Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
medium-paced
This book was excellent! I have some favorite quotes:
"Why? Love has so many different faces that our imagination is not prepared to see them all."
"Why does it have to be so difficult?"
"Because we see only what we already know. We project our own capacities - for good as well as evil- onto the other person. Then we acknowledge as love primarily those things that correspond to our own image thereof. We wish to be loved as we ourselves would love. Any other way makes us uncomfortable. We respond with doubt and suspicion. We misinterpret the signs. We do not understand the language. We accuse. We assert that the other person does not love us."
It was interesting to come across this quote while reading this gem of a novel on our annual girls' beach week. We had all recently been talking about the 5 love languages (which I have not read), and that may be why this really caught my eye.
Overall, the novel has a lyrical, fairy tale feeling to it that I really enjoyed. The main female character was not very likable, nor was she very relatable - perhaps this was intentional? So as not to distract the reader's attention from the flashback story? I don't know.
It was an emotional enough book that I had a lot of emotion when I finished reading it, and had to wait a few days to start another book. But, it was a good enough book that I did INDEED unplug from the internet and start another book..which I've been pretty lousy at lately. Only didn't get 5 starts because of the really poor characterization of the "modern" character.
"Why? Love has so many different faces that our imagination is not prepared to see them all."
"Why does it have to be so difficult?"
"Because we see only what we already know. We project our own capacities - for good as well as evil- onto the other person. Then we acknowledge as love primarily those things that correspond to our own image thereof. We wish to be loved as we ourselves would love. Any other way makes us uncomfortable. We respond with doubt and suspicion. We misinterpret the signs. We do not understand the language. We accuse. We assert that the other person does not love us."
It was interesting to come across this quote while reading this gem of a novel on our annual girls' beach week. We had all recently been talking about the 5 love languages (which I have not read), and that may be why this really caught my eye.
Overall, the novel has a lyrical, fairy tale feeling to it that I really enjoyed. The main female character was not very likable, nor was she very relatable - perhaps this was intentional? So as not to distract the reader's attention from the flashback story? I don't know.
It was an emotional enough book that I had a lot of emotion when I finished reading it, and had to wait a few days to start another book. But, it was a good enough book that I did INDEED unplug from the internet and start another book..which I've been pretty lousy at lately. Only didn't get 5 starts because of the really poor characterization of the "modern" character.
This book is a sort of fairy tale, sort of magical realism.
It has the always-awkward framing device of someone else being told the real story. In this case, the protagonist's daughter leaves her law practice and decides to find out what happened to her father, who disappeared into Burma (Myanmar) about four years ago. The guy left, telling her he was going to an appointment in Boston, and then was never heard from again- detectives could only trace him as far as Burma.
The fact that this book uses the name Burma instead of Myanmanr, which has been the country's name since 1989, should tell you that the author isn't looking for realism in this book. He's spinning out a fantasy of the remote and beautiful jungle and a love story for the ages. It's not about the political realities and atrocities, it's not about the poverty and mud. I would say the book slips into exoticizing the people of Myanmar, and that's part of the reason that the book didn't get many stars.
Anyway, lawyer daughter runs into someone who says he can tell her what happened to her father, she goes through the obligatory disbelief, and then most of the book is her sitting and listening to the real story. Why do authors feel the need to to this? Can't the story stand on its own? It roughens the pacing and dilutes the focus.
So, the father of this daughter is abandoned by his parents because the mom is incredibly superstitious and thinks he was born under a bad sign. When her husband is killed, six years after the boy is born, she just leaves. The boy stays in one place and watches for her so hard that he loses his sight entirely before he is rescued by another kindly villager.
I stopped really reading about here and skimmed, because it was clear that this was some sort of fable and I wasn't taken by it. The author was attempting to be larger than life, but he only succeeded in irritating me with his superstitious, mystical villagers. However, I did skim enough to know that the boy grows into a man, he meets a girl who can't walk, he becomes her legs and carries her around, she becomes his eyes, and it's all very romantic isn't it, these poor people who can only be whole together. Ugh. The boy develops his hearing to the point where he can hear the heartbeats of chicks in their shells, hence the title.
Next, the boy's nefarious uncle (why nefarious? ) evilly plots to take the boy away from the girl by sending him to the city to get glasses. Then the nefarious uncle doesn't relay their letters to each other. The boy never doubts the girl's love, despite the fact that he never hears from her, but when uncle sends him to school in the USA, he goes along with that idea too. Then he never returns to Burma, starts a whole new family in the USA, but all the time he can hear her heart beating so he knows she's okay. Ugh. So many questions. Why didn't he go back after he was done with school? Why did he marry someone else and have children with her (this is never answered even though the questions was actually asked in the book)? Why was he then portrayed by the author as saintly, otherworldly, the soul of patience, a paragon to his daughter? Obviously the author wants us to find him sympathetic (we're even told that he looks like Gandhi) but I just found him to be annoying passive. You can say that's because of cultural differences, but then why just leave a family that will be hurt by your disappearance if you're all about not rocking the boat?
BTW, he returns to his sweetheart just in time to lay in her arms for a night so that they can both die together. He heard her heart failing, you see. Ugh, ugh, ugh. Too schmaltzy and maudlin for me, thank you.
It has the always-awkward framing device of someone else being told the real story. In this case, the protagonist's daughter leaves her law practice and decides to find out what happened to her father, who disappeared into Burma (Myanmar) about four years ago. The guy left, telling her he was going to an appointment in Boston, and then was never heard from again- detectives could only trace him as far as Burma.
The fact that this book uses the name Burma instead of Myanmanr, which has been the country's name since 1989, should tell you that the author isn't looking for realism in this book. He's spinning out a fantasy of the remote and beautiful jungle and a love story for the ages. It's not about the political realities and atrocities, it's not about the poverty and mud. I would say the book slips into exoticizing the people of Myanmar, and that's part of the reason that the book didn't get many stars.
Anyway, lawyer daughter runs into someone who says he can tell her what happened to her father, she goes through the obligatory disbelief, and then most of the book is her sitting and listening to the real story. Why do authors feel the need to to this? Can't the story stand on its own? It roughens the pacing and dilutes the focus.
So, the father of this daughter is abandoned by his parents because the mom is incredibly superstitious and thinks he was born under a bad sign. When her husband is killed, six years after the boy is born, she just leaves. The boy stays in one place and watches for her so hard that he loses his sight entirely before he is rescued by another kindly villager.
I stopped really reading about here and skimmed, because it was clear that this was some sort of fable and I wasn't taken by it. The author was attempting to be larger than life, but he only succeeded in irritating me with his superstitious, mystical villagers. However, I did skim enough to know that the boy grows into a man, he meets a girl who can't walk, he becomes her legs and carries her around, she becomes his eyes, and it's all very romantic isn't it, these poor people who can only be whole together. Ugh. The boy develops his hearing to the point where he can hear the heartbeats of chicks in their shells, hence the title.
Next, the boy's nefarious uncle (why nefarious? ) evilly plots to take the boy away from the girl by sending him to the city to get glasses. Then the nefarious uncle doesn't relay their letters to each other. The boy never doubts the girl's love, despite the fact that he never hears from her, but when uncle sends him to school in the USA, he goes along with that idea too. Then he never returns to Burma, starts a whole new family in the USA, but all the time he can hear her heart beating so he knows she's okay. Ugh. So many questions. Why didn't he go back after he was done with school? Why did he marry someone else and have children with her (this is never answered even though the questions was actually asked in the book)? Why was he then portrayed by the author as saintly, otherworldly, the soul of patience, a paragon to his daughter? Obviously the author wants us to find him sympathetic (we're even told that he looks like Gandhi) but I just found him to be annoying passive. You can say that's because of cultural differences, but then why just leave a family that will be hurt by your disappearance if you're all about not rocking the boat?
BTW, he returns to his sweetheart just in time to lay in her arms for a night so that they can both die together. He heard her heart failing, you see. Ugh, ugh, ugh. Too schmaltzy and maudlin for me, thank you.
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A beauty of a story.
This was a beautiful story. So much to learn about culture and the power of love.
adventurous
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No