Sam
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!
The funny thing is that this whole book is so perfectly encapsulated in this Dostoevsky quote:
“To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's.”
However, I can't agree with that.
The book, from a literary perspective, is absolutely outstanding. The writing is so crisp and clear. In other books, I often skip some passages that just lose my interest (cough, Dune, cough), but I felt engaged at all times while reading The Remains of the Day. The character development is just as phenomenal as Dostoevsky's. Emotional, moving, etc. etc. To put icing on the cake, the historical background related in the book made the amateur World War II historian in me exceedingly happy.
The only issue I have with this book is, well, its core message, as so perfectly summarized by Dostoevsky a century before it was written. Of course, if you see no issue at all with the quote, then by all means this is a must-read. Nonetheless, to me, the quote is nothing short of a fraud, however much I may profess my profound admiration for Dostoevsky. For there is no such thing as “one's own way.” “Your way” is already determined by your upbringing, by your nature. You are a deterministic function of your environment. As far as Stevens knew, all the way until that last evening in the end of the book, he was following his own way. He could never have known better. Still, I am glad he recognized that it's no good wallowing in melancholy for supposedly “failing to follow one's own way.”
Even though I rate it four stars out of philosophical disagreements, I can heartily recommend this book to anyone, whether you have such disagreements or not. As a final note, I imagine that the book is far more touching to those older than I am (having read The Remains of the Day at age 21). I will certainly be re-reading this book at least every decade of my life.
Extraordinarily fascinating, informative, and engaging. MacMillan puts readers into the hearts of each issue that was “resolved” in Paris. These weren't men spinning an evil plan for world domination; they were simply doing the best they could under so many contradictory influences. Diplomatic history especially can be dry, but MacMillan does a brilliant job of bringing it all to life.
Les Miserables is a fascinating story. Each character is very unique, and all of their experiences are delights to follow. With many historical flashbacks to Napoleon, in addition to the evident influences of French politics at the time, this book is a quintessential historical novel that history fans and novel lovers will love.
Like War and Peace, Hugo incorporates personal stories in a wider conflict. Nonetheless, these personal stories are much better written and received than Tolstoy's, in my opinion.
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.
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?
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.
Forgotten Ally is a brilliant introduction to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Mitter confers some truly invaluable insights into the great figures of the time (one of my favorites: Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao Zedong, and Wang Jingwei, for all their differences, all had one goal in mind: an autonomous, unified, nationalist China). And besides just the “Greats,” many biographies of an “average citizen” are told, whether that's a middle class Chinese Christian who nearly loses her family in their chaotic flight from the Japanese invaders, an American missionary remaining under Japanese occupation in Shandong, or even a Henan family who gives their last bit of grain to the tax collectors during a famine, then jumping to their deaths moments later. I cannot help but feel that this book does an excellent job capturing the experiences of the period.
In addition to these precious stories of individual families, Mitter relates countless insightful judgments about the contested questions of the period. No, Chiang was not simply a horribly incompetent and corrupt military autocrat. No, Mao and the Communists didn't just sit back and let the Japanese grind the Nationalists to powder. No, Wang wasn't just a collaborationist traitor. Mitter explores the nuanced situations each of these figures found himself in.
The human tragedies are also examined in satisfying detail. The Nanjing Massacre (and the state of the city under Japanese occupation), the bombing of Chongqing, the destruction of the Yellow River dam, and the Henan famine. I greatly appreciate how much Mitter covers these events, and he discusses them in a very balanced and smooth fashion.
It is useful to note that this is not a book solely about the military campaigns between the Chinese and Japanese. The campaigns are referenced and detailed frequently, to be sure, but only as long as they can bring value to understanding the period and the human experiences as a whole. This is not to say the book felt lacking. The book feels comprehensive, engaging, and well-written.
I can wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about China. I found this book through Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, and reading it has deepened my understanding of the period greatly, while keeping my attention at every page. 5/5.
Even though it's 60 years old, this book was a wonderful introduction to the end of the long 19th century. Instead of merely recounting what happened, Tuchman tries to capture the spirit of the times, and she does this very well. Still, I found a significant amount of the book wanting. Reading through a mini-biography of Strauss was extremely boring. Additionally, I was especially disappointed to find that any discussion of Russia was just not present. This book focuses exclusively on Britain, France, Germany, and America.
What redeemed the book in my eyes was the ending. The last chapter about the socialists was extremely moving, and Tuchman captured the times very well. All the hopes and dreams, forgotten overnight on account of petty nationalism.
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.
Extraordinarily boring and unoriginal. What kind of love letter is this? This book is unreal, and not in a good way. Woolf manages to communicate basic happenings in the most verbose manner possible. The prose can be said to be “flowery,” but again, not in a good way.
What a remarkable parable. It's so impressive that Dostoevsky, a devout Orthodox Christian himself, is able to so effectively portray the critical opinion of a hyper-analytical atheist through the character of Ivan Karamazov.
The story concerns one question: the divergence between Christ and the Church. Whereas Christ desired a religion of freedom and love, the Church recognized that these are not enough for the desires of the human soul. And so, the Church imbued Christianity with miracle, mystery, and authority, which are what man truly desires. The Church, through the character of the Grand Inquisitor, argued that man cannot live without these. Man does not want God; man wishes for miracles.
Regardless of one's religious beliefs, this is a deeply thought-provoking tale that makes one question the evolution of beliefs and culture. It makes one wonder if the needs of one's own soul are fulfilled.
“Five stars? You must be a filthy Leninist!”
And you must be short-sighted. It's important to read things you disagree with. Challenge what you currently believe, so that you can make your beliefs even more grounded, insightful, and consistent. This book does a great job of that.
Lenin is a fantastic writer. He explains very abstract concepts in terms that anyone with a decent education can clearly understand. His constant references to history remind the reader that his beliefs are not Utopian; rather, “socialism will emerge from the womb of capitalism,” as he says himself.
That isn't to say that Lenin is without faults. This was a man of extraordinary insight and analysis, but he used his talents only to defend Marxism. You can tell that, to Lenin, if Marx/Engels didn't say it, it was wrong. Lenin is a communist not because he believes he will bring greater justice to the world, but because he thinks himself a catalyst of the historically inevitable transformation from capitalism to socialism, as prescribed by Marx. This exceptional fervor (and dogma) incline me to think that Lenin would have made for an excellent missionary in another century.
The amount one learns from this book is absolutely incredible. The state as a tool for oppression of other classes by the ruling class, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the withering away of the state, the lower and higher stages of communism, the faults of reformism. Lenin is a concise writer; he covers a lot in just 100 pages. I highly recommend annotating as you read.
A very enjoyable reflection exercise is to analyze what Marxism got wrong. Here in America, I think it's because the bourgeoisie has become the majority. Lenin argued that democracies under capitalism are tools for the bourgeoisie to dominate the proletariat class. In his view, the state is for the domination of the majority by the ruling minority. But nowadays in America, we have a democratic republic that can be said to serve the bourgeoisie (as Lenin himself posits). However, the bourgeoisie has become the majority. There is no “inevitable next stage” to socialism here in America; that would be a transfer of power from the majority to the minority. Well, anyways, as you can see, you can still disagree strongly with Lenin and enjoy this book regardless!
What a whirlwind of emotions. Anxiety, terror, comfort, and compassion. So many themes explored: how we can never really truly understand anyone, even though it's perhaps the greatest desire of any human; how memories are so cherished yet so frightening; how there's so much danger hiding in the darkness. I enjoyed reading this book so much, but God did it mess with my emotions. That's just what any good work of art does though, isn't it?
mild spoiler Many people complain about a lack of an ending. In my opinion, that's Murakami saying “the ending of the story doesn't matter. Consider what has happened and reflect.” Journey before destination!
Another fantastic Murakami book! I rated it only 4 stars because of how crude the book can be at times. There is a lot of explicit content in Dance Dance Dance, which I did not appreciate at all. Still, I suppose it had its place in the book. I would still highly recommend it!
Well, it's Dostoevsky's take on a love story. This was published before his four years of hard labor in Siberia, so it's much less anguishing than his later stories.
I sincerely respect the protagonist of White Nights. I see a lot of other reviews empathizing with him, which I definitely feel as well. Still, I feel a sort of distant respect for him, knowing that I couldn't do as he did. This “dreamer,” as he describes himself, has his dreams crushed and manages not to crumble under the rubble of those dreams. And it isn't out of cynicism or disdain that he carries on so admirably; rather, it's from valuing the joy he gained from those dreams, even if they might now be crushed. Sure, he feels dejected at the end, but he can cherish the temporary joy he had. As someone who has trouble valuing all things temporary and ephemeral, Dostoevsky's dreamer is the most remarkable protagonist I've read in a while.
“The darker the night, the brighter the stars.”
This Dostoevsky quote captures what makes Memories of Ice so captivating. In this terrible, brutal world, the few acts of compassion are all the more touching.
It is in contrasts like these that Erikson shines.
On that note, one of his greatest strengths is his ability to subvert expectations. At every junction in the story, Erikson took the path I did not expect him to. In fact, he created paths that I had not even seen. For instance, Erikson delves into all the armies that would surely inevitably clash. Only, in the final battle, not all of the armies are there, and the present ones do not do what you'd expect. This is a brilliant display of Erikson's skill: he shows the reader, “I know how you expect the story to play out, but I'm not taking that path. Instead, check this out.” And he delivers, time and time again.
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.
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!
Some of the “praise” on the back of this book mentions how it's a Hollywood blockbuster in book form. I'm sure that's appealing to a wide audience, but it's just not for someone like me.
The writing tactic that Corey uses most often is unrelenting escalation. Whenever one situation gets resolved, some news comes in, and the crew has to deal with a new crisis. This is probably why it can be considered a Hollywood blockbuster.
The tactic is utterly overused. By the end, I was so sick of this “disaster-after-disaster” style of narrative. I half-expected Venus to awaken as some big space monster and... I was disappointingly close.
Characters? Funny. Ending of the plot? Somewhat heartwarming. Everything else? So very lacking. Go see a Hollywood blockbuster if you want one.
Platt is a phenomenal writer of histories. Both Imperial Twilight and Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom are such fascinating and gripping tales. The only regret I have reading this book is the lack of more English scholarship on the material. Platt's work is ultimately introductory, and I would love to learn more about the time period. In any case, I am now a feverish partisan of Platt's, and I look forward to his future works.
As for the book itself, I can't express my admiration enough. Histories can be dry, but Platt always keeps things interesting by selecting key figures and regularly following their actions. It feels as though you're reading a dozen biographies, in a good way. All the joy, all the anxiety, the horror and exaltation that these people faced.
What enthralls me about the late Qing period is the clash of tradition and modernity. Learning about this period demonstrates how states, after the Industrial Revolution, evolved into polities whose primary purpose was the advance their economies. The contrast in characters, between Zeng Guofan and Hong Rengan in particular, demonstrates how truly capable individuals can react so differently to the tense circumstances of the late Qing. There's so much to learn from this time period, and I recommend this book without reservation.
Alright, I'm a huge Dostoevsky fan. I have a sticker of the guy on the back of my phone. Crime and Punishment is my second favorite book. But The Idiot is just boring. I love Dostoevsky for his psychologically hard-pressed characters. His characters have more emotional depth than most real humans. But The Idiot is just a disappointment. Who's Nastasya going to marry? Who's it going to be!?!? It all feels so artificial and absurd. Maybe that's why I disliked the book; I came into it expecting Dostoevsky-esque realism, but I got proto-postmodern-existentialism, with all these characters making totally inane decisions. SKIP!
Very interesting ideas, but the evidence cited is literally just dreams. And rather than using just a few well-chosen dreams, half this book is the retelling of dreams.
The arguments are inconsistent too. Jung and his colleagues criticize Freud for having a kind of “symbol dictionary,” as in “if a lion appears in your dream, it means this and that.” The Jungians emphasize that dream/symbol interpretation is highly individual. And yet, there are apparently symbols provided by the “collective unconscious.” “A stone often represents the self in dreams.” ???
To reiterate: Jung's ideas are fascinating and entirely deserving of familiarization. But this book does a terrible job of selling/explaining them.
The Master and Margarita is an exceptional creative work. Bulgakov's imagination is second to none. Still, I rated this based on how much I enjoyed it. I had to force myself to finish this book. I was totally apathetic to all the characters. This book simply isn't for everyone. If you prefer well-developed characters who are psychologically hard-pressed (like Dostoevsky's or Murakami's), then Bulgakov will disappoint.