Weekly “I’ve been”.. April 4th – 10th

4th to 10th of April I’ve been..

Reading: Wuthering Heights

  • Wuthering Heights – Emily Brontë. I’m about halfway through this novel right now, and quite liking it so far. It’s about horrible, HORRIBLE people, as I’m sure most of you know (I’m really late to the party when it comes to this classic), but it’s well written and interesting so I can handle the unsympathetic main characters. For now at least.
  • I haven’t made much progress when it comes to Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science, which I’ve been reading for a long time now, but have to admit I haven’t picked it up the last week. I really like it and find most of the topics so interesting, but I just need a break between every theme I read about. Will try to get into it again this week though!

Watching:

  • Season 2 of Curb Your Enthusiasm. It’s great to have a TV-series in the 20-35 minute span that you can always put on, and I’ve just started watching Curb recently, and I’m loving it, although I’m usually cringing throughout the whole episode.
  • A film I watched last week that I really want to highlight is Das Boot (1981), which I thought was an amazing war movie, and although we watched the Director’s Cut which is a whooping 209 minutes long, I was never bored. Such a good film, brilliant acting and masterfully shot.Das Boot
  • We also rewatched Amadeus (1984), which both Tommy and I have seen before, but it was almost like watching it for the first time, as we were both quite young the first time and remembering very little. It was a great watch, and a must-see film for anyone interested in music. And Tom Hulce’s laugh is wonderful.

Listening to:

  • Christoper Tin – Baba Yetu. My choir is practicing this for our spring concert, and it’s soooo cool. I need to listen to it a lot to get a feel for the rhythm and how to pronunciation the text properly though, as I’ve never heard it before we started singing it (Yup, I’ve never played Civilization IV).

Doing:

  • Quite a lot of revising. Starting next week I have two take-home finals, before my month of interning at a library, so I’m going through all of this semester’s lectures and reading through the curriculum list.
  • Karaoke! Yaaay! After choir practice last Thursday a small bunch of us went to this amazing bar in Oslo called Syng, where you can rent your own karaoke room. With about 15.000 songs to choose from, we had such a good time, and will probably go again very soon.

Here’s to another good week. I’ll continue reading Wuthering Heights, but probably won’t have the time for any new books with my exams lurking just around the corner. This Saturday is also our choir’s practice day, where we use the whole day to go through our repertoire, before a well deserved party at the end. Before that I’ll just have to study hard 😉

Avenue of Mysteries – John Irving

Avenue of Mysteries

John Irving – Avenue of Mysteries
Published in 2015
Read from February 16th to March 11th

Sometimes, when reading a new book, you’re just hooked from the start and can’t put it down. That’s not the experience I had with Avenue of Mysteries by John Irving, but I still ended up absolutely loving it. It did take me quite a while to really get into the story and feel “comfortable” with the characters and and the writing style, but once I was there, in the zone so to speak, I was so engaged.

Avenue of Mysteries is set around Juan Diego, a “dump kid” from Mexico and the people around him. We follow him as a kid in Mexico, and as grown up and middle-aged, traveling to the Philippines. As a young boy we see him with his sister living as dump kids, with a range of interesting characters surrounding them, including their father-like figure; the dump boss, the loving and caring catholic priest who whips himself, the transvestite prostitute who becomes a dear friend, and even the Virgin Mary and the Virgin of Guadalupe play vital parts. The adult Juan Diego is a writer, visiting one of his former students, whom he both loves and hates spending time with, while also meeting two mysterious women on his travel.

The transitions between young and adult Juan Diego are very fluent and there is a lot of back-and-forth throughout the story, almost like a dream where you are never quite sure where you are. A very clever writing choice, as dreams play an important part in this novel. Juan Diego is often transferred back to his childhood in his dreams, but as a child there is also a lot of talk about the future. In a way, even when we are with him in his present moment there is always something dream-like about his surrounding. In Avenue of Mysteries there is a constant fluidity between realism and mysticism, which can make us doubt what is really happening, and how trustworthy is Juan Diego actually as a narrator?

One of Irving’s strongest qualities as a writer in my opinion has always been his characters. In this novel the most interesting character by far is Lupe, Juan Diego’s sister, who is in my opinion almost as much as a main character as he is, though not the narrator. She is the one sets the wheels in motion for pretty much everything that happens of importance, and shapes the characters around her. Being a mind-reader, yet only talking in a tongue Juan Diego can understand, she understandably makes people around her a bit uncomfortable, and perhaps the reader as well. Encountering Lupe’s straight out magical abilities in an other-wise realistic world sets the tone for what sort of story this is. Perhaps this is an example of why I personally needed some time to get into the story, my brain needed to adjust to what I was reading, as it doesn’t fit straight in with what most people would expect.

But back to Lupe: A young girl with mind-reading abilities and the gift of sensing future events, who speaks a completely nonsense language. She hates the Virgin Mary and what she represents, is very hot-heated and tends to go on babbling for ages about what upsets her, crying out completely inappropriate things for a little girl. What’s not to love? She is also a very sad character though, being so exposed all the time to everyone’s private thoughts in a very grown-up world, and being too young to fully understand them, she mostly interprets them perhaps worse than they really are, which of course has a big effect on her as a person.

As you understand, I truly loved Avenue of Mysteries, but that is not to say it is without flaws. The “danger” of having two main timelines in a story is that the reader usually will end up with a strong favourite, in my case the young Juan Diego’s story, so even though I enjoyed reading everything, I often found myself hoping we’d soon go back to my favourite storyline. The book is also just a tad too long in my opinion, some passages and chapters could have been shortened somewhere among the 460 pages. But all in all, a very good book that I recommend strongly.

January and February Recap

Books read, movies watched, songs listened to and cultural happenings attended in January and February 2016. Click on the links to see the respective blog posts about the experience.

Recap

Books read:
John Steinbeck – Grapes of Wrath
James Joyce – Dubliners
Fyodor Dostoyevsky – The Double
Mary Shelley – Frankenstein

Films watched at the movies:
The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino
The Revenant – Alejandro González Iñárritu
Room – Lenny Abrahamson

Plays attended:
Tenk om (If/Then)

Most listened to songs:
Blackstar – David Bowie
Lazarus – David Bowie

On the literary front, the first two months of the year turned out to be all about the classics. It wasn’t planned at all, but quite fun to see that the authors read turned out to be Steinbeck, Joyce, Dostoyevsky and Shelley. After Shelley’s Frankenstein I started reading John Irving’s Avenue of Mysteries and the popular science book Galileo’s Finger by Peter Atkins, which are both quite big, and the latter very complicated (for me at least), so they are sure to take a while. I’m also following a book challenge on Instagram for March; #tuvalusbookchallenge so if you’re looking for some Instagram inspiration I recommend that you check out the tag 🙂

I’ve watched A LOT of films these two months to prepare for the Oscars, and of course keeping up with my general “film education”. I managed to see all the Best Picture nominees, and almost all the other big categories except for Joy and Creed. There were quite a lot of strong nominees in all categories this year, and I’m really happy with most of the awards. Spotlight for best picture was well deserved, and I’m of course very glad for Leonardo DiCaprio. One of the best surprises was Ex Machina winning for visual effects and Mark Rylance for Supporting Actor. A brilliant film and a brilliant actor! It’s no secret that I quite disliked The Big Short, and would have liked to see another film take home Best Adapted Screenplay, like for instance Carol. But all in all, happy with the ceremony!

New favourites:
Frankenstein (book)
Grapes of Wrath (book)
The Revenant (film)
Spotlight (film)
Blackstar (album)

Here’s to another two good months with many good things to explore!

Frankenstein – Mary Shelley

frankenstein

Mary Shelley – Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus
Published in 1818
Read from February 5th to 13th

I received this beautiful edition of Frankenstein (same one as pictured) from my boyfriend this Christmas, and finally started reading it at the start of February. I had never read Frankenstein before, but as most people I felt I was quite familiar with the story, having been exposed to its numerous adaptations through the years. Therefore I started reading with quite a lot of prejudice: I was looking forward to it because it’s such a classic, but at the same time my expectations weren’t that of a superb literary work. For some reason I didn’t want to get my hopes up about it being more than a “mediocre horror novel created to shock people in its time”. I’m so glad to say that I was completely wrong.

First of all, Frankenstein is beautifully written, and though it has inspired many mediocre adaptations and other works (but also good ones of course) it is itself anything but mediocre. Mary Shelley really knew how to write, and she was only between the age of 18-20 when she wrote what would be her most famous work. The language is truly beautiful, with a lot of emphasis of describing the natural beauties in the world and humans, which contrasts much of the ugliness that later takes place in the story. With a mix of chapters in letter-form (framing the story at start and end) and characters telling each other what they know in retrospective, it might not be truly realistic (who remembers and speaks about all these details when telling someone else a story?), but in the context of the time one has to accept that this was a normal method of story-telling, and it didn’t bother me one bit.

frankenstein2

An original manuscript page of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

I’ve read quite a few reviews that had issues with Shelley’s writing, particularly with how she described character’s thoughts of each other, with the critique being that “it’s clear a man wouldn’t think about, or describe another man in such loving affections and tenderness”. Well, this novel is from 1818, and having read many other works created in the 18th and 19th century, I’ve found this to be the norm among most writers of the time, and not something that was considered a feminine perspective. The affectionate descriptions are also keeping in touch with the elements of romanticism that can be found in Frankenstein; celebrating nature and beauty, also within man.

There’s a great contrast in how the novel clearly celebrates the wonder of man and the humanly virtues, yet also reveals the potential horror in what we create and our evils within. There has always been a debate on whether Frankenstein is mainly a horror story or science fiction, but I don’t see any reason why the two genres can’t be combined equally. The horror elements are certainly very present, and if Wikipedia is to believed, Mary Shelley originally wrote the story as a result of a bet about who could write the scariest horror story. Some people have complained about it not being scary enough to classify as a true horror story, where I would respectfully disagree. It may not be the type of story that leaves you afraid of the dark and afraid to look around the corner, but it has a creepiness present throughout its whole course, and it’s an original take on “what is the true horror”. That’s at least my interpretation, by reading Shelley’s work we are made to reflect who are the true monsters of the story and what creates hate? The truly scary part is that most people would agree that it is us, ordinary and well-meaning human beings that are responsible, and that we can see ourselves acting exactly the way the people in Frankenstein do, leading to the same horrible consequences.

That is not to say that the monster itself is not scary, or perhaps more correctly: it’s understandable how it was perceived as such as the time. Imagine Europe in the early 19th century and the changes it was going through, the natural sciences was rapidly making progress, the world was evolving insanely fast compared to previous years and it would have seemed like mankind would be able to do just about everything we could desire. It’s no wonder a horror story about a scientist using the natural sciences to create life and then facing horrendous consequences was considered absolutely nerve-wrecking! But anyhow, though the monster might make people afraid of him, there’s no question about how the true horror originates from Victor Frankenstein and people like ourselves. The monster is in fact a child, super strong, quick and abnormally big, but still fundamentally a child. He wakes up with no knowledge about the world, the people in it or himself, and is shunned from his creator (or parent one might say) from his very first living seconds. He starts as a completely blank page and soaks up everything around him, being influenced and learning everything by observing and eventually interacting, exactly the same as everyone else who are new to the world.

Mary Shelley manages to make Frankenstein a philosophic work as well as a horror story, making it a well layered work. It is a story about morals, yet it doesn’t deal in absolutes or present any of its topics in a straight forward manner. This, combined with a beautiful writing style and a clear originality makes Frankenstein one of my favourite classical reads, and I will certainly revisit it from time to time. And the magnificent edition that I’m lucky to own really looks good in my bookshelf 😉

The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck

grapes of wrathJohn Steinbeck
The Grapes of Wrath
Published in 1939
Read from December 18th 2015 to January 21st 2016

My love for Steinbeck continues to grow, and now that I’ve at last read Grapes of Wrath I can finally call myself a true fan of his. Often considered his greatest work, and which he won the Pulitzer Prize for, it truly is one of the great American novels, and after reading it I understand and approve of all the recognition and praise it has gotten over the years, but also the controversy it has stirred. And it sure has stirred up quite a lot.

Steinbeck does not go easy on those he hold responsible for the migrant worker’s hardships during the Great Depression, he is angry and Grapes of Wrath is thus an angry novel. It points fingers, it lays blame, and it is never doubted whose side we should be on in this conflict. In someways it is therefore understandable how certain people were put off, Steinbeck’s presentation of the time is not neutral, but it sure is passionate. Reactions to to his work varied greatly, it received praise from the critics, won prizes and spent ages on top of the best-seller lists, but it was also banned by school boards and libraries, condemned by right-wing ministers, corporate farmers and politicians, who claimed the work and the author to be communist, immoral and untruthful (DeMott, 2000, p. xxxviii). Exactly the same people who Steinbeck can be said to attack in Grapes of Wrath. Nonetheless, people kept buying the book, and are still doing so to this day.

When looking at the book purely as a work of literature and not as a political instrument, it has been greeted warmly, and received mostly great reviews upon publication, although some critics have criticized Steinbeck for being too sentimental in his writing, and questioning his writing style. I personally find the book extremely well written, and the style suited for the people he represent. Steinbeck very much writes in the “voice” of his characters, which are the migrant workers: not necessarily the most educated, but hard working and resourceful people. It is only natural that should be reflected in the language used. I have to admit though, as a Norwegian reader it’s hard at times to understand some of the most local and old fashioned phrases and word choices, which is one of the reasons The Grapes of Wrath took me a while to finish, but I would never even consider reading this in a translated version. The style of the language is such a crucial element to the work, and makes you connect even more the characters and setting.

An example of "The Grapes of Wrath's" success: The book was quickly made into a film, already in 1940 John Ford's directed motion picture was released, starring Henry Fonda.

An example of “The Grapes of Wrath’s” success: The book was quickly made into a film, already in 1940 John Ford’s directed motion picture was released, starring Henry Fonda. It was instantly a hit.

Another interesting aspect of The Grapes of Wrath’s style is how the chapters are composed. The book presents the family Joad’s story, but in (almost) every other chapter the perspective changes and presents us with a more general view; here we read about the state of the country, the migrant farmers as a whole, see symbolic happenings taking place and similar. DeMott describes the technique as “one which combined a suitably elastic form and elevated style to express the far-reaching tragedy of the migrant drama” and “a contrapuntal structure, which alternates short lyrical chapters of exposition and background pertinent to the migrants as a group with the long narrative chapters of the Joad family’s dramatic exodus to California” (2000, p. xii).

I found this technique to have a brilliant effect, by including the general chapters we truly understand the magnitude of what was going on, it has a greater impact than just one family in a book, and then we are guided back to the Joads which we emotionally connect to and give those we learn about a human voice. The use of this technique also shows that in addition to writing a book about something he was deeply passionate about and that he felt needed to be said, Steinbeck was also experimenting as an author, which is always the sign of a great writer.

Reading The Grapes of Wrath took me all of five weeks, but I’m so glad I took the time. In my opinion it is one of those books everyone should read at some point, and it has made me an ever greater Steinbeck fan than I already was. It quickly made it’s way in to my “favourites”-list on Goodreads, among with East of Eden and Of Mice and Men. As a finish, I’d also like to recommend the John Ford film from 1940, made only a year after the book was published. It’s an excellent adaptation, and mostly true to it’s source material, with some great acting by Henry Fonda.

Sources:

DeMott, Robert (2000). “Introduction” in John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath (p. ix-xl): Penguin Classics.

What I read in 2015

East of Eden

Steinbeck’s East of Eden – A new favourite!

Okey, so.. ages since my last post. Let’s just ignore that!

2016 is here! Alright, 2016 was here 19 days ago, but it’s still January, so I feel I can justify making a “what was 2015 like”-blog post. Starting off with books read in 2015! I thought I’d also make a similar list concerning films I’ve watched the last, which will be up this week as well.

I think two authors really defined my book year of 2015: John Steinbeck and Norwegian author Jon Michelet with his currently four books in the series A Hero of the Sea (title translated freely by me, En sjøens helt in Norwegian). Michelet’s story revolves around the Norwegian war sailors, concerning both cargo and military ships. Unfortunately they have not been translated to English (yet?), so you’d have to be able to understand Norwegian to read them.

Steinbeck is, among Michelet, my most read author this year, with 4 titles. As I’ve read more of his works he has become one of my favourite writers, and I actually started 2016 by reading one of his greatest works, Grapes of Wrath. One of his works actually became the topic for one of my semester assignments; The Moon is Down from 1942. Always fun when you can write about something you like for school!

Stats:
New books read: 36
Most read author: John Steinbeck and Jon Michelet
Most disappointing
: Funny Girl – Nick Hornby and Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet by Jamie Ford.
New Favourites: The Old Man and the Sea – Ernest Hemingway, East of Eden – John Steinbeck, The Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson and Apology by Plato.
Best non-fiction: The Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson and Apology – Plato.
Least memorable (but not necessarily bad): Elizabeth is Missing – Emma Healy, Mobile Library – David Whitehouse and The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry by Gabrielle Zevin
Best Children’s Book: Tonje Glimmerdal by Maria Parr.

All in all I read 36 books in 2015, not counting rereads of titles I’ve read before. The following is a list of all 36 sorted by reading date, and with the rating I gave it on Goodreads. For the works that only have a Norwegian title I’ve included my own translations.

Jon Michelet – Skogsmatrosen (The forest sea man) 5/5 stars
Nick Hornby – Funny Girl 2/5 stars
Kjell Askildsen Thomas F’s siste nedtegnelser til almenheten (Thomas F’s last records for the public – short stories) 4/5 stars
Amy Poehler – Yes Please 3/5 stars
David Whitehouse – Mobile Library 3/5 stars
Jon Michelet – Skytteren (The marksman) 4/5 stars
Hugh Howey – Wool (Silo #1) 3/5 stars
Carl Frode Tiller – Innsirkling (Circling) 4/5 stars
Author unknown – Lazarillo de Tormes 4/5 stars
Muriel Barbery – The Elegance of the Hedgehog 4/5 stars
H.G. Wells – The War of the Worlds 4/5 stars
Rainbow Rowell – Eleanor and Park 3/5 stars
J.D. Salinger – The Catcher in the Rye 4/5 stars
Jon Michelet – Gullgutten (The Golden Boy) 4/5 stars
Emma Healey – Elizabeth is Missing 3/5 stars
Gabrielle Zevin – The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry 3/5 stars
Jamie Ford – Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet 2/5 stars
Harper Lee – Go Set A Watchman 4/5 stars
Ernest Hemingway – The Old Man and the Sea 5/5 stars
John Boyne – The Boy in the Striped Pajamas 3/5 stars
John Steinbeck – East of Eden 5/5 stars
John Steinbeck – The Pearl 4/5 stars
Edgar Allan Poe – The Murders in the Rue Morgue 3/5 stars
Edgar Allan Poe – The Tell-Tale Heart 5/5 stars
Bjørn Ousland – Sydover – Kappløpet mot Sydpolen (Southbound – The Race to the South Pole) 3/5 stars
Plato – Apology 5/5 stars
Bill Bryson – A Short History of Nearly Everything 5/5 stars
Maria Parr – Tonje Glimmerdal 4/5 stars
Hanne Ørstavik – The Blue Room 4/5 stars
Jojo Moyes – After You 4/5 stars
Gunnar Tjomlid – Placebodefekten (The Placebo Defect) 4/5 stars
John Steinbeck – The Red Pony 4/5 stars
Neil Gaiman – American Gods 4/5 stars
John Steinbeck – The Moon is Down 5/5 stars
Jon Michelet – Blodige strender (Bloodstained Beaches) 4/5 stars
Caitlin Moran – How To Be A Woman 3/5 stars

Looking back it’s been quite a varied book year with a lot of highlights, but also a few disappointments. Unfortunately one of the latter was the work of one of my favourite authors; Nick Hornby. Funny Girl turned out to be boring girl.. Sorry Nick, but I’m still looking forward to your next one!

American Gods – Neil Gaiman

Cover of American GodsRead from October 4th to October 15th.
American Gods on Goodreads.

I finished reading American Gods last night around 1:30 AM, the last few chapters made it absolutely impossible to go to sleep. And that’s everything I’m going to say about the ending.

I feel like I’m reading this book years after everyone else, and I don’t really know what took me so long. I’d heard a lot of good things, so I bought it a few months back and finally started reading it 11 days ago. For those of you who don’t know anything about the book, I’ll try to explain in a few words: American Gods is an urban fantasy novel, and the story takes place in the modern-day United States. Living among the American people are all the gods brought to the country (through the minds, worshipping and prayers of the people coming to America) over the years, now most of them forgotten. Our protagonist, Shadow, finds himself suddenly involved in this world with the old Gods from ancient worlds and the new, representing the media, drugs and so on. The old god who calls himself Wednesday recruits Shadow to his services for the oncoming storm, the war between the old gods and the new.

However, describing what the story is about says very little about what sort of book this actually is. American Gods is quite unlike any other fantasy novel I’ve read, although I have to admit I’ve never explored the urban fantasy genre much. It is of course much more different than Percy Jackson for example, although one can draw similarities between the modern setting and the use of ancient mythology. Do not compare the two in style however, the former is a much more raw and gritty experience, and of course, probably aimed at an older audience. The themes are quite adult and the language at times explicit, describing sexual and violent scenes. And describing them well I dare say.

At times American Gods feels like reading a “great American road trip” novel, you have “the boys” riding around, some great descriptions of the country, and the sort of raw and unrefined style of that “traditional macho”(in lack of a better word) genre. You sort of forget that you’re reading what is actually a fantasy novel, but then something extraordinary happens and you’re almost violently reminded.

The story itself I found extremely well designed, and the language suits the feel of everything very well, making the characters feel real. The only negative opinion I have regarding the book, is that it just felt a bit too long at times, especially about midway some aspects were just drawn out and could have been cut completely. I did read the author’s preferred text though, which I believe is quite a bit longer than the originally published novel. I can see how Gaiman wanted to include as much as he possibly could to fully flesh out his wonderfully thought of world, but some of it felt just a bit unnecessary. Overall though, American Gods is in my opinion a very good and entertaining read, which I fully recommend.