Flawed, but excellent writing
932368
This was really well written.  The narrative draws you in.  If you have not read the book yet and intend to, do not read this review.

It is very evocative of a time... the 1950's looking back at the three decades beforehand... and gives you a feeling of what it must have been like to be in a convent,  on mission, or work in a hospital during that time...  The inner struggle of Sr. Luke is well done.  Certain incidents seemed quite realistic..  Ditto what all the other reviewers said.  Because someone brought up the issue of colonial racism in the book, I would argue that yes, it's there all right, but as another reviewer has said, it's true to the perspective of what a white Belgian or perhaps a white American or English person would have thought during that time period..  Because a book has this perspective, does this invalidate it as not being worth reading? That's for the reader to decide.

One of the things I did not like was the way the book ended..  Not to give a spoiler, but I found it extremely unsatisfactory and really not in keeping with the rest of the book.  I realize that this book is based on the life of an actual person who ended up doing what Sr. Luke did, but in terms of the novel, Sr. Luke's struggles and character development, it did not seem consistent with what came earlier.

It did seem quite believable that she would make this decision DURING THE WAR, a time of incredible stress.  BUT I did not see why she did not ask for a temporary leave of absence to discern things,  It seems that the strain of being in that place at that time basically distorted reality for her.. she basically imploded in on herself in a way that was tragic in light of all that came before...  Her decision seemed impulsive based totally on self will.  Also, given the time period and the excellent formation she received, it is especially sad that she would really want to give up her vows.  There  did not seem sufficient motivation for it.  It is TRAGIC that she left and TRAGIC that she could not have dealt with this crisis in a better way.

As a side note,her prayer life at one point (towards the end of the book) became arid, and she takes it as sign that she should leave religious life.  A good counterpoint to the nun in this novel is Mother Teresa's private writings, Come be My light, where spiritual aridity added rather than detracted to her striving for holiness.  The ending of the novel makes the reader think that maybe Sr. Luke all along was trying to please herself rather than God; but that message is not in keeping with the rest of the book..  and even though the author is dead now, this was a work of fiction, not a biography, and I am not sure why she did not choose to fictionalize the end, i.e., have her stay... as it would have made for a better story.

Finally, the ending was prophetic and especially tragic in light of what was to come in the next 20 years, the mass exodus of nuns from religious life in droves for perhaps reasons similar to Sr. Luke's.  The author could not have known this in 1956.
4798764
Author Robert Conroy gets the history part pretty OK, but the writing part leaves much to be desired.

Alternative history; I am learning to like it. I greatly enjoyed the trilogy starting with "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War" by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen, and John Birmingham's trilogy starting with "Weapons of Choice (The Axis of Time Trilogy)." I also enjoy real history; I almost chose teaching of it as a career. And I really appreciate good writing in which characters are devised and illuminated, scenes are described and set, and interesting stories are told with language that is lush and evocative (see Laurie R. King).

Conroy's two premises are specious: that Great Britain (GB), in the person of Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, takes the opposite action to what they actually took in the Mason and Slidell "affair." These two representatives of GB were taken by Union blockage forces producing a diplomatic affront to GB. Their reaction? To jump into America's Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Why? To put the American colonies back in their economic place.

The second specious premise, that GB's decision would lead the Union to react by invading Canada instead of pursuing the demise of the Confederacy, conflicts with President Lincoln's consistent aim of restoring the Union. But, I guess that's why they call it alternate history.

My problem with this book isn't the flawed premises; it's the absence of interesting and  well-developed characters. The only two I found were minor. The government employee (spy Alan Pinkerton) who was driven to persecute anyone he perceived as not fully supportive of the Union government (or a threat to him), and the runaway slave Hannibal Watson who sought what we all: want freedom, and his family.

The major characters, Nathan Hunter (who flits from scene and around whom the story is supposed to have been built), his love interest Rebecca, and General Winfield Scott seem placed on the pages because Author Conroy needed to execute his alternative premise. Scott is always right, Nathan is always right there where things happen, and Rebecca is pliant. There is no controversy or discovery among any of these. They are like cars and engines in a Lionel train set - they go round and round but never change and grow.

I rated this a two-star book because I enjoy Civil War history, and that's why I finished it. But if one reads the cover, and understands the premise, that's about all one will get out of "1862; A Novel."
4313513
Unlike other reviewers, I loved the descriptive prose.  I especially enjoyed how she wove the concept of power and what it does to people into her narrative.  It's incredibly thought provoking and true.  I loved the anger that the characters display toward the war - it's easy to forget how bad it looked for the allies for so long.  It helps you imagine what it might have been like to live during that time.

I absolutely enjoyed every aspect of the story (including the bantering, and even the less likable characters) until page 231 when we learn that the children in the castle are ghosts, whom Cecily and May basically free from the castle by saying "You can leave now."  It's terribly unsatisfying and lacks the sort of lessons one might learn from the discussion of power throughout the entire book.

I wanted a much different resolution to the story of Snow Castle that wasn't so random.  The entire story arc was amazing - even Jeremy's disappearance and his own resolution to his feelings was well done, but the book is called "The Children of the King" so not resolving this aspect of the story well is just disappointing.  You also never find out what Cecily's father and uncle actually do, which is alluded to throughout the entire book, and I also found that unsatisfying.

Otherwise, the writing and character development was amazing and the literature fantastic.  The story arc not so much.
227819
This is a fascinating book, rich with numerous contradictions, deeply flawed, written to persuade in a polished style, and ultimately compelling and shallow at the same time.  Peter Carey, the Australian novelist, wrote, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime," and Giridharadas breathes life into this axiom convincingly.  Many of the people he identifies in the elite, liberal, globalist movement are well known, and a few I've met personally.  What he describes as their sense of moral superiority is utterly correct.  When a wealthy hedge fund founder whom I know flies to India with millions to give from her non-taxable family foundation, it absolutely is a heady mix of criminality and odd benevolence.  But what's missing in Giridharadas's analysis is, ironically, the criticisms he notes to be missing in  these benevolent lords and ladies of private equity.  Namely, he doesn't identify precisely the class consciousness and the internalized, intrapsychic convictions that are the motors behind their actions.  Further, no class, as he knows, acts against its own economic interests.  So why should or when will the private equity lords and ladies?  Tisch, quoted in the book, said it best in answer to his question about what, "could inspire them to pursue a fairer system.  She said, "Revolution, maybe."  Until forces outside of their class act to strip them of their privilege, nothing much will change (or maybe it will), as he acknowledges.  But that change is unlikely to come from the class itself, and why should it?  The other huge and obvious white elephant in the room that Giridharadas alludes to, but doesn't explore much at all is the goal of private equity: To transfer public sector capital into private capital.  He implies this, he skirts arounds it, he knows it, but it would merit a much better book.  Insofar as that transfer is not ideological, and the capital working around the clock to make it happen is agnostic politically, I would wager that it is the far, far greater threat to democracy than the smug and "benign" globalists who collude with the system in place.  He writes about the benign globalists because he was or, forgive me, is still one.  He is well meaning, and I mean that with full irony.  In a general way, the book also applies very poorly reasoned, well written arguments to establish inaccurate points.  For example, on page 178, he writes that Purdue pushed OxyContin, "on general practitioners, who tended to have the disadvantage (or advantage, depending on your viewpoint) of less training than specialists such as orthopedic surgeons in treating serious pain and in detecting signs of painkiller abuse by patients."  I'm sorry to say it, but that's simply untrue.  Neither had much training in pain management until about five years ago, and primary care doctors are actually the ones who evaluate routinely both abuse and pain.  It's a minor point, but, unfortunately, typical of the way Giridharadas builds his points: Through faulty analysis, and style that is deeply impressive, and well meaning intentions, but like the elites whom he disparages, without structural criticisms.  With respect to medicine, for example, the roles of profit and reimbursement schedules would have gone a lot further in actually proving his point.  Overall, the book is honestly a fine contribution to an understanding of why private equity is controlling the debate and eroding democracy, but as a work of depth and analysis , it falls far short of books by Piketty, whom the author at the end recognizes as an inspiration.  It reminds me a bit of Cockburn's columns in the WSJ: He was the entertainment, and not a threat to the forces he criticized.  Similarly, this book is likely to entertain private equity folks; it's not in the least threatening nor substantive.  That's a shame because the author clearly and very ironically held back: Acting the same as those he criticizes for holding back and colluding actively with the forces of destruction that are a synecdoche of private capital.
3484455
Very interesting, well written, and somewhat disturbing.
There were supposed to be 4 stars
3421892
The writing is terrific in so many ways. Funny, inventive, likable characters. Cabbies and ragamuffin hustlers as heroes along with Chief Inspector Jury and his numerous pals. I enjoyed the book in the beginning as the plot is unwinding and pieces falling into place. Later as the mystery starts concluding, it was not as interesting and seemed to get bogged down, to suspects and motives, which did not make much sense to me. I enjoyed the ride until then very much. The characters are a little formulaic. Most of the men are handsome, most of the women are beautiful, the kids and the cabbies are cute, but it worked for me, for most of the book. It was very close, a little more tightness, editing and it would be a masterwork. I thought the villains need a little fleshing out, but still very good
987220
Angela Carter is a terrific writer with a Brobdingnagian vocabulary and extravagantly rich style of writing. She shifts points of view, invokes a number of post-modern feints, and mixes fairy tales and actual history for her own purposes. It starts with great promise but can't maintain the high-wire act. "Nights at the Circus" is broken into three equal parts:

-- London. This realistic section of the novel introduces the two major characters: Fevvers and Walser. Even in this section time is slippery and some stories about Fevvers don't make sense, but it all seems like a terrific set-up for a fabulous (literally, "fabulous") story.

-- (St.) Petersburg. This is a lengthy description of Colonel Kearney's circus and its performers. Walser joins the troupe and eventually sheds his life as a journalist eventually to become a clown. This section contains a fascinating discussion of clown theory that I'll remember and think about every time I see a clown.

-- Siberia. This section is the least realistic. Events become magical and then outrageous with an impossible collection of coincidences and wild back-stories for the new characters. Carter tries, and almost succeeds, in tying up all the loose ends in the final pages, but it's too late. The novel has swung too far out of control.

The characters are all over-sized and truly carnivalesque:

+ Fevvers The big, beautiful aerialist (half blonde bombshell, half angel, half bird) who kicks the story off, shifts to the shadows in the middle section, and almost disappears before she tries to tie it all together at the very end.

+ Walser The US journalist who interviews Fevvers, and then joins the circus to get the truth.

+ Lizzie Fevvers' adoptive mother and support system, who always knows what to do, sometimes perhaps supernaturally.

+ Madame Schreck The owner of the freakish whorehouse who originally employs Fevvers.

+ Christian Rosencreutz The religious maniac who buys Fevvers from Schreck and from whom Fevvers must escape to save her life.

+ Colonel Kearney The outlandish owner of the circus that employs Fevvers and leads the circus to its final resting place.

+ Sybil Kearney's absurdly intelligent pet pig that makes Kearney's major decisions.

+ The Princess of Abyssinia The silent but talented tiger tamer for the circus.

+ Mignon The absurdly thin young woman who escapes from her abusive husband to work with the Princess of Abyssinia and her tigers.

+ The Strong Man- The traditional muscle-head who unsuccessfully courts Mignon and deals with The Educated Apes.

+ The Professor of The Educated Apes- The leader who parodies academics and appears more human than some of the other acts.

+ Buffo the Great The head of the clowns who is eventually driven crazy by the clowns and the circus.

+ Olga Alexandrovna An escaped prisoner who assists the troubled circus performers in Sibera.

+ The Shaman The spiritual leader who saves Walser and helps him restore his memory in Siberia.

+ The Maestro  The music school teacher who also helps the doomed circus performers in Siberia.

The novel is fun at first, but winds up being mostly for academics. I think that feminists and socialists will have plenty to discuss. The writing itself is brilliant but the plot waivers, especially near the end. I thoroughly enjoyed the setup in the first section and much of the clown and circus discussions in the second section, but felt that Carter lost control of the material by the end, or lost my interest in making sense of the new characters and their resolutions. Still I give it four stars and have thought about the possibilities of the extended metaphor of Fevvers and the circus for more than a week now.
3472137
I liked the writing and the characters were well drawn, which totally accounts for the four stars.  In spite of its challenging premise, I strongly disagree with the political framework and assumptions that inform the plot.  One has to invoke the "willing suspension of disbelief," a concept set forth by a literary critic whose name I forget, in order to find the book an enjoyable read.  But I am a liberal with a strong stomach and can be seduced and carried along by a suspenseful, well-constructed plot, even if I find some of the expressed ideas as emanating from the twilight zone of unreality.
4051296
I liked the author's writing--good character development, word use, grammer etc. It is far superior to the bubble gum fiction writing style that seems in vogue with so many American writers.  I also thought the underlying story was very interesting, but I was continually conflicted without quite knowing why. Eventually I realized that I could not buy in to (and was offended by) the repeated characterizations of adoption as a horror or an atrocity.  I should say that I read the book as a story about an event rather than one about a specific character.  Had I read with the later perspective I might have reacted differently.

This is a story about a handful of children, born in the 1960s and placed during in an orphanage at roughly the same time for adoption.  At least one of the children in the story was fathered by a powerful, on-the-rise man and birthed by young (under 25) mother, imprisoned when she became pregnant (I don't recall the author ever using the word rape).  Much of the story is about the children, all of whom are adopted by parent(s) who love them. Little is said about the birth mothers, their lives or experiences. The author, though the character of one of the now-adult children, repeatedly describes the adoption of these children an outrage, a horror, something grotesque. This character decides that the now powerful man should be called to account, and trampels through the lives of the other now adult adoptees to obtain this result.

I can easily find outrage in the men's conduct, but there is little emphasis on that specifically.  I can associate many (and opposite) adjectives and emotions with adoption: joy, love, excitement, responsibility, sadness, pain, fear, dispair.

While others have commented negatively about length, I like long, well developed stories. That said, there was quite a bit of repetition, almost as if segments were written as standalone pieces with complete descriptions, and then assembled into a whole.
4024041
Lashner is an amazingly witty writer, and it is a great pleasure to read his books.  Plus, the set-up here is more interesting and exciting than Hostile Witness.  Still, Hostile Witness was better, because the writing was better.  The one problem I had with Fatal Flaw--its flaw--was the constant repetition of words and phrases for supposed emphasis.  Ex.:  "I told him, I told him and  then", etc., etc.  Just a guess, here, but they must have been trying to reach a word or page minimum--the repetions are that pervasive, that obvious, and, too often, that out of place and distracting.  Lashner is too good for such a trick, and I am still delighted to have discovered him and delighted that I read this otherwise outstanding and entertaining thriller.
4843304
I'll keep it short - as I said above, not one of Franzen's best, by any means. I read The Corrections in a matter of days, missing classes and canceling social outings. I thoroughly enjoyed Freedom, but it didn't quite match The Corrections. I loved the writing in both books, and loved the carefully developed writing and lovable-but-maybe-not-likable characters. It's on that latter point that Purity falls short.
In all honestly, the book probably merits a three-star review, especially in light of Franzen's past accomplishments. On the other hand, I almost wanted to give the book a five-star review, if only to balance out some of the unthinking Franzen-hate that so often permeates these reviews. Four stars it is.
1162317
Very interesting. Ms. Stout is smart and has thought deeply and thoroughly about the material. She has great insight and a very engaging prose style.

The book has two flaws, in my opinion.

First, it's about twice as long as it should have been. The first part is very interesting, while the rest feels like filler.

Ms. Stout spends far too much time debating whether sociopaths are better or worse off than other people. She sounds as if she's trying to convince herself. I suspect that most readers will need less convincing.

Second, Ms Stout is at her best when she writes clinically and objectively. Too often she lapses into moral indignation, even cattiness.

I'm glad a read it, but I wish Ms. Stout had a firmer editor.
3672703
"Star of the Sea" is a beautifully written and powerful book. The setting in a ship of starved Irish emigrating to America could hardly be more dramatic. My "favorite" parts - and the favorite goes in quotes because these parts are often horrific - are the descriptions provided by the Captain of the conditions of the steerage passengers. These parts are incredibly moving and all the more so for the realism and precision of O'Connor`s prose.

But three things bugged me about the book and preclude the 4 or 5 stars it probably should have deserved. First and foremost were the inconsistency of some of the main characters, which go from the utterly despicable and immoral to the heroic. This is the case for at least two of the central protagonists. The second were the Dickensian coincidences that set up the meeting of the protagonists on the ship, which bely the realism of much of the novel. And the third was the rather flat ending.

Despite these "flaws", I did much enjoy this book and will look forward to more by O'Connor.
2360991
This is probably the most flawed novel I've read so far, I really wish I could ignore the dreadful "filler" chapters (The Waterloo essay almost made me put down this book: is almost 100 pages and its only purpose in the story is to tell how Thernardier "saved" the father of Marius. which is explained in just one page), add to that the obligatory rationalizations of almost every little decision or mental struggle of the characters, the story of the streets, religious orders, sewers and almost every location of Paris used in the novel.
The religious undertones bothered me a bit to be honest, because a lot of good things about the characters and their circumstances was providential or God's will but I tried to ignore it and just concentrate on the plot saying to myself that is almost expected considering the historic context when this book was written and of course the author's opinion.
Jean Valjean is a very solid character until Cosette gets married, he then decides to isolates himself for no good and/or coherent reason at all, even when V.H tries to justify this decision (with his obligatory rationalizations) it feels quite odd and very out of place, it simply kills the consistency and solidness of this wonderful character.
Like I said before I consider Les Miserables flawed because if you can ignore these faults, there is a very engaging, romantic and brilliant plot, the pacing to the ending is particularly excellent, the characters overall are very well developed, the way V.H describes the events makes you feel transported to the French restauration period, the plot was so character driven that I almost feel a void when I finished it.
Overall I enjoyed the book, but if I someone asks me, I would recommend them to read the abridged version.
2522575
David Nicholls writes very well and his latest work  'Us' is very well written indeed. The story of the failing marriage between two opposites who attracted but have now drifted apart is one that flows well. The characters are well drawn an real. Both Douglas and Connie are fully nuanced characters who are flawed and far from perfect. But in Nicholls hands we come to care for them and their slowly disintegrating relationship. Douglas' memories of his first meeting with Connie and the strong love he still feels for her is poignant even as he is utterly frustrating in his failure to be a supportive partner and parent. I did come to care for Douglas almost as a living breathing person and found myself rooting for him. This is a tribute to the skill with which Nicholls draws the reader into the lives of his character.

However, I found myself unimpressed by the lack of originality of the book. There is some hilarity in the travails of The Grand Tour that Connie insists on going through with for their son, Albie. However, the subject of failing marriages, husbands who are utterly flabbergasted at why they are not considered good husbands, parents stumped by the creatures their children have become - all of this has been covered at length and in great detail in many books that have come before this one. 'Us' does not stand apart from the pack. It is not a book that I would want to revisit in the way that I have come to enjoy similar novels by Jonathan Tropper or Jonathan Safran Foer.

It is, in the end, good enough but not exceptional.
88697
I love Brian Morton's writing. I read him and other highly recommended literary novels not only to enjoy the stories, but also because I'm writing a novel and wanting to learn through reading the craft of superb novel writing. There are few better than Morton. Starting Out in the Evening is a classic; the Dylanist is an excellent read.

Breakable You is not his best - we witness too much the demise of some of the characters, one (Eleanor) is uninteresting and Adam is unsympathetic. Of the main characters two slide downhill, a third seems to be very slowly awakening, and the fourth rediscovers life only briefly. But Morton's portrayal of character and elucidation of their inner experience, in all its complexities, ambivalences and often horrors, is unparalleled.

This is a painful novel; Morton does not shrink from portraying desperation, or the ugliness of both inner and outer life. But he also writes beautiful graceful prose, capturing the subtleties of life in very precise and often vivid language, while injecting occasional insights which make the reader stop and pause to reflect. Both he, and most of his characters, come across as very intelligent, and often attuned to the intricacies of the psyche and personal relationships. The best part of Breakable You is Morton's portrayal of Maud and Samir, and the process of their non-relationship developing into true relationship; Morton's chapters about them are deeply engrossing, highly original and extremely perceptive.

This is not a happy novel, but it may touch you deeply, and penetrate parts of yourself that you may otherwise hesitate to acknowledge or reveal. I recommend it, but suggest that you first experience Morton at his best in Starting Out in the Evening.
4798540
I had mixed feelings about this book. Its worth getting. It is beautifully written, clear, concise, and conveys a ton of difficult material on Lacan in a very lucid manner. Its probably one of the best academic writings I've encountered on Lacanian theory--to some extent (that is, the most basic and elemental aspects of Lacan).

However, I was not happy with the way the writer brought her impeccably controlled and "authoritative" theoretical apparatus to bear on children's literature. Not once did she address the problem that children would never be able to process their literature in Zizekian or Lacanian language. She never discusses the immense gap between the theoretical technology she commands and the audience for the books she writes about, to the point where it got absolutely ludicrous to read about the perverse psychic structure of Curious George. She simply has to address the problem that children don't have a clue what "the Other" is. They do not have these terms at their disposal. Therefore, it seems to me, one must find and seek out the structural translations that might lead us to really understand how how the "Other" or the "phallus" translates to someone without this verbiage. It seems to me that children's lit demands a purely structural Lacanian approach so that we may find the things that truly are at work and transmitting to children. I don't think she gets at this level at all, except, maybe, when she is talking about early picture books. Then she actually discusses the differences between words and things, images and story. That is concrete. But when she gets to the older literature, she loses her grip.

This is not to say that one can't use Lacan to talk about children's lit, but her readings are way too didactic. She spends way too much time expounding and explaining her theory, and hardly any time at all reading the texts. A la Zizek, they simply become "transparent" demonstrations of her theory.

So I would recommend this if what you're interested in is an "authoritative" rendition of Lacanian theory; it really is very clear and very interesting. But I would not recommend it if you're interested in children's literature or a truly Lacanian reading of children's lit.