There’s no denying that Nabokov is a great writer. In fact, I’d love to read more by him — just on a different subject. I had a hard time rating this book as the subject matter is so despicable, but settled on 3 stars because of Nabokov’s writing ability. A large part of the rating also goes to the excellence in Jeremy Irons’ narration. I absolutely love his voice, but then again, he was almost too good as the narrator for Humbert Humbert. I have not seen the movie with Irons in the starring role.
I won’t repeat the storyline here, as everyone should know the basic outline of it. My question is, why did Nabokov even feel the need to write this story? I’ve heard one reviewer say that Nabokov makes us root for Humbert Humbert over Lolita. Not so. Not with me, anyway. A great writer Nabokov is. A great character Humbert Humbert is not.
“And what stood in their way? Their personalities and pasts, their ignorance and fear, timidity, squeamishness, lack of entitlement or experience or easy manners, then the tail end of a religious prohibition, their Englishness and class, and history itself. Nothing much at all.”
Didn’t care for it. I liked Atonement only marginally better. I read On Chesil Beach because it was short and I could use it for the Novella and Notable Books challenges. I also wanted to give Ian McEwan another chance.
Edward and Florence are both novices to s*x on their wedding night, and the experience doesn’t turn out too well for them. The consequences of this event have serious repercussions for the couple, even life-changing ones. I enjoyed the back-stories of the couple, but the wedding night scene was too graphic for my taste. Really, can’t the same thing be said in a more understated, tasteful way? I realize I’m in the minority on things like this, but certain language and descriptions just really don’t do it for me. Your mileage probably varies.
2007, 203 pp. Rating:
Have you reviewed this book? If you’d like, enter your link in Mr. Linky below.
Written in 1977 but published in the US for the first time this January, Detective Story by Nobel laureate Imre Kertesz tells the story of a group of men who, while working for an unnamed Latin American country’s government, go too far to stop their political enemies. While I thought Kaddish for a Child Not Born by Kertesz was brilliant, I must admit I didn’t get into this one too much. I’m willing to confess the fault might lie with the reader rather than the writer, however. Luckily, this one was short, but it didn’t pack the same punch for me that Kaddish did.
1977 [2008 for the English translation], 112 pp. Rating: 3/5
Why not do a ‘twin’ review since I read them relatively close together? I had seen both of these movies before I read the books, and I recently re-watched The Hours because it was available for online viewing through Netflix. I’d like to watch Mrs. Dalloway again as well. The movie of the The Hours follows the book very closely-there are a few minor changes. Nicole Kidman does an outstanding job in this film. I was most interested in the Virginia Woolf storyline, so I was happy she was so well portrayed. It’s funny that Meryl Streep ended up playing Clarissa when she (Meryl Streep) is actually talked about in The Hours (the book). I don’t remember the movie Mrs. Dalloway much at all, hence the reason I wish to re-view it.
Well, on to the books. The Hours won the Pulitzer in 1999. It’s a cleverly told story that intersects the 3 women’s lives very well. However, it does change the story of Mrs. Dalloway into homos*xual relationships. It was interesting to see the twist in the storyline, particularly if you know the real one, but I couldn’t help thinking, “Doesn’t Clarissa (in The Hours) know that her life is too coincidental with the characters’ names from Mrs. Dalloway?” To me, it would have been a better story if Cunningham had left out all the references to the actual book itself. The reader knows that’s what it’s about, so why keep referring to it? It makes The Hours too unbelievable. It’s an interesting book, and I’m glad I read it, but I can’t help having mixed feelings about it.
Mrs. Dalloway. I must be too dense in the literary sense, because I just don’t get this book at all. I had to stop reading it every half hour because it was just too much otherwise. I felt a similar way this year when I read Inheritance of Loss. I just don’t enjoy a book when I have to read it that way. I don’t get into planning parties or the minute details of such. In fact, I avoid that like the plague. I’m not into social scenes, either. In this book, everyone loves Clarissa, but isn’t she the most shallow character in it? I don’t get it. I would like to re-read it again in a few years to see if I feel any differently. At least I feel more enlightened that I have finally read Woolf. I’d actually like to read more about her than by her.
For The Hours: 1998, 226 pp. Rating: 3.5 Pulitzer, 1999
I didn’t really care for this book, although I loved Fahrenheit 451. I read this one for the R.I.P. Challenge because I knew I wouldn’t get to The Picture of Dorian Gray. Probably the main reason I didn’t like it was because I don’t like Halloween. I don’t even celebrate it at all. Autumn is my favorite season, and I do love everything about it. . . except Halloween. (I’m not a scrooge, though; I still hand out candy if we’re home.)
So why did I read it then? Well, the storyline was quite a bit different from what I expected. I just expected a scary Halloween night story, and it was that, but it was also a celebration of Halloween. Similar to A Christmas Carol, a ‘ghost’ (with a Marley knocker) takes the boys through the celebration of Halloween through the ages. Anyway, if you enjoy the holiday, then you’ll like this story quite a bit.
I’m still glad I read the book, though, because it is Ray Bradbury, and I do want to read more of his work.
Wednesday Letters by Jason F. Wright tells the story of a family whose grown children learn more about their parents’ marriage after discovering letters their father wrote to their mother every Wednesday. It’s a good story with morals that I absolutely agree with. However, I just didn’t find it to be particularly well-written. I felt myself conscious that I was reading a story rather being immersed in it. I thought some of the dialogue was weak and somewhat choppy at times. I’m still willing to give the author another chance, though, by reading his Christmas Jars at some point.
"For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? (1 Peter 3:12-13, ESV)
There’s no denying that Nabokov is a great writer. In fact, I’d love to read more by him — just on a different subject. I had a hard time rating this book as the subject matter is so despicable, but settled on 3 stars because of Nabokov’s writing ability. A large part of the rating also goes to the excellence in Jeremy Irons’ narration. I absolutely love his voice, but then again, he was almost too good as the narrator for Humbert Humbert. I have not seen the movie with Irons in the starring role.
Written in 1977 but published in the US for the first time this January, Detective Story by 
I didn’t really care for this book, although I loved Fahrenheit 451. I read this one for the R.I.P. Challenge because I knew I wouldn’t get to The Picture of Dorian Gray. Probably the main reason I didn’t like it was because I don’t like Halloween. I don’t even celebrate it at all. Autumn is my favorite season, and I do love everything about it. . . except Halloween. (I’m not a scrooge, though; I still hand out candy if we’re home.)
Wednesday Letters by Jason F. Wright tells the story of a family whose grown children learn more about their parents’ marriage after discovering letters their father wrote to their mother every Wednesday. It’s a good story with morals that I absolutely agree with. However, I just didn’t find it to be particularly well-written. I felt myself conscious that I was reading a story rather being immersed in it. I thought some of the dialogue was weak and somewhat choppy at times. I’m still willing to give the author another chance, though, by reading his Christmas Jars at some point.
