Sam
What an excellent conclusion to the series! Second Foundation was a brilliant keystone in the series, tying it together in a truly unforgettable way. When I read books, I frequently find myself thinking, “Ok, that's plausible, but it could have been equally plausible if this happened.” Second Foundation removes all of these doubts and presents a masterpiece of a plot. Read it if you enjoyed the first two books of the series!
I would characterize Foundation not as science fiction, but as a political novel with sci-fi characteristics. Soft science fiction, if you will. This does not detract from the book's quality, though. Especially when consider its publication date, Foundation is profoundly creative and riveting. It is a brilliant fusion among genres. The story is nearly always engaging and unpredictable (in a good way). I will admit that the characters are a little one-dimensional, but they sure aren't boring. Asimov's language and style is also wonderful.
To address some of the concerns other reviews have brought up: the lack of any female characters is always apparently. I was quite shocked to find that, in fact, Asimov described himself as a feminist well before the women's right movements of the 1960s. I should hope that later publications in the Foundation series would reflect this belief. Another concern: the lack of more sci-fi elements. I addressed this in my opening statement.
Reading the other reviews makes me rather disappointed. Making sweeping, eye-catching statements of absolute praise (which I won't mention specifically) is just absurd. Calling it basic and boring is an equally invalid oversimplification. This book isn't a hyperbole in any way. It's simply a good book, one important to the history of the genre of science fiction.
A part of the plot that I appreciated greatly: I would guess that Asimov's original inspiration for the Galactic Empire falling and the Foundation attempting to preserve and expand upon its contributions would be the fall of the Roman Empire. I'm just speculating here, but it is quite amusing to me. The Foundation might be the Papal State. Just a thought!
Many (including the author of the introduction of my edition) claim that One Day shows how dehumanizing the gulags were. This is not a constructive argument. Gulags were made by humans. Humans were sent to gulags by humans. You went into a gulag as a human, and, if you lived through it, you came out as a human.
One Day is simultaneously a lament about humanity as well as an ode to humanity. Readers ask, “how could humans do this? how is any of this human?” when the fact of the matter is that this is what humans do. Humans are cruel. Humans have done terrible things. Many humans reject the idea that our shared humanity is a basis for kindness and mutual goodwill. Still, even in the most “dehumanizing” of environments, we still realize that Ivan Denisovich is human. 8 years in the gulags, and he still hopes for freedom. He still takes pride in his work. He still looks out for his fellow man. One Day is a reflection of the brave human spirit.
One Day isn't a book about being a prisoner in a gulag. It isn't a book about living in the Soviet Union. It's about humanity, and about each one of us.
Life and Fate? What a pretentious title. How can any one book cover such grandiose concepts?
I assure you, though, that Grossman's book lives up to the title with flying colors. I read literature to answer the question: “What does it mean to be human?” Literature provides readers with new experiences, from which readers can understand this question a little more. Life and Fate answers this question better than Dostoevsky, Turgenev, and, most importantly, Tolstoy, without a doubt. Sure, Grossman is grim, and Life and Fate can really weigh on readers. But it truly is better than the classic, great Russian novels. It captures the spirits of the times very well. From the gulags of Siberia to the ruins of Stalingrad, it's life in a book.
Still, I cannot recommend this book to everyone. You need a basic understanding of the early Soviet Union to be able to really understand things. Just to list a bunch of historical happenings that came up in chronological order: the Russian Revolutions (of course); the Russian Civil War and the Whites; New Economic Policy under Lenin; Lenin's death and his Testament against Stalin; collectivization, dekulakization, and the famine of 1929; the industrialization of the 1930s; the Great Purge of 1937; and finally, a simple understanding of the course of World War II. If that wasn't already enough, you should know the names of Yezhov, Beria, Malenkov, Himmler, Paulus, Zhukov, and Chuykov. This book is for a specific audience, and I can say for certain that Life and Fate cannot find popularity in a general audience. I'd say this book is more for those interested in history rather than those interested in literature generally.
Another excellent work by Dostoevsky. One reason I am a huge fan of Dostoevsky is because of how well he puts readers into the minds of his characters. We in turn are able to learn a lot about life from the characters' perspectives. For example, what goes through the head of a chronic gambler? How are they able to spend the last bit of money they have on gambling? What urges them on to keep gambling? Through The Gambler, the reader can get very clear answers to these questions.
Compared to other works of Dostoevsky, The Gambler is a much easier read. The plot is often incredibly riveting. The characters feel very real. The language isn't as dense as Dostoevsky's other works. Still, something prevented me from giving the book 5 stars. Highly recommend nonetheless!
Dostoevsky himself called this book a failure, and he was right. Compared with his other books, this one just lacks a sort of Dostoevsky soul. The language is evidently his, but the plot is not very Dostoevsky-esque. At times, it's hard to understand what is even going on, and when you do understand what is occurring, you don't necessarily know why that is occurring. In any case, I would recommend skipping this one.
Fathers and Sons has all the characteristics of a great novel. It is moving; the characters are well-developed; there are climactic highs and lows; it is well-written; it was historically situated well; etc. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly just “not for” some people. I am a huge fan of Dostoevsky; I enjoy his novels because of how he examines misery, struggle, destitution, faith, and redemption. Certainly, there is some of that in Fathers and Sons, but it still feels quite lacking. Furthermore, I never felt as deeply connected to any of the characters (barring the parents of Bazarov) as I do with Dostoevsky's. Fathers and Sons is a spectacular book, and I would recommend it, for either you will enjoy Turgenev or you will realize what you like about another author more.
Notes from a Dead House is Dostoevsky's account of his time in a Siberian prison camp. It is an absolutely remarkable tale, from its rich character development to its insights into prison life. The stories of the prisoners can be saddening, inspiring, or anywhere in between.
This was my favorite quote from the book:
I must say it all: these people are extraordinary people. They are perhaps the most gifted, the strongest of all our people. But their mighty strength perishes for nothing, perishes abnormally, unlawfully, irretrievably. And who is to blame?
That's just it: who is to blame?
Norwegian Wood was the book that made Murakami popular among non-Japanese audiences. But after reading it, I just don't understand why. Sure, the book has its moments of splendid Murakami wisdom. His typical themes of alienation and existentialism are there. However, the plot was incredibly disappointing. It is a very crude love story, no more, no less. To more morally conservative people, Norwegian Wood is very difficult to get through, to say the least.
I found myself missing Murakami's magical realism. Proponents of this work argue that this was a challenging book for Murakami to write, given that he usually doesn't write like this. I suppose he achieved his goal, mixing his usual themes with the genre of romance, but, to me, it detracted from what he does best. All in all, if I could go back and tell myself to skip Norwegian Wood, I would. Not recommended.
If you're a fan of Elder Scrolls lore, The Infernal City and its sequel Lord of Souls are great reads! There are some noticeable typographical errors, but the story itself and the lore are great. It's awesome to be able use your knowledge of where Lilmoth and Rimmen, for example, are in Tamriel. The characters are entertaining and well-developed, too.
However, my caveat is that this lore has been barely engaged by Bethesda at all. There is exactly 1 reference to these novels in TES:V Skyrim, and it easily goes unnoticed. I would love to see similar novels released to cover the time gap between Skyrim and the next Elder Scrolls game, and it would be even more awesome to see Bethesda actually shape the world in TES:VI according to these novels.
Peerless. The Brothers Karamazov is simply the book.
“Without God, all things are permitted.” I believe this is the primary theme of the novel. Each of us has a devil within, just like Ivan. Whereas Alyosha and even Dmitri may find themselves defended by God, Ivan has forsworn such protection, and Dostoevsky had him suffer the consequences. A man of enlightened education and unmatched intellect, Ivan nonetheless succumbed to the moral bankruptcy that is inevitable in a refutation of God.
I think Ivan is the character with whom modern readers empathize most. Especially among readers of Dostoevsky, we've all faced the same questions that Ivan did: What is true? Who is true? How can anything be true? So, how come we ourselves are not driven to the same madness?
Delusion. Unlike us, Ivan refused to delude himself. His doubt fed on itself, and the devil within him bloomed. Ironically, Ivan is perhaps the monk Zosima's most ardent adherent, for Ivan did as Zosima preached: “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
We, meanwhile, are content to lie to ourselves. We accept some things as true and others as right. Not because they are, but because we want them to be–we wish they were. It is quite literally a projection of our desires on a void reality, only to maintain our sanity.
The doubt and anguish faced by the brothers shake the foundations of the reader's worldview. But if the edifice remains, one might become somewhat certain.
P.S. The idea that delusion is the bedrock of sanity is well-established in existentialist writings. But what is incredible about The Brothers Karamazov is that Dostoevsky wrote before all of them. One can derive so many existentialist concepts solely from an analysis of this book. Yet another reason why it is so groundbreaking.
This is the third book in Murakami's “The Rat” series, and it's noticeably longer and more developed than the previous two. And, what would you know, the book is a wild sheep chase! This is a very enjoyable and satisfying read that will make you become a Murakami fan. He has such an interesting mind that can come up with such outlandish yet incredible stories.
Haruki Murakami's first book doesn't disappoint one bit. He has always been an incredibly talented writer. His stories are engaging and provoke deep thought. The major themes throughout all of his works are alienation, loneliness, isolation, and existentialism, all of which, for some reason, seem very relevant to the modern day.
Specifically regarding Hear the Wind Sing, the book is an enjoyable, thought-provoking, and quick read. The plot may be difficult to follow at times, but Murakami's language makes up for that (by far!). I absolutely love Dostoevsky, but Murakami comes very close to matching him (it happens that Murakami also looks up to Dostoevsky).
One more note: Murakami is very fluent in English (he translated books like Catcher in the Rye into Japanese in his younger years), and he has had a very significant part in the translation of all of his works. Accordingly, you can expect the language of his stories to be incredibly vivid and engaging.
I actually read this book first in “The Rat” series, but it didn't throw me off much at all. Murakami's stories are very ephemeral. Chapters (and even whole books in this series!) can sometimes be misordered when read, but all will be fine! In fact, it made reading [i]Pinball[/i] a very interesting experience!
Anyways, I'm a huge Murakami fan, and I have yet to be disappointed. Great book!
War and Peace is a glorified romance. At times, the book presents itself as a historical drama, but Tolstoy's frequent philosophical asides and all the love stories detract from that significantly. There are many excellent historical novels that do much more justice to the genre than War and Peace. Particularly, I think Les Miserables was much better in this aspect.
For me at least, I finished this book only because I started reading it, and I don't like leaving books halfway read. It was quite a bore to read. Some characters are fascinating (I particularly liked Prince Andrei), but this doesn't make up for the lackluster plot.
I regard this book as perhaps the greatest of all time. The characters are incredibly richly developed (to an extent that most real humans cannot hope to match the depth of Raskolnikov, Raz, Sonya, and Porfiry). The story is engaging and a thrill to follow. If anyone asked me, what book would you recommend? I'd recommend Crime and Punishment, no matter who asks. It is a must-read!
Although lengthy, Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World is an excellent title for this work. Expect ‘hard-boiled' detective work, ‘wonderland'-like occurrences, and something strange to do with ‘the end of the world.'
This was the book that got me into Murakami. He never disappoints. He is incredibly creative in all of his stories, and this is no exception. The plot can get a bit slow at times, but stick with this book; it's worth it. Murakami is such a fantastic author!
It's Sherlock Holmes! Each tale is new and enjoyable. It is always fun to put yourself in Sherlock's shoes and try to solve the mystery (of course, Doyle omits many details that are needed, but you can always make entertaining guesses!). Another fun read.
Boring. Having read the five main Foundation books, this one just seems unoriginal. Maybe that's to be expected? Still, everything feels so bland and colorless. The technology isn't particularly exciting or bold. Hari Seldon is unconvincing as a protagonist. I really don't get why this is rated so highly...
