know, don’t you know that there are things, in the best of us which no outside hand should dare to touch? Things sacred because, and only because, one can say: ‘This is mine’? Don’t you know that we live only for ourselves, the best of us do, those who are worthy of it? Don’t you know that there is something in us which should not be touched by any state, by any collective, by any number of millions?”

Now, there are decisions, the protagonist made, that I didn't agree to. The way she handled her family situation is a bit of a let down. Or her not telling Andre things she should have especially about her relationship with Leo. I understand a girl does what a girl has to in tight situations but I think she could've handled it better, this is one of those scenes where her individualist and objectivist philosophies come out as selfish. It's hard to explain and I might have to read the book again to look for those specific things. Lol.

If anything, Kira's/Rand's opinions told through carefully chosen words can be very inspiring so I would suggest for people to read this … but to do so with an open mind.

Monday, September 10, 2012

The Giver ... Bit disturbing for a children's book




Normally, I only write about books I actually like but The Giver leaves this reader confused that I can't move on. I'm not particularly excited about this book and I thought maybe I need to read the sequels to appreciate it fully.

The main thing that pushed me to read The Giver is the fact that it won a Newberry medal so I thought it must be something. I also read good reviews about it (some even raving of the books ingenuity to teach children). There is a fourth book coming out too so I was fairly convinced I'd at least enjoy reading this even if it doesn't make it on top of my list. I mean, if there is a fourth book surely that means the first three that came out are good enough? As you can see, I gave it only a single star ... for good organization of a concept. I know for a fact it's not easy to write. But in general, this short book is a big let down for me.

The story is kind of disturbing for a children's book. I'm not sure I want my nephews reading this until they're at least 16 or already understand what the holocaust was. By coincidence, I have been reading books that has a connection to the holocaust so maybe it's hard for me to process this without comparing. Granted, there is no mention of the event in the book but a reader is led into that conclusion. There is much discrimination in this book. The parents in this book are not actually biological parents, they are people who are chosen and expected to be able to raise children well. Actual birth mothers only give birth and after 3 or 4 times of doing so are sent to perform hard labor because they are not perceived to be able to raise children well or do "more important jobs". These women are looked down on by the community in general. There is also genocide in a way because they kill and dispose of babies that do not reach the community standards and they do the same process for adults too old to work or live on their own. So that is the conflict. But what about the resolution?

I think the author used the part when the helpless newborn is disposed off for being the weaker version of the twins as the big turning point of the story. It is what made the protagonist decide to fight against the system but the presentation is actually weak. The main character's attempts and reasoning appear so half-hearted.  I think that's one of the things that killed it for me. For such a simple story it failed to explain how things became the way it is.


Even the ending is weak. It closes to the protagonist catching (dying of) hypothermia and that might be a good ending for a book that has a sequel but the thing is, the second and third books were written so many years after the first one (it's like she wasn't sure she wanted to do so) and from what I gather, even though the books are related and grouped into a quartet (previously a trilogy), the sequels does not present a conclusion to the first one. 

Again, I would have to read the newer books to know but it may take a while before I find the interest to after this.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

The Book Thief: The book that taught me how to properly swear ... in German



A lot of books, whether it be fiction or a documentary, were written about the holocaust. This is one of them, although that wasn't the reason why I picked it up. There are three reasons.

One is the Book Thief herself. I thought at first this is a story of an exceptionally gifted and intelligent girl who would somehow save her neighborhood if not the world. This is usually the case in young adult books, isn't it? Markus Zusak, however, made an even more interesting protagonist. A very plain girl whose love for books (and stealing books) was actually quite accidental. What was more interesting for me was that, at the age of 10, she didn't even know how to read. Clearly this wasn't a book about some sort of prodigy but an ordinary girl raised in an era of fascISM and antisemitISM. She's not without flaws (she's a thief, after all), she is impulsive and proud but she does have qualities that makes her worthy of a reader's respect.

The second thing that made me seal my decision on reading the book is the last sentence of the book description on Audible (I have both audio and eBook). The description read: "This is an unforgettable story about the ability of books to feed the soul." I fell in love with that. I think anyone who loves books and reading books will be able to relate to that phrase. Books are a way to forget about reality and experience a totally different world. Words, when written a certain way can work it's magic on anyone.

Last? The story was narrated by DEATH himself. That kinda reminded me of Terry Pratchett's Discworld Series, although, of course The Book Thief is a lot more serious than Discworld. Death in both books have a sarcastic humor, though. It's as if it comes with the job but that makes it fun to read too.

Some things to watch out for in the book?

1) The childlike sketches of Max Vanderburg and the stories accompanying it.

2) Death's small notes. They are everywhere in the book. I love that in a way, it gives a fresh look to the pages. Yes, I meant "look". It makes a page more alive, somehow. Not monotonous and ordinary to the eyes.

3) German terms and their English equivalent. This is most important for non German speakers, as myself. I would actually suggest to read the book/eBook while listening to the audiobook to learn how to pronounce the words and sentences too. Hey, I learned how to swear properly in German. Kee-hee.

One of the best things about the book (in my opinion) is how Markus Zusak presented the characters. In most books there are good character and bad characters. All of the main characters here are merely victims of the situation. The setting is Nazi Germany and although the people who lived in this small town are "law abiding citizens" of the Nazi ruler, each and everyone of the characters have their own sob stories that pushed them to be where they are.

To summarize, I felt amusement from Death's way of looking at things (when he's not feeling sentimental), love for characters like Rosa who has a bad mouth but a good heart, anger towards Nazi Germany for reasons I don't have to spell out and sadness for the children who are the most helpless and suffered so much during the war. This book is a sad story all in all. But it stirs so many feelings in a person.

And yes. I cried too.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Thoughts on: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time



I've read a few books (fiction) about autism and this is one of those that I liked most. Yes, I would recommend this for everyone, parents especially (even those whose kids do not have autism). No, I won't go as far as saying it's an awesome book. For one, this is not a happy book, the main reason being ... it's too real. But that is also what makes it so good.


There should be a few different ways to rate this book instead of just an overall pick-a-number-of-stars-to-go-with-it. Here's an attempt (feeble, maybe) to explain my point. There may be a few spoilers although I'll try not to give away too much. 


1) Concept/Awareness/Cause/Subject: Five stars. I don't think I have to spell it out. This is one of those books that aim to raise awareness about autism in kids. What they are going through and why adults should rally alongside them and their ... let's call it "rights" for now because I can't seem to find a fitting word. 


2) Story telling: It's pretty generic. There's chronology, words are clear, pace is just right, I won't say it's dragging too as it's not a long book. Pretty straight forward so ... For that I'd give it a fair 3 stars.


3) Conflict. It's all over the place. The two main conflicts being: It's a story of a kid with autism whose parents are divorced and are both having some sort of affair. And as you can imagine, in a story like this, every other conflict has their own ... sub-conflicts. And since I'm a person who hates reality and its conflicts (heh) ... Four stars.


4) Twist and Conclusion/Ending: When I finished the book I thought ... "Oooookaaaaayyy ... That's it?" Then I thought, "Well, how do you expect it to end?" The too real story's ending is abrupt but the author actually made us a favor of giving us a realistic, but at least not tragic and traumatic, ending for the kid. Four stars.


Over all, it's far from Kite Runner or Orphan Master's son but they share something in common ... It kinda makes you wish you live in a better world.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

People, Please Don't Get Delusional


Another Senator Tito Sotto blog, I know. I just need to get this out once and for all. Before that, let me make it clear (and yes this is me being defensive) that, politically, I'm not a fan of this guy. I grew up watching his movies (dahil yun lagi ang palabas sa sinehan sa Tagaytay) but I never voted for him, he never gave me a reason to. This blog is not on his defense either but I know some fanatics (of stuff they don't understand) might look at it that way because ... well, they don't understand. So let me begin discussing the topic by telling you that yes, like many haters and (feeling) patriotic people on the web, right now, I think this guy does not deserve a seat in the senate and that I do not think he knows what he's doing.


Now, most of the people online bash these politicians for the things they say but they may be doing it for the wrong reasons. The main thing that pushed me to write this blog, though, is not what the senator above said, but something I heard from a grown person somewhere ... that it's shocking and sad to know that this country's rulers, the upholders of the law, do not write their own speeches and their own papers (for whatever cause). So ... as the title of the post says ... People, please don't get delusional. 


If you do not know yet, politicians and our country's leaders very rarely (or do not at all) write their speeches. They have a personnel(s) for that, and they have a team who does the research. Why? Because they have other things to do than spend the day in front of a desk writing a speech or going out to do research from scratch. Writing a speech, ladies and gentlemen, is not their job. It's not what they're getting paid for. And it's not the reason why people should vote for them ... although, of course, in this country, mamatay lang kamag-anak qualified na maging presidente.


Granted, the speeches should get their approval first and the content should be what they believe in (or what they got paid for, kee-hee), but that was not my point. The upholders of the law's real job is to, UPHOLD THE LAW. They are the "face" of what people (and again those who paid for it) believes in and fights for. 


Here's an example, the president. This guy's job is not to make laws (yes he can lean and put pressure on some people because he has that power to, and that ladies and gentlemen is the biggest form of corruption, duh!!!), he does not write the law and does not approve it (supposedly). Other parts of the government writes and the other approves. He should also not be wasting his time blaming the past administrations for his failures but that's another story, eh? THE PRESIDENT IS AN ADMINISTRATOR. He administrates, overlooks, leads, inspires etc. Yes he should make sure whoever stole money should pay for it but he is ruling a country with actual people in it and a lot of problems to face. SO he can't just concentrate on that one thing. What does a manager in a company do? DELEGATE. That is what secretaries of departments are for and that is what his allies are for. Get the gist?

So if I am a senator, for example, that gets invited to hold a speech for whatever function or for the RH Bill (there, I said it!), and I have a ton of appointments to go to like a closed meeting with the party to discuss our official stand on an issue, meeting other people who wants me to lobby for their cause, publicity stunts, functions I'm invited too, personal stuff (and TV shows ngehe) I can't slave the day away writing speeches for 8 other functions I'm supposed to give a pep talk at for the month. At best, I should be sitting with the team making sure things are in order. That they know what I want to say, and that we get the facts straight so I don't look stupid in front of people.


So you see, what's really scary here is that the people who works for him (Sen. Sotto) gets away with it because he himself is unaware of what the real issue is about. Also, the people he hired are competent but only up to a point. They do not know how to address an issue, they just deflect it. Maybe it's ego but clearly, they do not want to accept the fact that they made a mistake by not doing their job properly. If our leaders' staff can do that, can the rest of us act the same way? And if we do, could we get away by being arrogant too (like that lawyer who couldn't keep his mouth shut about bloggers being just bloggers).


If anything, this senator should fire his staff and get a new one.