'The History of Love' by Nicole Krauss

The History of Love- what an awful title of a book! I was never interested in reading this book because of it's title. I didn't judge it by it's cover but by it's title. I had no idea what the book was about, but the title made me not want to read it. I had preconceived ideas what the book would be about, how it would be written as well as the type of people who would read it.

What made me eventually pick up the book and read it-you might wonder... besides the fact that people kept on recommending it to me. Well a woman came into the library not long ago and asked for the book. She said people had kept on recommending it to her and she'd always put it off because of it's title, but she had now eventually decided to give a chance.

I had recently finished reading my own book and felt i needed a bit of an easy read.

I starting reading this book thinking i was going to read some easy, lovey-dovey crap that would take me a couple of days to read.

How wrong i was...

It wasn't a difficult book, but the language used was sophisticated. But the set up of the book was completely logical if you knew it was going to happen. Since i starting reading with the impression it would be so easy i didn't even concentrate while i was reading and therefore missed the plot right from the spot-silly me!

There was hardly, if any, lovey-dovey stuff. It was more history than love...

I love how it contained so many different characters that you needed to keep track of. I loved the little stories on the side of the main plot and my favourite angle in any novel is when the separate stories intertwine and come together.

I think it was written well. Not a lot of underlining meanings or metaphors. And as usual the turning point arrives in the middle of the book...

It was a good read-besides the title. That's all i have to say about that...

Finally someone who spoke out about it!

http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/debatt-essa/dags-att-prata-om-det-1.1229359

Assange/Wikileaks/Rape

So can you be convicted, in the USA or in Europe, for spreading top secret information around the world-at the moment -no. Surely if there is no law against it when the crime is commited then you can't simply all of a sudden make up a law and afterwards convict people of it? That's simply not how it works. Assange has at the moment not commited a crime regarding spreading classified information over the site Wikileaks. However the soldier who most probably sold this information for a large sum to Assange is guilty of spreading classified information. Which is why he is now also in prison.

However Assange is being accused for sexual harassment in Sweden which is a different case altogether.

This accusal that Sweden is part some kind of conspirator with the US against Assange. Sweden has the strongest and oldest freedom of speech in the world as well as the most open of societies. The idea that Assange would come here and then be sent to the US is ridiculous or even the fact that Sweden would have agreed to something like this before hand makes me so angry! Assange was wanted in Sweden already in August regarding these sexual harassments and rape cases before any of this broke out.

Why is it that once again a man is being protected and defended by society for committing one of mankind’s worst crimes and the most terrifying crimes that can be committed against a woman. Why are always the women to blame?! Sweden also has the most reported cases of rape within the EU. Why?! Because the term rape includes so many more examples than simply brutal force. Yes by refusing to use a condom even though asked to is considered sexual molestation and in Sweden that is a crime! Which is not the law in the UK.

Where is the support of our female politicians?

Where are the women’s rights activists?

I have not heard anything.

This angle is not even discussed in the Swedish press-because it’s so simple, so straight forward. When you go to another country you follow the laws of that country and you get convicted accordingly. Proof is not needed to be extradited to the country where you are being accused of something-that’s the same all over the world. By refusing to come to Sweden Assange is admitting to these crimes. If he is innocent than come and prove it himself. He has been accused of committing a crime and if it is not true than he has every right to come here without the fear of being sent to the US. But surely if the US asked for him to be sent there than the British government would be forced to act the same way no?

Nobel Prize in Literature 2010

I am far off from having read all of the books which have probably been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature, but i'm trying.

Some authors which I have read, and some which i have heard good things of and would like to read, and would like to see win:

Alice Munro

Ian McEwan

Chinua Achebe

Amos Oz

Haruki Murakami

Salman Rushdie

Tomas Tranströmer

Margaret Atwood

There are so many authors which deserve this prize, but when you look over past winners and think of all those who haven't won-one really does wonder how the Swedish Academy have decided on their nominations and winners. James Joyce, James Baldwin, Janet Frame, D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Katherine Mansfield and E.M. Forster....just to mention some of my favourites which have never won.

Although i admit they are all English language writers-my speciality. There are loads more, but all i can think of just now.

The debates circling the Nobel Literature Prize nominations do make fascinating discussions. And it opens our minds to new authors and new writing habits and cultures there within. Most of the time they tend to be authors which i have only vaguely heard of-and very rarely actually read- Doris Lessing being an exception as i was actually reading her 'Golden Notebook' when she was nominated-ha, what a coincidence!

As always i'm looking forward to the winner being announced on thursday at 1pm-swedish time.

'The Cleft'-Doris Lessing

A mystical intelligent fable.

A time of life which i love to read about-however would have liked more of the way of life-but that wasn't the story.

I appreciated the fact that the historian was a man-or a monster even. I like the fact that it went in between the two historical stories.

Sometimes i wonder if Doris Lessing simply writes as thoughts come to her mind and then never goes back and edits it. I found that throughout this story she was constantly repeating herself-which i found slightly annoying. I don't think that that was an accurate voice of the historian-as he as an academic and probably a very proud one and wouldn't allow that simple kind of repetition. I found that Lessing's own voice came through quite clearly in these situations.

I understand that the whole point of the story was to describe the difference in male and females and why we have become the way we have because of things way back then-and fare enough. But why did both genders have to be so annoying? I would have liked more descriptions of the ones that broke away from the similarities-it is a fable after all not historical-so i would have liked it to be more fictitious.

The bit with the boys running away and starting up their own group i found questioning and disconcerting-was it supposed to make us think of rebellious teenagers and gangs? And in that case where were the girls? Or was there supposed to be a certain boyishness over it? For me it simply reminded me of William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies'-creepy.

I would have like a girl who said no to sex so that she could take part in the men's activities more and not be tied down to a child-that would have made me like the book more.

I like identifying myself with the books i read. The females nagging and laziness i did not. Not being of the mothering kind-i didn't get the obsession with the children. Possibly this can be expanded on. I preferred the men-maybe there is a meaning to that as well-however ignorant, selfish and stupid they came across to be. As true to real life. All this fable showed me is how women have developed while men have remained the same. Or maybe we're all still the same...still living in the stone age.

This Is All-Aidan Chambers

The best coming of age book i've read for a very long time. Second best to Libby Hawthorn's 'Thunderwith'. (i love)

It has it all-love, innocence, hate, fear, annoying and loving parents, teachers, writing, books, and sex-and lots of it! At times a bit too much sex-and coming from me that's saying something. At times it did make you slightly uncomfortable knowing that the narrator was a teenage girl and the author was a middle aged man. What is he doing getting into the head of a teenage girl? Writing so much about sex, masturbating, periods, rape and everything else which women think about but have no idea that men know about-well the shouldn't should they? One only hopes that only girls read this book other wise some of our secrets will have come out.

She's a very special girl this Cordelia Kenn and you get a strong feeling of knowing her well as the book and her life goes on. Time passes without one noticing it. Interesting enough even her voice develops through time and you can hear that she is growing up.

Does she have an exceptionally eventful life or is it the way it's told. We learn so much about her personal life that it feels like it is oneself which is experiencing what she is experiencing. Lives are brought together because of her.

I always know when i've read a book i like when i want to suggest it to everyone around me to read-but only one person i know would get this book.

Although i think all teenage girls would like it-at least the ones which enjoy reading and writing since they will then at least be able to identify with Cordelia.

It does get slightly confusing to read-but in a good way. It keeps you going. And it keeps you interested in the continuation of the book-how do you read it?

I love the spiritual level of her thinking-and i like the fact that Chambers has so clearly kept her voice throughout the book. Her thoughts develop clearly as they would do with a thoughtful inquisitive teenage girl-and he doesn't, i think, go too far. Her thoughts and questions are still immature and naive but intelligent.

The last chapter however, although it's well written and i cried floods through the whole thing, i didn't like as much as the rest of the book. This time written from a boy's perspective i got the feeling that his writing voice wasn't as strong and as thought through as Cordelia's and it wasn't as i had imagined it. I actually felt that he sounded a lot older than he was. I suspect that this might be because it was Aidan Chambers voice which was coming through instead of the 20 something boy's voice. A shame.

Overall i think Chambers has probably spent an eternity on creating this novel and the voice of Cordelia Kenn and the result is astounding and inspirational.

The Lacuna-Barbara Kingsolver

Why is it that you can count the pages to where the turning point in a book will be? As a writer that has studied 'writing' we were told that you have to have a clear turning point and that this should take place around the middle of the book. The last few books i have read the turning point has taken place pretty much on the page in the middle of the book. Doesn't that seem simply forced? Is that the author or the editor/ publishers, one might wonder.

The Lacuna was no exception. And being a reader that usually gives a book to about half way through to decide if i should continue reading it or not-i tend to therefore to continue reading most books which i didn't necessarily like from the beginning.

However i did like the Lacuna from the beginning although i did not like the constant metaphors which she seemed forced to use. Another thing mentioned to us in the several writing courses i've been on. 'Make sure you use lots of metaphors.' Did she choose these metaphors? Sometimes there were two metaphors in one sentence. They were good metaphors most of the time. But since there were so many it felt forced-and became unnecessary. The good ones did not stand out any more-they simply blended into the rest. A shame i think. Towards the second half of the book the metaphors seemed to be less or at least to have stood out less.

I loved how she was able to portray both the Mexican culture and style of life as well as the American in the 50s. I personally don't know much about the Mexican Revolution and feel i would have enjoyed the book more if i knew more-but i can always read it again when i have brushed up on my Mexican Revolution. However the Cold War and Mc Carthy era as well as the Russain Revoluton i feel a bit more confident in and could therefore understand these history sections in the book a bit more. Also being a big fan of Frida Kahlo i enjoyed hearing her voice come through quite clearly in the novel. Obviously it could be discussed regarding the accuracy of the history and of what actually happened.

But it does inspire me to write a half fiction- half history book myself.

When books are written by a member of the opposite sex to the main protagonist questions are always asked to whether the author can pull it off or not. What is interesting with the Lacuna is that although the main character is a man and everything which happens is told from his point of view all the people he speaks about and who are most close to him are women-we actually find out little about himself.

I understand the concept of identity and the difficulty of trying to find out where you belong which is an important theme in the book, but i would almost have wanted some more of it. It seemed mostly to be a sort of innocence, comedy and naivety portrayed through the main character regarding his not knowing where he belongs and not necessarily a struggle.

One does feel a certain motherly pull towards him as do the female characters as they all seem to be looking after him and wanting to help him. Is this the right idea? And in that case why? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? Obviously towards the end we do.

The connection with today's celebrities is also very good-and putting it in a past time-where there was no internet and therefore a lot easier to stay incognito.

Overall, although i liked the bits to do with Frida Kahlo and could have done with a whole book just about their relationship, i think the second section of the book is better. I believe possibly because you don't actually know what is going to happen while in the first part you know that Lev Trotsky will get murdered. And you're simply waiting for it to happen.

I want to read it again-but need to learn more about the Mexican Revolution.

I do love the way the book was set up. A lot of detail-and sticking to the voice of the narrator and keeping it very clear. The history wasn't forced but came quite lightly. She didn't treat the reader like an idiot if you don't know something-look it up! She didn't explain every little metaphor, every innuendo every double meaning and every historical event. I like that-and i'm the first to admit i probably missed a lot of the meaning in the book which is why i want to read it again.