Daniela Mendez Mendez itibaren Wilaya de Skikda
(3.5 stars) I liked this book. I appreciate an author attempting to do something a little different with a narrative, so I liked the set up, although I did at times feel Pessl was trying too hard, flexing her literary ingenuity at the expense of her story. Sometimes, even the best little phrases, sentences, bits of dialogue should be left on the cutting room floor, so to speak. I don't think the story was too long, but damn if she didn't use up a whole lot of words while she was telling it. ;) I got over it about 3/5 of the way into the book, though, because the story spiraled off into an unexpected direction and really took off for me. (Though I bet that's probably the same place other readers said, "Oh, gimme a break," and stopped reading!)
Okay here's the deal. This book is a tremendous concept and it's executed well. Though, i believe this is one of the few examples of a book whose movies surpasses the literature. The movie is ASTOUNDING! so i hate to say it, but i discredit the book for being too prosy and long-winded and not as concise as the movie. It does offer some flowery butterflies: a failed marriage is the most humiliating confirmation of the transitory seduction of the flesh. Lovers can explore every line, every curve and hollow, of the beloved's body, can together reach the height of inexpressible ecstasy; yet how little it matters when love or lust at last dies and we are left with disputed possessions, lawyers' bills, the sad detritus of the lumber-room, when the house chosen, furnished, possessed with enthusiasm and hope has become a prison, when faces are set in lines of peevish resentment and bodies no longer desired are observed in all their imperfections with a dispassionate and disenchanted eye. See! It's great, but it's so lofty. I appreciate the quick glance of this statement which can only be upheld with film or with the most careful of writings, executed to precision. It happens in other fictions, but James likes to pontificate. Still, the concept is amazing. And the added elements the book provides, such as a visible enemy and extended dialogues on the topical concepts for the atrocious time could be considered positive or detracting; they are interesting though, either way: Julian asked 'What do you mean by sound government?' 'Good public order, no corruption in high places, freedom from fear of war and crime, a reasonably equitable distribution of wealth and resources, concern for individual life.' Luke said: 'Then we haven't got sound government.' 'We may have the best that is possible in the circumstances. There was wide public support for setting up the Man Penal Colony. No government can act in advance of the moral will of the people.' Julian said: 'Then we have to change the moral will. We have to change people.' Theo laughed. 'Oh, that's the kind of rebellion you have in mind? Not the system but human hearts and minds. You're the most dangerous revolutionaries of all, or would be if you had the slightest idea how to begin, the slightest chance of succeeding.' The most interesting parts of the novel are the parts that are only hinted at in the movie: the popular exodus towards extreme forms of Christianity, the mass suicides constructed in coordination by the government, a system set up to marginalize and condemn immigrants who come into the country, a worshipped status for the last-born (called Omegas) before infertility set upon mankind, and finally the overbearing necessity for fascist power in order to quell the establishment of chaotic authority. The movie hints at all this, in the background. The book puts it flat on the table, demands you debate with the characters. I'm not saying the book is bad, it's just more roundabout and fleshy. I like the subtlety better, the hidden musings and quiet jokes. I feel these are more effective, more unsettling. Nonetheless, it is a brilliant and sad, sad testament to what breaks a man and what breaks mankind.
it was ok, not really that hard of a mystery to figure out