There is world, vast and uncaring Lonely and beautiful and fearsome, meaningless and undying, compassionate and tuneful, inharmonious and barren. You decide to reside on mars, just for the sake of novelty And to take only the few humans, who love you and have unquenching Thirst for random snippets of mockery and the trees that do not dwell in the past life of thornful rose-queens yet sounding like a song with two guitars and a small piano played by the post-punk dudes You decide to travel tomorrow and rest for the night in the cozy bed made just for lustful drama-queens trying to dream non-alien images.
This is the first of several novels that John Macdonald has written with Travis McGee as a protagonist. Travis, who likes to be called Trav, is a self confessed beach bum, someone who works on special cases only when he runs out of money earned in the earlier case. In the interim, he spends the money earned on entertaining women on his yacht, named Miss Agnes.
The novel carries the marks of the period it was written in, and the state of the genre at that point in time. It is misogynist, has crudely sketched characters that speak melodramatic language and an unconvincing, elaborate plot. Still, it catches the readers attention due to MacDonald’s skills of narrating a story in a lucid manner. He builds the suspense by a first person narrative by McGee, who thinks of himself as a suave, smart, lady-magnet, super fit agent, who knows what life is. The first person narrator builds the antagonist as an exact opposite of himself, crude, dumb, a rapist, who does not know the subtleties of life.
McGee thinks women like him and he knows how to treat women, but the actual events show something else. So one wonders if the whole misogynist narrative is really a world view by the narrator, McGee. Even then it may be difficult for some people to like that kind of worldview.
MacDonald is an expert in describing action and some crucial parts of the book are essentially visual action. No wonder there is a movie planned with Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike in it. McGee’s character is also ideal for a movie, and there are movies made from other books in a series. MacDonald also describes intimate scenes really well, not talking about the action, but around it. It is something I find difficult to do.
In terms of characterization, McGee’s character – whether you like him or not – comes out really well. There are several incidents in the book that allow MacDonald to define the character from multiple sides. Unfortunately, one can not say the same thing about the other characters. Most of them, except possibly Lois, are not sketched so well, and come across as caricatures.
MacDonald has a habit of inserting philosophical and political commentary in the book. It adds some flavor to the book and makes it richer. He comes across as a knowledgeable and humane writers, which makes me feel that the particular tone of the book is a stance he has taken as a viewpoint from the lead character’s perspective.
In short, a likable book if you are going to give a benefit of doubt to MacDonald. I would give it 3.5/5 and would recommend it for people who like thrillers and mysteries of the Raymond Chandler kind. I want to read a few more of his books to understand how a series is built.
(Trivia :- Apparently Sam Elliot acted as Travis McGee in one of the movies. I really want to see that one.)
Carrie is an interesting first book. Technically, it was not Stephen King’s first book. It was his first published book. He took it up as a challenge from a female friend to write a book where the protagonist was a woman. In one of the interviews, King has said that it have women liberation kind of an angle. King had thrown the idea of the book written on paper in a wastebasket, where his wife picked it up. She thought that the idea had potential and urged King to write the book.
Carrie is a very unusual child. She is raised by a mother who is a religious fanatic who thinks that Carrie is a cursed child. Carrie goes to a local school where she is not a very popular child but has a desire to be one. She is unusual in a different sense, she has telekinetic power, power that lift and move things just by thinking about it. The author makes us think that the powers are triggered by an incident in the school that is described by King in a way moving style.
The format the narrative of the book is very interesting, containing several different types. There is a third person narrative that seems like an omniscient narrator kind of a tone. There is a narrative that is in form of excerpts from a book written about the incident. There is another narrative which is again from a book written by one of the other student from the school. And finally, there is an article written by another student in some newspaper of magazine. The variation in narratives works pretty well in building up the anticipation and King is a master at describing actions and events in such a manner as to keep you at the edge of the seat.
The characterization of the protagonist is done really well and you can say the same thing about the supporting characters. Carrie’s mother is sketched really well, which is partly an explanation of why Carrie is the way she is. Other students, the main ones especially come alive. The culture of the town, the school, the teenagers at that point in time – all of these come alive in King’s writing. King is very good at descriptions of scenes as if they are from a movie. You get a feeling that you are watching the movie.
The climax arrives somewhere near the middle of the book and due to all the anticipation built by King, it is a little underwhelming. So is all the narrative that follows the climax. After that, the book becomes monotonous. It would probably feel much better on a screen since most of that stuff is very visual, but just imagine the all the destruction that appears in Avengers – Age of Ultron described in words. I felt that the first part of the book was amazing but the later part just did not live up to the hype created so well by King.
What can you learn as a writer from King? The art of multiple narratives that talk about the same thing, giving you multiple ways to look at an event. Narratives that hide things to build suspense. Building intertwined events that give a sense of the doom. King is a master in building the suspense and an atmosphere of doom. All the while in the first many pages, you get a sense of impending ruin. He is also a master in giving a holistic treatment to a character, however evil or disgusting it may be. He gives a very balanced treatment to Carrie, and you feel supportive of her at times, as if what she is doing is the right thing to do if you had been through the circumstances she has been through. He does not seem to write for an audience, but several type of readers would love the book.
I would rate it 3/5 with a recommendation for people who like supernatural horror of a mild manner. It is also recommended for people who like twisted young adult books.
Kafka on the Shore is like a surrealistic painting or a David Lynch movie. There is a plot, there are characters that are occasionally coherent and there are elements of mystery. But, if you are looking at resolution, that too a water tight, Sherlock Holmes kind of a resolution, you are bound to be disappointed. But if you expect lyricism, a poetic resolution, Murakami does a fabulous job of it. His prose is minimalistic, no surprise that, considering his fandom for Raymond Carver, it is lyrical and haunting. After finishing the book, you can not believe you could not put it down. It does not seem to contain that much of an anticipation, but it does.
Life has been harsh for a fifteen year old Kafka, the book does not tell you why, but it has something to do with his father. He embarks upon a journey of … well the book does not tell you what. There is a parallel story of Nakata, an old man with a paused intellect. Nakata makes his living by talking to cats, yes, that is what the book is like. Cats talk. Nakata is also going to embark upon his own journey … well not only the book, but even Nakata does not know why, what and where. Do the two protagonists have anything in common? Would their journeys have anything in common? Does the weird stuff resolve? I would be doing injustice to the book, if I tell you any of that.
There is plenty of music, plenty of philosophy, plenty of pop culture, modernist icons – all of which give you a feel of this being a post-modern book. The philosophy talks about Hegel in the same breath as Buddha. The characters spout enormous gyan(knowledge) that completely belie who they are. But that is the core thesis of the book. Things are not what they look to be. There is deeper significance of everything – you just don’t know what it is. And probably even the author does not, and he does not care. There is conversation about musical scales, Beatles and Mozart. In fact, you can see the book as a musical symphony, something that is exquisite, but indeciferable. As music poses a challenge to the rational mind hypothesis, the book also seems to do the same.
There is a lot of violence, but it is in the vein of Tarantino. There is sex, immoral sex – things that will make some people very queasy. But the way Murakami narrates them, makes them sound very ordinary. So, in this world, they are just literary devices, just like the Yama and Yami story in Indian mythology. There is a lot of mythology in the book, Greek tragedies mainly. Murakami uses them to create the effect he wants to create. Ultimately, it is the job of the reader to figure out if they mean anything. No wonder there are puzzle sites dedicated to the book, where people are trying to figure out what Murakami is trying to say, just like there are sites dedicated to Dylan lyrics. Murakami probably meant the book as one single, big poem. He talks about metaphors explicitly in the book, as well as many other literary devices. The characters suddenly burst into being a literary critic and tell you about these devices.
In short, the book is an experience. Especially people who like lyricism and go by their intuition to understand things. I am actually surprised the book sold millions of copies. It just tells you the talent Murakami has for narrating stuff like it was an ordinary thing. His talent for narration is amazing. The book is unputdownable, though you may feel a little disappointed after finishing it. Half way through the book, I thought I am going to read it again, but in the end I felt that it is a one time read. Recommended with a 4/5 rating.
What is it about Raymond Carver that attracts so many creatives? I first heard of Carver when Rhett Miller mentioned him in an interview with Robert Christgau. Old 97’s even recorded a song with the title of a Carver story named, “What we talk about when we talk about love?”.
Then I encountered another Carver fascination when I saw Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts”, a fabulous movie, listed as a “Great Movie” by Roger Ebert. Altman cobbled together nine short stories by Carver, made the protagonists related and created one single story that is nothing but fascinating.
Alejandro Inarritu’s Birdman is a story about an aged actor – who played a super hero way back, trying to establish himself as a serious artist. And whose story would he choose to be made into a play on broadway? Of course, Carver’s. Birdman is as much about Carver as it is about the other topics like creative insecurity.
And as I started reading my first Murakami yesterday(yes, beat me with a stick), I kept on getting a sense that Murakami is somehow influenced by Carver. And it turned out he is. Influenced is a mild word – Murakami was a big Carver fan, and credits Carver in shaping his literary sensibility. They met in California for two hours, the meeting is immortalized in a poem by Carver, but Murakami did not dare to tell Carver that he wrote novels. What is it about Carver that influences so many greats? Well, that is a post for another day! Let me get back to my “Kafka on the Shore”
Some great reviews of my books by popular book bloggers:
Anusha of I’ll read anything reviews “Brothers Sen Gogh”.
She says, “What I liked the most about this book is the strong based characterisation. Where you can actually understand the person, identify with and relate to. This combined with a powerful story has made the book a complete piece according to me. ” Please see the link below for the complete review.
Farshana of Rain”n”Books reviews “Whiskey and Suicide”.
She says,
“Phew, what an emotional roller coaster ride!
If you are interested in taking a journey thru an entire spectrum of colors, be sure to read this collection of short stories by author Manik Bal.” Please read the complete review on her blog page.”
It is an interesting exercise to read books you adored in your early life. One such book for me was Heinlein’s “A door into summer”, a light sci-fi/thriller/mystery with some romance in it. I would have given it a five star rating when I first read it, mainly for its tight plot that Carl Sagan thought to be perfect, for its courage in terms of prediction of technology and a sweet tale of protagonists quest to get even. How does it fare now? I read it last week and here is my report.
Heinlein was my favorite among the ultimate sci-fi trio of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein. Though Clarke was perceived to be more meticulous researcher, Asimov was the master storyteller at the grand scale, Heinlein was the funny one who balanced the serious with the comic. Even within his work, I thought A door into summer is a better work than his others, mainly because of the plot and the intrigue built into it. It can stand on its feet in terms of the suspense it builds and the thrilling elements it has in the excellent plot.
Even starting to talk about the plot would mean some spoilers, so I will stay away from it. The main characters are Danny – a technical whiz-kid, Miles – the marketing brain of the company, Belle – Danny’s love interest and many other folks they meet during the roller coaster ride of the book. These three own a company called Hired Girl that manufactures robots that carry out the household work. The only thing I can safely say is that time travel is involved(it is a Heinlein book, okay?) There are issues of trust, betrayal and romance too. The time travel creates some intricate complications that the plot navigates through adroitly and this is the aspect of the book that keeps the reader engaged.
Heinlein’s characters are remarkably flat. They lack depth and I do not understand much about Danny even at the end of the book. He is a tech whiz for sure, but what is Danny as a person? Why does he behave in the way he does. Heinlein is not interested in really telling us that. There is a big controversy regarding Danny’s character, but telling what it is would be a major spoiler so I will avoid that. But I agree with people who want other to boycott Heinlein’s books because of that controversial aspect. If Heinlein treats the protagonist in such a callous way, just imagine how underdeveloped the other characters would be. They hardly get any space to express themselves. They are just some pawns in the intricate plot Heinlein is trying to build. The strategy would work for certain type of readers who seek their thrills in the the plot and not the depth of the characters.
The science in the book is flaky to say the least. It overstates development of certain technology, like robots and automatons that do household work. We still do not have the devices that Heinlein predicted for the year 2000. On the other hand, Heinlein misses some obvious technological developments like the personal computer and the internet. Heinlein spends far too much time in explaining the science behind the technological predictions that he makes, and while sometimes they are pretty good(They would be right? Carl Sagan is not easily impressed.) but sometimes they are outright ridiculous.
So, in the end, did it leave the same impression as it did when I first read it? No. I still like the plot, but am totally underwhelmed with the character development. I feel the science is a little shaky too. As a result, It gets 3/5 and a selective recommendation. I recommend it only to sci-fi and fantasy fans and probably thriller/mystery fans. People who like elaborate character development would be disappointed reading the book.
Chloe Jhao is an enigma. A self confessed Manga, fantasy and sci-fi fan, her earlier movies are anything but fantasy. Though she seems to be changing that with Eternals for Marvel, the first movies, including Nomadland, are grounded in gritty reality. Nomadland is so real, it feels like a documentary at times. And it is by design. Jhao even chose real nomads to act in the movie and made them act as good as real actors. There is another reason Nomadland seems so real. It is based on a non-fiction book unlike most movies based on fiction books. The way Nomadland builds a script that marries the real aspects of things with imaginary aspects is the work of a skilled director. It reminded me of the skilled work of Arthur Penn, a pioneer in the American New Wave.
Nomadland belongs to Frances McDormand, who is the protagonist Fern. Fern is in her sixties and has lost her job in United States Gypsum. She chooses a van bound life working for Amazon’s camperforce. She is fiercely independent and proud of her nomadic life. It was McDormand who optioned the book, and described to Jhao what she wants Fern to be. As a result, Fern is in a way an extension of McDormand’s dreams of an alternate nomadic life. Fern seems to be perfectly at peace, is highly literate and self aware and faces all the difficulties of the nomadic life with the right attitude.
The movie stars some real nomads, including Linda May, Swankie and the iconic thought leader of the nomad movement, Bob Wells. Surprisingly, the amateur actors are very professional in their acting and the characters they play are really endearing. Swankie is especially very cool and stays with you.
The movie focuses on Fern’s character getting used to the nomad lifestyle, finding that the nomad lifestyle is not really homeless, it can be called “house-less”, nomads have their family, which is the extended family of global nomads. There is an angle of a special relationship Fern builds. She also builds several close relationships, like the one with Swankie.
There is a criticism that focuses on the fact that the movie focuses too much on the bliss of the nomadic life, ignoring some aspects like Amazon’s ill treatment of the camperforce workers. What these critics miss is that the objective of the movie is not to depict nomadic lifestyle transparently. The objective seems to be focused on building the character arc of Fern in the style of almost a coming-of-age movie. That’s why I say in the beginning that the movie belongs to McDormand, and she has done absolute justice to the focus on her. She is a brilliant actress, and she brings the character alive with focusing on all the subtleties of her character. The movie is worth a watch just for McDormand, and she completely deserves her third Oscar. I give the movie a rating of 4/5 and recommend a watch.
On the surface, The Midnight Library is a parallel world or time travel science fiction. It is in the tradition of One by Richard Bach. Even Groundhog Day and Bar Bar Dekho are in a similar format. In these movies, the protagonists keeps on traveling to different worlds through some screw up in the time vector.
At a deep level though, the book reminds me of the Leibniz theory that our existing world is the best world among all the possible worlds. Most of the movies above are in a similar vein(except possibly Groundhog Day that emphasizes one’s efforts to create the best world), and it is very easy to be lead to such a conclusion through the device of parallel worlds.
Nora, the protagonist, is not happy with her life. She is fired from her job, has a broken relationship – a relationship for which she sold her dream short, and considers herself a failure. Through some quirk of quantum mechanical gobbledygook that Haig thankfully leaves ambiguous, she enters a series of parallel worlds where she is living a different life – mostly one about which she has some regrets. There is a recurring cast of characters – her boyfriend Dan, her brother Joe, her friend Izzy and several other people.
Haig’s writing is very interesting. He leaves out most details, under-develops his characters and scenes, but builds a very compelling narrative. Though the book gets repetitive due to the nature of the story, you feel like continuing to read, since the story develops Nora’s self exploration – which is treated as a mystery. The language used is simple and it does help the narrative. He takes pauses when he feels some background is needed. I think it would help people who are reading a plot like this for the first time. His treatment of emotions is neither very shallow, nor very melodramatic. Most emotions are understated and are in the background.
The main plot is the way Nora’s character explores her own personality through her interactions with the world. “The only way to learn is to live” seems to be the underlying message. We do not understand the utility of our current situation unless we live alternate lives that we think maybe better. As everyone has experienced regrets, this is very relatable and proves to be the strongest point of the novel. The characters also break into dialogues that explain the situation and the dilemmas in a very obvious, very verbal way. As we travel this path with Nora, we discover her hidden assumptions about what could have been good in her life. The underlying message seems to be that “Everything happens for a reason.” You may find yourself going back to your own experiences and realizing the same insights that Nora found through her journey.
Where the book fails is to create enough excitement for the entire journey. Several of the arcs are repetitive and you may find yourself skipping some pages – and you do not miss much by that act. The characters are flat in many of the narratives and do not have enough depth for us to empathize with them. Some advice may sound banal and shallow. We have heard some of it(whatever happens to you happens for good) before in many places, some of it is plain optimistic and some would not stand the test of common sense.
But overall, it is a good book. The treatment is fresh and there are insights all over the book. It retains a consistent narrative that keeps you hooked to the book and at the end of it, you would not only know many things about Nora, but you would also know about your own fears, regrets and assumptions. I would rate it 3.5/5 and would recommend a read.
Moxie is a young adult, coming of age, anarchist, feminist romantic comedy. See the problem? Moxie is a well meaning and enjoyable flick that fails to live up to its potential because of the lack of its focus. The movie can not quite decide what it wants to be, though the clear thematic focus of the movie is feminist. Probably Amy Poehler wanted to create a brand of inclusive feminism that credits the good guys. It diffuses the core focus of the movie, which should have been the coming of age of a shy girl to become a full fledged feminist. On the other hand, this very warm and inclusive nature of the movie that is so endearing and makes it an interesting watch.
Vivian is a shy, 16 year old girl who believes in staying out of trouble by keeping her head down. Surprising. Because her mom, played by Amy herself, is someone who cared mainly about smashing the patriarchy when she was sixteen. Vivian is frustrated by the male dominated school culture that humiliates girl students by ranking them in categories like “Most Bangable”. Vivian finds some zines about feminism and a song that is going to change her life. It is the iconic “Rebel Girl” sung by the feminist punk group Bikini Kill. (Plug alert : The other famous feminist punk group was The Raincoats – Remember Nethra Srinivasan’s Chhatris from Brothers Sen Gogh?). Vivian is inspired enough to start the feminist zine Moxie in the school that is going to change the equation between the boys and the girls of the school.
So far so good. But we then have characters like Seth – who forms a love interest for Vivian, Claudia – who is Vivian’s best buddy, and John, Vivian’s mom’s love interest. We have Vivian’s self doubt and coming of age cliches that dominate the narrative. The shy girls are more powerful trope is also recurrent. None of these are overdone though. The main narrative is about Vivian finding her voice and in the process giving voice to all the girls in the school. It is this main narrative that is very inspiring, very real and watchable. The character of Seth is lovely and most other characters come across as real, though a little stereotypical. The depiction of the school culture is also a little melodramatic and the solutions are typical movie-like solutions. The relationship between Vivian and her mom could have been the driving point of the movie. They are good in some scenes, but lack the chemistry in others, making the influence of her mom a little doubtful.
All in all, it is a very good movie if your intention is to have clean and good entertainment for a couple of hours and be educated about the Riot Girrl movement. If you bother about cinematic art – a.k.a. Scorsese – this may not be the movie for you. Teens would love the movie. Feminists may not. I loved it because I love any movie that tries to capture the timeless magic of punk rock. I hope more girls become interested in Kathleen Hanna and her music, not only Bikini Kill, but Le Tigre and The Julie Ruin. If you are interested in Kathleen Hanna, please do watch “The Punk Singer”, a fabulous biopic about an Riot Girrl icon.
I give the movie 3/5 for the magical coming of age moments, the depiction of the magic of friendship, the chemistry between Seth and Vivian, the art of the zines and the overall “Keep you head high” tone of the movie. I am a sucker for coming of age movies, because they can marry ideology and narrative in a way that sounds convincing, and from that perspective Moxie does not disappoint. I also love the theme of using music to find your voice – a.k.a. “Blinded By Light” – and Moxie lives up to that theme as well.
If your interest in girl punk is aroused by this movie, do listen to The Raincoats, L7, The Julie Ruin, Sleater Kinney, X – the band, Blondie, Siouxsie and the Banshees and X-Ray Spex, besides the iconic Bikini Kill the movie mentions.
Manik Bal’s short story collection, “Her Revenge” is available now. With this diverse collection of short stories, Manik Bal continues to explore the, and the mundane in the bizarre.
