Scan barcode
southofsirius's reviews
171 reviews
The Sea, the Sea by Iris Murdoch
2.0
First and foremost, I did not enjoy the novel. It was bland and dry and way too long, however, the story did resonate with me, and did induce a lot of thought. However, that might just be so as art usually invokes introspection, and might not be a special quality of the novel.
While I didn't enjoy the book, I loved the writing; Murdoch sure is able to paint beautifully with words. The behaviors of the characters and their flaws made me reflect upon my life therefore I feel that ultimately my lack of enjoyment boiled down to personal taste.
I very much enjoy novels with no plot, such as Norwegian wood and A portrait of the artist of a young man; two novels which I greatly enjoyed, however I saw no joy The sea, The sea, but I can understand why so many people praise it to such a high degree.
While I didn't enjoy the book, I loved the writing; Murdoch sure is able to paint beautifully with words. The behaviors of the characters and their flaws made me reflect upon my life therefore I feel that ultimately my lack of enjoyment boiled down to personal taste.
I very much enjoy novels with no plot, such as Norwegian wood and A portrait of the artist of a young man; two novels which I greatly enjoyed, however I saw no joy The sea, The sea, but I can understand why so many people praise it to such a high degree.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
3.0
First and foremost: I think my intelligence might have severely prevented my enjoyment of this book (as it does for many books), that as well as the lack of resonance I had with the concepts brought forward.
For those that read a book for its plot and characters, I'm afraid this book will disappoint you as I felt the entire book was more of a long metaphor for the lack of meaning in life and how one comes to term with it.
Kundera starts first by discussing Nietzsche's take on "Eternal return" which is the theory that everything that has existed will exist once again in an endless cycle. From my understanding. Nietzsche argues that if life doesn't occur again and if things happen only once, then life will hold no meaning as there isn't a way of comparing what has happened with anything else (If the thing happens only once, what is there to compare it with? Only when it repeats can we then make a comparison). Since life has no meaning, it is then unbearable, hence the title (again this is to my understanding which has always been and probably will be wrong, so do take what I say lightly [pun intended]).
He then posits the question if life really is meaningless because it doesn't recur (light) and if life really would be better if there were meaning (heavy). He explores the difference between meaning and and the lack thereof through the four main characters.
Tereza represents weight; meaning. In everything she does she does so with intent; she is sentimental and everything has weight to her. She can't comprehend how love and sex and separate from each other; this is contrasted with her husband, Tomas who embodies lightness. He sleeps around like people eat food; sex is a commodity to him and has no meaning. He wanders about and is not grounded while his wife is chained. Yet the both of them display traits of the opposite from time to time as the novel comes to a close.
They seem to each learn to balance weight and lightness, with the novel concluding (to me) that both are needed. The other two characters, Sabina and Franz, both stick with their extremes of weight and lightness which leads to their downfall.
I feel like I don't fully comprehend the message of the novel, as well as other themes in it such as Tereza's struggle with her body and soul. I hope to come back to it in the future or discuss it with someone in hopes that I learn something new.
For those that read a book for its plot and characters, I'm afraid this book will disappoint you as I felt the entire book was more of a long metaphor for the lack of meaning in life and how one comes to term with it.
Kundera starts first by discussing Nietzsche's take on "Eternal return" which is the theory that everything that has existed will exist once again in an endless cycle. From my understanding. Nietzsche argues that if life doesn't occur again and if things happen only once, then life will hold no meaning as there isn't a way of comparing what has happened with anything else (If the thing happens only once, what is there to compare it with? Only when it repeats can we then make a comparison). Since life has no meaning, it is then unbearable, hence the title (again this is to my understanding which has always been and probably will be wrong, so do take what I say lightly [pun intended]).
He then posits the question if life really is meaningless because it doesn't recur (light) and if life really would be better if there were meaning (heavy). He explores the difference between meaning and and the lack thereof through the four main characters.
Tereza represents weight; meaning. In everything she does she does so with intent; she is sentimental and everything has weight to her. She can't comprehend how love and sex and separate from each other; this is contrasted with her husband, Tomas who embodies lightness. He sleeps around like people eat food; sex is a commodity to him and has no meaning. He wanders about and is not grounded while his wife is chained. Yet the both of them display traits of the opposite from time to time as the novel comes to a close.
They seem to each learn to balance weight and lightness, with the novel concluding (to me) that both are needed. The other two characters, Sabina and Franz, both stick with their extremes of weight and lightness which leads to their downfall.
I feel like I don't fully comprehend the message of the novel, as well as other themes in it such as Tereza's struggle with her body and soul. I hope to come back to it in the future or discuss it with someone in hopes that I learn something new.
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
4.0
I went into this book expecting myself to hate it; yet with a tinge of hope that it wouldn’t turn out to be what I thought it might have been, and I was right to hang onto the hope.
I only heard about the book due to the recent rise in popularity with a genre of aesthetics labeled “Dark academia” which romanticises academia, or rather academia tied with the aesthetics of old, elite universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. (I’m not exactly sure what the proper name for it would be, perhaps Victorian?).
Anyways, I have a strong dislike for dark academia as it’s rather pretentious as it seems more in love with the idea of studying than actual knowledge and the enjoyment of literature (Dark academia usually revolves around literature and not much of the sciences which says quite a lot about it).
Quite surprisingly while the book does romanticise academia, or rather the classics, it does so in a way that both highlights its beauty while calling out the pretentious behaviours associated with it. The main characters are all horrible people, obsessed to a fault and morally corrupt. Truth be told, I am not certain of the main themes that run through the book, nor of the message that it is trying to convey.
Perhaps it is a cautionary tale of obsession and the dangers that follow or a criticism of hedonism and the lack of self control. The loss of control seems to play a huge theme in this book, with the numerous pages on drugs and drinking and addiction. Every character seems to be addicted to something and loses their control to the addiction. This somewhat reminds me of something Immanuel Kant said (to my memory) about how morality is freedom over our impulses; the ability of reason to over throw our desires separates us from animals.
Yet all characters in this book lack any form of control or reason; they are slaves.
I only heard about the book due to the recent rise in popularity with a genre of aesthetics labeled “Dark academia” which romanticises academia, or rather academia tied with the aesthetics of old, elite universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. (I’m not exactly sure what the proper name for it would be, perhaps Victorian?).
Anyways, I have a strong dislike for dark academia as it’s rather pretentious as it seems more in love with the idea of studying than actual knowledge and the enjoyment of literature (Dark academia usually revolves around literature and not much of the sciences which says quite a lot about it).
Quite surprisingly while the book does romanticise academia, or rather the classics, it does so in a way that both highlights its beauty while calling out the pretentious behaviours associated with it. The main characters are all horrible people, obsessed to a fault and morally corrupt. Truth be told, I am not certain of the main themes that run through the book, nor of the message that it is trying to convey.
Perhaps it is a cautionary tale of obsession and the dangers that follow or a criticism of hedonism and the lack of self control. The loss of control seems to play a huge theme in this book, with the numerous pages on drugs and drinking and addiction. Every character seems to be addicted to something and loses their control to the addiction. This somewhat reminds me of something Immanuel Kant said (to my memory) about how morality is freedom over our impulses; the ability of reason to over throw our desires separates us from animals.
Yet all characters in this book lack any form of control or reason; they are slaves.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
4.0
The book has been studied quite thoroughly, with guides and analysis that make the themes clear so I went into this book with somewhat of an understanding of it. The themes of accountability, appearances and others were present as had been mentioned by others. However. Frankenstein wasn't as big as a Villain as I thought he would be. While the main fault did lie with him, as usual things were not black and white.
Certain arguments made by Frankenstein to validate his lack of action did make some sense and I also found myself questioning the thoughts of his creation. While many issues seem to stem from his (Frankenstein) selfishness and self-pity, I see miscommunication between creator and creation playing a large part in the cause of conflict.
On the selfishness of the doctor, the passage where he tries to persuade the sailors to stay on stands out to me. Frankenstein always stated that his creation was eloquent and swayed others with words, yet he does the same. Walton even describes him as charismatic. In that scene, he tries to get the sailors to stay, knowingly putting them in danger just to achieve his goal of killing his creation. That to me, is quite hypocritical of him. For all his ramblings of wanting to save humanity, when it actually gets down to it, he does the opposite.
Certain arguments made by Frankenstein to validate his lack of action did make some sense and I also found myself questioning the thoughts of his creation. While many issues seem to stem from his (Frankenstein) selfishness and self-pity, I see miscommunication between creator and creation playing a large part in the cause of conflict.
On the selfishness of the doctor, the passage where he tries to persuade the sailors to stay on stands out to me. Frankenstein always stated that his creation was eloquent and swayed others with words, yet he does the same. Walton even describes him as charismatic. In that scene, he tries to get the sailors to stay, knowingly putting them in danger just to achieve his goal of killing his creation. That to me, is quite hypocritical of him. For all his ramblings of wanting to save humanity, when it actually gets down to it, he does the opposite.
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard
3.0
Arcadia explores themes I have not come across in any book that I have read so far (although that isn't much in the first place).
It was really refreshing to see science being tackled, especially epistemology. My only issue with the the play is that I wish it were a book. (And also easier to read as my limited intellect quite hindered my enjoyment of it)
It was really refreshing to see science being tackled, especially epistemology. My only issue with the the play is that I wish it were a book. (And also easier to read as my limited intellect quite hindered my enjoyment of it)
Animal Farm by George Orwell
3.0
Absolutely bleak but I’m glad it didn’t make me feel utterly horrible like 1984.
Also it reminded me that I’m not a fan of political novels.
Also it reminded me that I’m not a fan of political novels.