Booking Through Thursday - Worse?

Which is worse: Finding a book you love and then hating everything else you try by that author, or  Reading a completely disappointing book by an author that you love? 

I really like the question. It's a tough one, for, in an ideal world, we'd be able to have our cake and eat it too. However, as the only thing ideal around here are the thoughts in my head, I'd have to go with "reading a completely disappointing book by an author you love". I'm waiting for the applause from the audience, and my grand prize now... 

Let me take a second to explain the why. As in, why I think that's worse.

When a new book is released by any of my favorite authors, I get really excited, and hype it up to be this big thing. I can't wait to run to the store, purchase the book, and then immerse myself in the book completely. And that's mostly because I expect it to be good. How many books by an author would you read, before you'd shortlist the author as one of your favorites? Five, maybe six? If all the books you've read prior to elevating the author to this god-like state have been unputdownable, it's really frustrating when you come across a bad book. But... you know what's even worse? A spate of bad books. 

I was a massive Grisham fan. I've read practically everything by him. Then, he came out with the autobiographical A Painted House. Just because it was a Grisham book, I actually read it, hoping it would come good. It didn't. That was then followed up with Skipping Christmas, Playing For Pizza, and Bleachers. That was the end of my Grisham love affair. I know he's published a new legal thriller recently, but... I just can't bring myself to read it. Disappointment with books really get me down.

On the other hand, if you've read one book by an author, and you've loved it, you're tempted to try another for purely exploratory reasons. Does the second book live up to the expectations you had of it, based on the first book? Or, does it make you want to drop it like a hot potato? The thing is, even if the second book is not great, the reader doesn't tend to feel that disappointed. I normally just think: So much potential. 

Of course, if the first book by the author has blown the reader away well and truly, it's a dilemma. What if the first book you read was amazing? What if it was one of those that won the Booker or the Pulitzer or something? What if it was, in reality, the author's best work. Are the readers bound to be disappointed then, by reading the author's most popular works first, and then not being that impressed with the next few works? Or, are they just supposed to take it in their stride?

Patricia Duncker - Hallucinating Foucault

I ordered this book on Amazon, after seeing its name appear on the 1001 Books To Read Before You Die list. Initially, I thought the book was slow-paced, and the lead characters came across as fairly unattractive. There's the unnamed narrator, and The Germanist - a woman who the narrator is attracted to, and within the first couple of pages, she asks him out. Both of them are doing their research projects in Cambridge. While The Germanist is intense and passionate, the narrator comes across as a lot more relaxed and easy-going. He's desperate to please The Germanist, and the story actually begins when he commits to something only to please her.

His research subject is the brilliant albeit eccentric (read schizophrenic) writer, Paul Michel. However, his project focuses on the fiction of the writer, and not the controversial homosexual writer himself. Consequently, he's distant enough from the writer, to not know or care much about the writer and his personal life. The Germanist, on the other hand, is the other extreme. She also knows where Paul Michel has been for the last decade or so - a psychiatric hospital in Paris - and she expects the narrator to go there, and save Michel.

Up to this point, I really didn't enjoy the book. The narrator lacked backbone. On the other hand,  The Germanist was incessantly perceptive, passionate and intense. As the narrator's flatmate said:

You can't like women like that. Liking is too negligible an emotion. Anyway, she she scares me shitless.

However, when the narrator reaches Paris, and hits the library, the story picks up pace, and transforms into a page-turner of sorts. He stumbles on some letters written by Michel to Foucault, and familiarizes himself with the author whose works he had gotten to know so intimately. At this point, the central theme of the book unfolds: exploring the mutual love shared between reader and writer, that is never explicitly mentioned to each other.

The final letter that the narrator reads speaks to him, as he realizes that these letters have never been posted, nor read, by the intended recipient, Michel Foucault:

Sex is a brief gesture, I fling away my body with my money and fear. It is the sharp sensation which fills the empty space before I can go in search of you again. I repent nothing but the frustration of being unable to reach you. You are the glove that I find on the floor, the daily challenge that I take up. You are the reader for whom I write. You have never asked me who I have loved the most. You know already and that is why you never asked. I have always loved you.

Foucault seems to be Michel's muse. Their writings explore similar themes and opinions, both reflecting the other's deeply. Neither of them interacted with each other, but they communicated via their published works. Foucault's death in 1984 probably pushed Michel over the edge, and resulted in his admission to a facility in Paris.

Once the narrator discovers that Paul Michel had left the institution in Paris, and is now in one in Clermont-Ferrand, he heads there to find the author, for reasons he did not understand. The initial meeting between the narrator and Michel ends abruptly, but the subsequent meetings (initiated by Paul Michel) leads to a warm friendship and love. The narrator is fascinated and endeared to the wild boy of his generation, and Michel, in turn, grows quite fond of the naive twenty-two year old, referring to him as 'petit', for most of the time they spend together.

As the book progresses, there are some moments that are funny, some that are sad, and some that will stay in your mind forever, just as they did in the narrator's. As a young child once told Paul Michel:

If you love someone, you know where they are and what has happened to them. And you put yourself at risk to save them if you can.

And that's exactly what the narrator set out to do, on being convinced by the formidable Germanist.

This is not an academic book. It's not a book on the life and times of Paul Michel. It's a book about a fascinating character, who's funny, quick-witted spontaneous and humorous. Someone capable of great love, great sentimentality and great generosity. Someone whose world revolves around one person - a reader of his work - and someone who dedicates his life to making his reader proud. The character of Paul Michel is so colorful, that, for what it's worth, he could as easily be a fictional character.

All in all, I'd say this was a 6.5 on 10, most of the points being docked for the first part of the book making me want to put it down, and never ever pick it up again. On the other hand, I'm glad I finished the book, and now, I'm tempted to find some of the works by Paul Michel and Michel Foucault - the two lovers, who never explicitly expressed their love for each other, but still held on to a love that could not be tarnished. Not even with time. 

Weekly Geeks - It's All About Animals

This week at Weekly Geeks, it's all about animals. In books, movies, or real life. So, here goes...

Which are your favorites?

Of course, there are the usual suspects, like Black Beauty, The Jungle Book and Charlotte's Web. All classics, all incredibly written, and they can be read over and over again. 

Also, Morpurgo's WarHorse has to get a mention. WarHorse reminded me that animal 'autobiographies' (i.e. where the narrator is the animal) can occasionally be more thought-provoking than a first person human narrator. 

There was Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals, which described his adventures as a ten year old in the Greek island of Corfu. It was a funny warm light-hearted read, which ended in me yearning to have the same experiences as Durell. 

Finally, saving the best for last, is Shadow the Sheepdog, an Enid Blyton classic. Probably not her most famous work (in fact, far from), this book is a collection of short stories about Shadow, a sheepdog (hmm, I wouldn't have guessed that!), and his adventures with Johnny (his owner), and the other farm animals. As Shadow grows up, from being a naive pup to being a responsible sheepdog, we see his relationship with the young boy (Johnny) changing; and resulting in the reader literally being able to feel the bond between the dog and his master. 

Which touched your heart the most?

It has to be Shadow the Sheepdog, for the reasons mentioned above. It's a feel-good book, a must for every child. It's a book about honesty, friendship, growing up, and sacrifices. And the penultimate chapter actually has you reaching for the tissue box. If you haven't read this book yet, please do!

Which have found their way onto your wish lists or TBR stacks?

Watership Down; Marley and Me; and, The Wind In The Willows.

Is there a childhood favorite?

You mean other than Blyton's Shadow the Sheepdog? Let's see... I enjoyed reading Aesop's Fables, which were essentially animal stories. Loads of the Lady Bird books I read, like, Puss In Boots and The Little Red Hen. Dr. Seuss' The Cat In The Hat has to pop up if we're talking about childhood favorites. And there are a fair few other Enid Blytons, where the pets may not be the absolute central character, but they are one of them: be it Buster in the Five Find Outers, or Timothy in Famous Five, or Scamper in Secret Seven.

Have you ever named a pet after an animal in a book or movie? 

I've never had a pet, but I did name one of my stuffed toys Boxer - the horse from Orwell's Animal Farm. I've also always wanted to own a horse called Comanche. Don't ask me where the name came from though! 

Jay Asher - 13 Reasons Why

We've all faced the wrath of high school. Either we were too fat, or too thin. Either people expected too much of us, or nothing at all. Either we were 'cool', or we were 'geeks'. Some of us made our peace with it, while some of us still hate that part of our past. Children can be cruel. Adolescents more so. And this book draws on that very attribute of teenagers, to show how harmless 'fun' resulted in a young attractive girl deciding that suicide is her only escape. Thirteen reasons. Thirteen. The Baker's Dozen. And the protagonist is called Hannah Baker.

Imagine this. You wake up one morning, and see a parcel on your front door. I don't know about you, but I love parcels, specially unexpected ones (i.e. not Amazon parcels!). You open them eagerly, to find a bunch of tapes. Tapes in the twenty-first century? Yes. Exactly. It's unheard of. But, your curiosity gets the better of you, and you remember the stereo in the garage. You pop in the first tape, and you hear the voice of a girl you used to know, a girl you liked a lot, a girl who chose to kill herself. And you start...

Or well, Clay Jensen did. At the very outset, the message the tapes carried were clear: if someone was listening to the tapes, it meant they were one of the reasons why Hannah Baker decided to end her life. She refused to inform the listener which tape was theirs, but just made the one promise: But fear not, if you received this lovely little box, your name will pop up.

The story follows Clay around the city at night, as he listens to Hannah's story, and traces her steps in sync with her narration, that spreads seven tapes/thirteen sides. Be it a cafe, an ice cream parlor, or her old house. Even to the house where they once made out... and as the thirteen reasons unfold, one thing is clear: Clay's life will never be the same again. Getting a message from the beyond can shock you to bits, but being told that you're one of the reasons why a girl committed suicide - that's much worse.

The reader can almost sense the emotions and pain that Clay is experiencing, as he listens to these stories, as he reconstructs some of the events, and as he finds himself sickened by some of the acts of gross misconduct his classmates are capable of. From the 'nicest' girl in school using Hannah, to the biggest jerks objectifying her. From her first boyfriend spreading rumors about their relationship, to a casual date with a 'goofy' guy resulting in him trying to finger her. She seeks help, in her own way, but doesn't get it.... and Clay constantly reminds us that he would've been there for her, but she didn't reach out to him. And he recalls his memories with her... be it at work, at school, or at that 'party'. Even more so, he doesn't quite fathom what he's doing on these tapes....

It's a sad story, albeit beautifully written. It doesn't focus on depression. Instead, it's a page-turner, keeping the reader in suspense; the perverse part of us wanting to know more about why someone's decided to take this humungous step... about what finally pushed them over the edge. It reminds us again (not that we need reminding) about the futility of bullying, and how we should notice people's silent pleas for help. Never know, when people are looking for one reason to cling on to life, every little helps. And how, sometimes, someone, makes up their mind to do something, and are completely calm, composed and at peace with it. And nope - it's not always a cry for attention.

Lastly, I do want to highlight that this is a work of fiction. In fact, it's Asher's debut novel, and he claims he got the idea from the audio guides used by museums. While this isn't available in most UK high street stores, if you do stumble upon it, give it a read. It'll make you smile wanly at moments, and it will bring a tear to your eye.

Overall rating: 7.5/10

Carlos Ruiz Zafón - The Shadow of the Wind

This is a well-written page turner, with all the elements of a good story: romance, history, friendship, murder, revenge, redemption, bad cop, good beggar, a young impressionable protagonist, and a history that seems to be re-living itself, with different actors... 

Set in a desolate Barcelona in 1945, around the time of the Spanish Civil War, this book centers around Daniel, who is all of ten years, when the book starts. The opening scene is enchanting, and draws the reader immediately into the convoluted story, encouraging them to turn the page and discover the significance of a decision made by a child in a few minutes - a decision that defines his childhood, and adolescence. 

When David wakes up one morning, realizing he cannot recall his dead mother's face, his father (a bookseller), after comforting him, takes him to the 'Cemetery of Forgotten Books', a labyrinth of books that don't have owners, books that are forgotten in the depths of time, and just sit there, waiting to be picked up by someone like Daniel, i.e. someone who is given permission to take one book from there, conditional on the person promising to adopt the book, and not allow it to disappear as so many other books have. It's the beauty of this opening chapter that enthralls me. Any book lover would give anything to visit such a place. Does such a place even exist? Sorry to digress, but I can almost imagine this beautiful santuary of sorts, and losing myself within. 

Anyway, Daniel chooses a book called 'The Shadow of the Wind', by an obscure author, Julian Carax, because, in his words, the book had been waiting for him. David reads the book that very night, and is completely captivated by the story, so much so that he's keen to find out more about Carax, and read more of his works. On his father's advice, Daniel speaks to Barcelo, a book-trader, to find out more about Carax. Initially Barcelo attempts to purchase the book from him for a hefty price, for it's a rare piece. However, Daniel flat out refuses, and continues his quest to find either more books by this author, or more about the author himself. What he doesn't know at the time is, there is someone out there, looking for the same books. Not to read them, not to sell them, but to burn them. 

As the book progresses, Daniel follows many leads, speaks to many people, and tries to piece together the full story of Carax's enigmatic life. He doesn't realize the gravity of his search, until someone who seems closely involved is murdered. The suspect: his best friend, a beggar, Fermin. Of course, if there's a good tramp, there's bound to be a bad cop, and this is where Fumero comes in - someone whose ruthless reputation precedes him. If he's out to get you, he will get you - that's the word. And he seems to passionately hate Carax - Why? 

The story has plenty of twists and turns. It's not straightforward, but it's gripping. You want to know what happened next. You want to know why someone wants to burn Carax's books. You want to know more about Fumero and Fermin. You want to know about how the random people that keep cropping up fit together, in the grand scheme of things. And the answers you end up getting are more and more surprising.

And while you're getting more and more engrossed in the mystery, you see Daniel growing up - from being a stubborn defiant child, smitten by the blind niece of Barcelo, to a young man who follows what he believes he has to, and ends up falling in love with his best friend's sister (from school). While there are times you think he's a coward, there are other times you have to admire him, for all he's trying to do. And then there are moments when you just have to smile at the conversations between Fermin and Daniel. The one that sticks to mind is, Daniel feels guilty about lying to his father while he follows the Carax mystery. To which Fermin replies, along the lines, the relationship between father and son is based on lies: tooth fairies, Santa Claus etc.

In fact, Fermin is that character that really stands out, for me. A man who seems politically incorrect at many a level, a devoted friend, and someone who can be sensitive and gentle when the need arises. Oh, and he's a man who always sticks by his promises - even if it means getting an old man a hooker! Fermin takes on the role of a friend and guardian to Daniel, while simultaneously helping out at the bookshop, and being a godsend for the protagonist and his father. While there are scars from his past, which he occasionally succumbs to; all in all, he seems to be someone who wants to enjoy life while doing the right thing - and not in a preachy goody-two-shoes way! Fermin's witty, quick and the dialog between him and some of the other characters make the book a considerably lighter and a tad more humorous read.

It's a relatively 'chunky' book, at about 510 pages, paperback. But give it a go - I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Musing Mondays - A Third Of The Way There

Coming towards the end of April, we’re a third of the way through the way through the year. What’s the favourite book you’ve read so far in 2009? What about your least favourite? (question courtesy of MizB)

I've read about thirty books so far this year, and it's almost a pity but my two favorite books so far stand out by a mile. If you've been reading my reviews, you'll know... they're both classics, and both exceptionally well-written. I envy those who haven't read these books already, for they're in for a few hours of unprecedented joy. And I almost regret not reading them earlier on in life. The more I think about them, the more incredible they are (in my head, anyway).

So... drumroll, please! And, the books are:

As for the books I didn't like: again, two books make the list, for very different reasons. I found one of the books incredibly boring, and the other just... 'silly' for lack of better words. Both were tedious reads, but, give me a pat on the back, for I struggled through and actually finished both (and nope, didn't find a saving grace!).

Have you read these books? What did you think? Agree with me, or want to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at me? Or, are you slightly more dignified, and will just agree to disagree?

George Orwell - Animal Farm

An anthropomorphic anti-Soviet social satire, this book stirred up a fair bit of controversy, and initially, a multitude of publishers refused to print it, fearing the repercussions of the act. The book focuses on the animals of Manor Farm, and how they go the full circle, from being owned by men and working for them, to being an animal democracy, and then the balance of power shifting again, to one of the species...

In the opening chapter, the Old Baron summons all the animals of Manor Farm one evening, after the farmer - Mr. Jones - has retired for the night. He then tells the animals of a dream where the animals are independent, and working for themselves, and not man. He then encourages them to plan a revolution to overthrow man, and take their fate in their own hands.

And that is exactly what these animals do, by running Mr. Jones out of the farm, and creating a democracy, with seven commandments:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend
3. No animal shall ever wear clothes
4. No animal shall ever sleep in a bed
5. No animal shall ever drink alcohol
6. No animal shall kill any other animal
7. All animals are equal

This is the new improved farm - the Animal Farm - where the animals join forces and work for themselves. Pigs, deemed the most intellectual of all animals, are mutually considered to be the species who would educate the others, as well as plan out the best course of action for the farm. All in all, the animals were ecstatic that they had achieved this utopian dream, and news of their success spread far and wide.

However, soon enough, the pigs became the 'rulers' of this utopia, and started setting down the rules, often overriding the commandments, or adding an exception clause, without informing the other citizens. Napoleon, the elite ruler (who was meant to represent Stalin), with the help of Squealer (supposedly Molotov) started slowly brainwashing the other animals, and confusing them greatly; so much so, that, eventually a totalitarian regime emerged, but the animals didn't even realize what was happening. The final commandment was altered by the pigs to

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

No animal was informed of this change, and none of them realized what was actually going on - be it because of their inherently trusting nature, or because of the pack of lies they were fed by the pigs-in-charge. I don't want to give away the ending of the book, but suffice it to say that the last line pretty much sums up the book in a nutshell.

This book explores the failure of communism, and how, while in theory it's utopian; in practice, it just ends up being a totalitarian dystopia (in the context of the Stalin rule, at least). It shows naivety of people, and how easy it is to muddle their thoughts by stretching the truth, or talking so confidently that they start doubting their own memories. For example, when the pigs moved into the Jones' house, and started sleeping on the beds, one of the animals was sure that there was a commandment that denounced this. When he went to the 'wall' where all the commandments were details, what he read was

No animal shall ever sleep in a bed with sheets.

Of course, the pigs denied using sheets.

What is really scary, though, is that the book is so convincing; that the animals are so quick to believe everything. Even when their food rations are decreased, their working hours increased, and the pigs are getting all the apples, they do not revolt against the pigs, for, they believe that it's better than working for the Jones'. Of course, no one quite recalls what that was like, and whether that was a better life, or worse.

While this book sounds political, it's not, really. As in, one can easily read it as a piece of fiction (a fairy tale, as one of its alternate titles suggest), and contemplate on some of the many points raised without matching up the main characters with their corresponding historical figures. Of course, the matching makes the book more interesting, but... I only ended up looking into who each character was after I finished it; more out of interest in the history of the Soviet Union, as opposed to because the book demanded it.

This book is a classic, and I think a definite must-read. It's practically been on every 'list' of must-reads and best books, and there's a reason why.

An 8 on 10, with my only complaints being that the book is overtly simplistic, and, not the reader is not completely clear as to who each character of the book is. Of course, if it was abundantly clear, the reader would complain that little is left to the imagination....  Also, I can't help but wonder how would things have materialized if the pigs were capitalists, not communists... any ideas?

Anthony Burgess - A Clockwork Orange

O my brothers, this book is real horrorshow. You must have slooshied about it, and in my opinion, it's a must read. Apologies for the nadsat, i.e. teenage Russian slang, but I think this is partly responsible for making this book just as good as it is (and I really can't rate it high enough). Initially, the book is challenging to read. The language is full of slang, that takes some time to get accustomed to. I was confused and felt that I really needed a dictionary (or, the book needed a glossary) to make some sense out of this book. However, within a couple of chapters, the slang started to make sense, and I just couldn't stop reading it, to see how it ends.

The book revolves around Alex, who is fifteen when the book starts. The opening scene seems innocent enough - Alex and his three droogs are hanging out in a milkbar (where the drinks are laced with drugs), one evening. Once they leave the milkbar though, we get introduced to the violent streak in these four teenagers. They decide to beat up a man leaving a library, just for the sake of it; get into a bloody fight with a rival gang; steal a car; enter some random home of a couple - beat the husband up, and gang rape the wife. And if that's not bad enough, they then tolchock the car into the river below. Real nasty stuff, and that point, you can't help but feeling that the four teenagers are despicable and deserve severe punishment.

Later on that evening, we get a glimpse of another side of Alex, the gang privodevat, as he goes home, and in total darkness listens to some classical music. That's when we discover his unequivocal love for Beethoven, and some other classical geniuses. Who knew their crime-minded malchicks appreciate music as much as they do violence?

When the gang decides to overthrow Alex as their leader, and get George, one of the droogs to replace him, Alex challenges George to a fight, which he wins, thereby retaining his title. That night, they decide to get up to some serious mischief, and rob a rich woman. However, things don't quite go according to plan, and Alex's violence costs the woman her life. The three droogs abandon Alex there, letting him take the fall for it while they run away... and Alex is charged with murder.

Good riddance, you say? A boy like that deserves no better? Well, read on...

Alex spends two years in jail, where he shares a small cell with some other inmates. When a new inmate is brought to their cell, and starts throwing his weight around, Alex, with the help of the other inmates, end up killing him (accidentally). As things normally pan out, the other prisoners deny responsibility, and Alex takes the fall. He volunteers for the Ludovico Technique, a procedure that is supposed to change the criminal mind, to that of a peace-loving citizen, in just two weeks. Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?

This technique is essentially conditional programming/aversion therapy. Alex is forced to watch videos of gruesome violence, and is injected with some nauseating medicine simultaneously. The idea is, every time the subject (in this case, Alex) thinks of violence, he ends up feeling nauseous. However, Alex is never told what the treatment actually entails, and he assumes it's something nice and easy, that gets him out of prison in two weeks - the only reason why he volunteers.

When Alex goes back to life outside prison, he is not prepared for what greets him, and you can't help but feel sorry for the boy, as he tries to figure things out. Stripped off everything, even his greatest love, we see a struggle, and we're forced to ask some serious ethical questions: Are treatments like the Ludovico Technique justified? If someone shows a violent streak, is the government entitled to brainwash them? And what if the primary reason to get people undergo this treatment is that the prisons just don't have enough space to hold all the convicts? Do two wrongs make a right? Does the end justify means? Do the means justify the end?

This dystopian novel is incredibly well-written. I don't think the reader is supposed to relate to Alex. While Alex's description of Beethoven's music might just be one of the most beautiful things I've read in literature, his violent streak and some of the criminal acts he's conducted might be the most horrific. As I flipped the last page of the book, I couldn't help but admire Alex just a tad, and I also regretted that the book was over. Definitely one of the most thought-provoking books I've read in recent times.

Dare I say, a 10 on 10?

Apologies

I've been pretty bad at keeping this blog up to date. In my defense, I've been working on a big project that's been wrapped up now. However, I have still been reading - what with commuting about four hours daily! Read a few exceptional books; in fact, most of them from the 1001 Books To Read Before You Die list, including Plot Against America, and The Handmaid's Tale.  With a nice lazy long weekend planned, I'll try and get the reviews up-to-date. 

Wish me luck... x

Booking Through Thursday - The Numbers Game

 

Some people read one book at a time. Some people have a number of them on the go at any given time, perhaps a reading in bed book, a breakfast table book, a bathroom book, and so on, which leads me to…

1. Are you currently reading more than one book?
2. If so, how many books are you currently reading?
3. Is this normal for you?
4. Where do you keep your current reads?

So, here goes:

1. Nope - reading just the one. I find it difficult to concentrate on more than one book at a time, considering most of my reading is done on the noisy tube, full of distractions and delays. 
2. Just the one. 
3. Mostly, yes. If I'm on holiday, I tend to read multiple books at the same time. Or, if I'm reading something really heavy, and I need to mix it with something light. For example, if I'm reading War & Peace, it'll be likely that I'm reading a Mary Higgins Clark suspense thriller at the same time. 
4. Current reads that I'm reading - in my bag / Current reads that I'm taking a break from - on my bed/bedside table/desk. Only because I'll keep seeing the book around, and won't forget about it. or leave it unfinished. 

How about you guys? Multiple books? Just the one?

Booking Through Thursday - Worst Best Book

 

What's the worst best book you've ever read - the one everyone says is great, but you can't figure out why?

There are two books I can immediately think of: Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner. My friends were raving about both books, and I think both spent a good three months on the bestsellers chart, before I even ventured near them to give them a shot. 

The Da Vinci Code - A book that was so factually incorrect, that it seemed that the so-called 'facts' the book was based on was also part of the fiction. I thought it was either poorly researched, or commercially controversial, or both. The history of Christianity has been tweaked to Brown's convenience, and almost none of the facts about Leonardo Da Vinci are accurate. If that's not bad enough, the plot itself is weak (if you've read more than three Agatha Christies in your life, you probably read the book with your head in your hands, out of sheer frustration). Sometimes, you inadvertently end up judging the lead characters for not picking up things that stare them in the face, begging to be noticed. And finally, as the good ol' folks at the New York Times commented on this unfortunate bestseller:

Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence

The Kite Runner - I don't think I've found a lead character more despicable and annoying than Amir. He's selfish, jealous, cowardly, and thinks the world of himself. To top it off, he's the narrator, and justifies each and every one of his ridiculous actions, and that just makes him all the more despicable. And then there's Hassan, the subservient 'best friend' to Amir. He could have been the shining light of this book - the saving grace, if you like. However, his character was that of a doormat, and while that is understandable, to an extent (he was one of the house-help's son), it still resulted in me finding little to no sympathy for him. 

 The book itself left little to the imagination. It had everything spelt out for the reader, almost like it was a book catering to eight year olds. The imagery and description seemed forced, for lack of better words. It was like Hosseini a second-hand account of Afghanistan. I delved into that a little, and discovered that he hadn't been to Afghanistan since he left the country at a young age. He recently went to the country just so that he could familiarize himself with the background of the book. Hmm - nice and commercial, just like the story line. 

And finally - the language was appalling. It was almost as though the first draft had found its way to the publisher, and no one decided to edit it at all. Reading the book was definitely one of the worst experiences of my life.

Mohsin Hamid - Moth Smoke

This is The Great Gatsby set in the 21st century, in Pakistan. The similarities between the two books are striking, and the endings are almost identical. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that this book was inspired by Fitzgerald's classic.

An insight into the life of the rich social circle in Pakistan, this book explores some of the typical subjects one would expect by a sub-continent writer.

To be honest, this is probably the second or third book I've read by a Pakistani author (the only others I've read are The Reluctant Fundamentalist by the same author, and The Islamist - can't remember who wrote that!), and as this was the first one that explores the society in the country, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I was slightly taken aback - by the abundance of alcohol, drugs, parties and opulence that the book displayed (primary reason behind the Great Gatsby comparison).

It's the story of Daru, a middle-class man working in a bank, who sees his life fall apart as he is fired from his job, falls in love with his best friend's wife, starts mixing hash and heroin, and decides to join forces with a corrupt rickshaw driver.

It's a story about friendship and betrayal, about hypocrisy and violence, about crime and punishment, about corruption and nepotism. While I personally did not sympathize much with Daru, I ended up finding his best friend fairly despicable.

What makes this book different, and an interesting read is how the author brings forth every character's point of view, by dividing the book into many chapters. Each chapter is narrated by one of the characters of the book, thereby giving us insight into them, their actions, and what motivates them to do some of the things they do.

While the book has an unfair ending, one can't help but wonder whether Daru deserved better or not.

Overall a 6 on 10, and a good book to read on tube.