Scan barcode
vertellerpaul's reviews
223 reviews
Een schitterend gebrek by Arthur Japin
3.0
Geschreven door de Nederlandse Umberto Eco is dit een erudiet en geleerd boek. Ik hou daar wel van. Er is heel wat studie aan voorafgegaan (getuige het nawoord) en het geschetste tijdsbeeld komt geloofwaardig over. Het verhaal is sterk met een mooie omwenteling aan het einde.
Er is erg veel dialoog in het boek, zeker in de eerste helft. Doe dialogen zijn allemaal diepgravend, vol filosofische gedachten en bespiegelingen over emoties. Dat is vermoeiend. Daarnaast heeft Japin de neiging veel dingen meerdere keren te zeggen en heel veel uit te leggen. Dat is niet altijd nodig en doet me zo nu en dan afdwalen.
Japins taalbeheersing is uitstekend, waardoor het geheel erg prettig leesbaar is. De taal is niet modern, maar ook weer niet zo ouderwets dat het minder begrijpelijk wordt.
Een mooi boek, maar geen enorme topper.
Er is erg veel dialoog in het boek, zeker in de eerste helft. Doe dialogen zijn allemaal diepgravend, vol filosofische gedachten en bespiegelingen over emoties. Dat is vermoeiend. Daarnaast heeft Japin de neiging veel dingen meerdere keren te zeggen en heel veel uit te leggen. Dat is niet altijd nodig en doet me zo nu en dan afdwalen.
Japins taalbeheersing is uitstekend, waardoor het geheel erg prettig leesbaar is. De taal is niet modern, maar ook weer niet zo ouderwets dat het minder begrijpelijk wordt.
Een mooi boek, maar geen enorme topper.
Koning David en de splitsing van het rijk by Guus Kuijer
3.0
Ook dit deel heb ik met plezier gelezen. Dit gedeelte van de Bijbel omvat uitvoerige politieke verwikkelingen en daarom grote hoeveelheden namen van plaatsen en personen. Daarin ben ik af en toe de weg kwijtgeraakt. Wat daarbij niet helpt is dat Kuijer steevast kiest voor onbetrouwbare vertellers die vanuit hun eigen (gekleurde) perspectief het verhaal vertellen. Dat maakt het soms lastig om bij te houden welk personage nou precies wat weet, wie wat wil (en met welke bondgenoten) en wie nou wie hoe aan het bedriegen is.
Kuijer is op zijn best in de menselijke verhalen: hun relaties, emoties en avonturen. De grote politieke toestanden zouden daarbij meer achtergrond mogen zijn, wat mij betreft.
Kuijer is op zijn best in de menselijke verhalen: hun relaties, emoties en avonturen. De grote politieke toestanden zouden daarbij meer achtergrond mogen zijn, wat mij betreft.
Baron 1898 by Jacques Vriens
4.0
Het boek komt wat traag op gang en heeft wat uitstapjes nodig naar stukken voorgeschiedenis die niet allemaal even interessant zijn. De verschillende liefdesgeschiedenissen voelen soms wat soap-achtig en een beetje simplistisch. Maar het boek komt uit de zeer vlotte pen van Jacques Vriens, die in "Grootmoeders Grote Oren" de traditionele sprookjes al geniaal navertelde, mét alle ellende en gruwelijkheden die daarbij horen.
Ook in Baron 1898 schuwt hij de griezelige aspecten niet, maar nooit wordt het écht gevaarlijk. Daardoor is dit boek voor kinderen van alle leeftijden geschikt, ook al door de bijzonder sfeervolle illustraties. De verhaallijnen grijpen uiteindelijk mooi in elkaar en sluiten perfect aan bij de gelijknamige attractie in de Efteling. Het is zeker niet nodig om de attractie te kennen om van dit boek te kunnen genieten, maar de combinatie van verhaal en belevenis op het park vormen een mooie eenheid.
Ook in Baron 1898 schuwt hij de griezelige aspecten niet, maar nooit wordt het écht gevaarlijk. Daardoor is dit boek voor kinderen van alle leeftijden geschikt, ook al door de bijzonder sfeervolle illustraties. De verhaallijnen grijpen uiteindelijk mooi in elkaar en sluiten perfect aan bij de gelijknamige attractie in de Efteling. Het is zeker niet nodig om de attractie te kennen om van dit boek te kunnen genieten, maar de combinatie van verhaal en belevenis op het park vormen een mooie eenheid.
Into the Woods: A Five Act Journey Into Story by John Yorke
4.0
“It is only through story that we are able to bring our inner selves in line with the world.” This is almost the last sentence of Into the Woods and hammers home the point Yorke makes: stories bring order to a basically chaotic world. It’s an encouragement to create and consume stories and the best reason I’ve seen so far. It’s also the reason stories exist in the first place. And it’s the reason story structure gets an archetypal shape, the three act structure.
I approached this book with caution: it seems to be the umpteenth final theory of all stories. I mistrust every writer who claims to have found the string theory of storytelling. However, I largely agree with Yorke and he brings his points across clearly, albeit forcefully. He can be repetitive, sometimes exceeds the number of examples we actually need and occasionally gets caught up in his extensive metaphors and analogies. Even though he writes about each and every kind of story and claims his theory is applicable to almost everything in life, his examples mainly come from film and television.
Several times Yorke starts a long essay on the ways of the human mind. To quote an apt Dutch expression, this seems to be cold-soil-psychology (psychologie van de koude grond): theories developed by non-psychologists with a tentative grasp on psychology. And yet, Yorke is convincing. Even when he seems to talk about the metaphysical, almost mystical side of things, he keeps his feet firmly on the ground and is still believable and understandable.
String theory? As Yorke modestly admits in his final chapter, many have claimed to find a scientific holy grail, only to be refuted by a new, better story. He might be no exception. Still, in a long row of works on story theory this one both unifies a great many older theories and is refreshingly original. And isn’t that how stories work? What exists is confronted by its opposite, subsumes it and becomes a new whole. According to Yorke, at least.
(By the way: the cover to this book is made of something weird: it feels strange to the touch and smudges terribly…)
I approached this book with caution: it seems to be the umpteenth final theory of all stories. I mistrust every writer who claims to have found the string theory of storytelling. However, I largely agree with Yorke and he brings his points across clearly, albeit forcefully. He can be repetitive, sometimes exceeds the number of examples we actually need and occasionally gets caught up in his extensive metaphors and analogies. Even though he writes about each and every kind of story and claims his theory is applicable to almost everything in life, his examples mainly come from film and television.
Several times Yorke starts a long essay on the ways of the human mind. To quote an apt Dutch expression, this seems to be cold-soil-psychology (psychologie van de koude grond): theories developed by non-psychologists with a tentative grasp on psychology. And yet, Yorke is convincing. Even when he seems to talk about the metaphysical, almost mystical side of things, he keeps his feet firmly on the ground and is still believable and understandable.
String theory? As Yorke modestly admits in his final chapter, many have claimed to find a scientific holy grail, only to be refuted by a new, better story. He might be no exception. Still, in a long row of works on story theory this one both unifies a great many older theories and is refreshingly original. And isn’t that how stories work? What exists is confronted by its opposite, subsumes it and becomes a new whole. According to Yorke, at least.
(By the way: the cover to this book is made of something weird: it feels strange to the touch and smudges terribly…)
Do/ Story/: How to Tell Your Story So the World Listens by Bobette Buster
4.0
If some storytelling books are heavy four course meals (looking at you, Robert McKee), this is a tiny Belgian chocolate. Its center is a short, but very useful list of tips for telling personal stories. This is coated in a lovely layer of ... stories. These serve as examples, but are also inspirational in their own right. The illustrations, quotes and overall production values of the book are wonderful as well.
This book is about telling your own, personal stories. Much is applicable to telling traditional tales as well, but you'll need to do some transferring of the ideas to that context.
The exercises in the book tend to verge towards therapy sessions, even though Buster denies that this is their purpose. It presupposes that human lives can be perceived as a series of defining moments, thresholds, transformational experiences. Slow developments don't make the best stories, but in my experience they do make up the major part of life. Their is no place for those slow transformations in this book, let alone for lives in which nothing much changes at all.
Even if you (like me) don't agree with that premise, this book is still a lovely little gem, well written, engaging, useful and fun to read.
This book is about telling your own, personal stories. Much is applicable to telling traditional tales as well, but you'll need to do some transferring of the ideas to that context.
The exercises in the book tend to verge towards therapy sessions, even though Buster denies that this is their purpose. It presupposes that human lives can be perceived as a series of defining moments, thresholds, transformational experiences. Slow developments don't make the best stories, but in my experience they do make up the major part of life. Their is no place for those slow transformations in this book, let alone for lives in which nothing much changes at all.
Even if you (like me) don't agree with that premise, this book is still a lovely little gem, well written, engaging, useful and fun to read.
Myth, Volume 40: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures by G. S. Kirk
1.0
The collected opinions of G.S. Kirk
It is certainly possible to write entertaining books about the theory of myth. Kirk failed. This is a very badly written book containing very bad science. Where to begin...
First of all, the writing style is terrible. This book is a jungle, the sentences and vocabulary are vines. One needs a machete to get through. Sentences are long, convoluted and very hard to parse, even for someone fluent in English. Kirk will always use a more difficult word or expression, even if a simpler one is available. It's often unclear what a pronoun refers to or what the implied subject of a verb is. This makes for slow an laborious reading.
Unfortunately, the rewards for this tedious reading are few and far between. Occasionally, Kirk will give a nice piece of analysis, a useful list or an interesting observation. I firmly agree with him, when he (repeatedly) says that there is no one single explanation for the origin and function of myth. There are quite a few other observations that make sense, for instance about the limited role of the gods in Greek myths.
However, most of the book is devoted to Kirk's opinions, intuitions and speculations. In the first chapter he tries to define myth. Simply put his conclusion seems to be that whenever it feels like a myth, it is one. Kirk himself is the ultimate judge on this. He tries to separate folktale from myth, but never succeeds in defining folktale. He believes that fantastic and speculative elements are essential to a true myth, but again fails to define those concepts.
His book is very polemic. There is hardly a scientist on this subject he agrees with and he arrogantly brushes their theories aside as "unlikely", without proving his point or leaving any room for discussion and, even worse, without providing an alternative theory that is better than the ones he rejects.
He seems to have a special dislike of Greek mythology and seems desperate to show that it isn't true mythology (because it lacks speculative and fantastic elements and is too rich in folktale elements), not Greek (derived from Mesopotamian sources) and more like literature. I agree that Greek myth might be a special case, but why so negative? His argument is weak, Greek mythology is full of fantasy and speculation.
I could go into many more details. His definitions are often in fact his opinions and contain many values (a myth is a "serious" story - when is something considered "serious"?), it's unclear to what extent some phenomena need to be present (a myth is usually not about gods, but gods can appear in a myth - how many gods a myth make?!) and sometimes contradictory. He accuses other mythologists of not taking into account all the variants and the whole corpus of myths, but he himself picks and chooses. He jumps to conclusions and accuses others of doing just that. He simplifies and complicated at a whim.
All in all the main value of this book was to sharpen my own opinions against Kirk's and learning a few details from his theories.
It is certainly possible to write entertaining books about the theory of myth. Kirk failed. This is a very badly written book containing very bad science. Where to begin...
First of all, the writing style is terrible. This book is a jungle, the sentences and vocabulary are vines. One needs a machete to get through. Sentences are long, convoluted and very hard to parse, even for someone fluent in English. Kirk will always use a more difficult word or expression, even if a simpler one is available. It's often unclear what a pronoun refers to or what the implied subject of a verb is. This makes for slow an laborious reading.
Unfortunately, the rewards for this tedious reading are few and far between. Occasionally, Kirk will give a nice piece of analysis, a useful list or an interesting observation. I firmly agree with him, when he (repeatedly) says that there is no one single explanation for the origin and function of myth. There are quite a few other observations that make sense, for instance about the limited role of the gods in Greek myths.
However, most of the book is devoted to Kirk's opinions, intuitions and speculations. In the first chapter he tries to define myth. Simply put his conclusion seems to be that whenever it feels like a myth, it is one. Kirk himself is the ultimate judge on this. He tries to separate folktale from myth, but never succeeds in defining folktale. He believes that fantastic and speculative elements are essential to a true myth, but again fails to define those concepts.
His book is very polemic. There is hardly a scientist on this subject he agrees with and he arrogantly brushes their theories aside as "unlikely", without proving his point or leaving any room for discussion and, even worse, without providing an alternative theory that is better than the ones he rejects.
He seems to have a special dislike of Greek mythology and seems desperate to show that it isn't true mythology (because it lacks speculative and fantastic elements and is too rich in folktale elements), not Greek (derived from Mesopotamian sources) and more like literature. I agree that Greek myth might be a special case, but why so negative? His argument is weak, Greek mythology is full of fantasy and speculation.
I could go into many more details. His definitions are often in fact his opinions and contain many values (a myth is a "serious" story - when is something considered "serious"?), it's unclear to what extent some phenomena need to be present (a myth is usually not about gods, but gods can appear in a myth - how many gods a myth make?!) and sometimes contradictory. He accuses other mythologists of not taking into account all the variants and the whole corpus of myths, but he himself picks and chooses. He jumps to conclusions and accuses others of doing just that. He simplifies and complicated at a whim.
All in all the main value of this book was to sharpen my own opinions against Kirk's and learning a few details from his theories.
Mother Earth, Father Sky: Native American Myth by Tom Lowenstein, Piers Vitebsky
3.0
Nicely illustrated, grand and sweeping overview of the myths, rituals, practices and traditions of many Native American tribes. However, this material is far too complex to cover in a single book, resulting in a haphazard and disjointed jumble of half-told stories. It has many nice snippets of stories and descriptions, but there is no overarching principle of organization in this book as it shifts from Inuit to Pueblo in a single paragraph and treats their cultures as one and the same "pan-Indian" culture. This is oversimplifying this many-formed, many-themed world.
Undine by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué
2.0
Some authors have been forgotten by history, some undeservedly, some rightfully so. Our French Huguenot-turned-German-nationalist baron with the long name sits squarely in the second category. Forgotten by everyone and for good reason.
I came to this book more out of academic interest and inspired by the wonderful Sonate Undine by Reinecke. This is a romantic fairy tale and it does have a few strong points: Fouqué manages to convey the idea that all of nature is inhabited by spirits, some good, some malevolent, others indifferent. Every stream, tree and even the soil itself: there is a gnome, spirit, ghost in it. They go by many names and they exert their powers over hapless humans that stumble into their domain. This, by the way, is not his own idea: he borrowed it from a renaissance doctor-slash-alchemist by the name of Paracelsus.
I also liked the tragic storyline: knight falls in love with his holiday crush: she is exotic, strange and unconventional. He impulsively marries her and takes her home to discover that here strangeness is actually kind of annoying. He proceeds to fall in love with the utterly normal woman that sent him on holiday in the first place. A doomed love triangle ensues and everyone ends up dead, miserable or both.
Apart from these two assets, the story is slow, predictable and full of classic, over the top romantic imagery: a castle on the river, a deep, dark forest, a placid lake. Some words are used so often that they become laughable (anmuthig is a prime example). And the mood swings of Bertalda, the square, conventional love interest of our knight, are a little too extreme.
In conclusion: this is a nice story that is in need to be rewritten by a modern author with a more rapid pace, new vocabulary and a little less romanticism. Until then, this piece will remain of academic interest only.
I came to this book more out of academic interest and inspired by the wonderful Sonate Undine by Reinecke. This is a romantic fairy tale and it does have a few strong points: Fouqué manages to convey the idea that all of nature is inhabited by spirits, some good, some malevolent, others indifferent. Every stream, tree and even the soil itself: there is a gnome, spirit, ghost in it. They go by many names and they exert their powers over hapless humans that stumble into their domain. This, by the way, is not his own idea: he borrowed it from a renaissance doctor-slash-alchemist by the name of Paracelsus.
I also liked the tragic storyline: knight falls in love with his holiday crush: she is exotic, strange and unconventional. He impulsively marries her and takes her home to discover that here strangeness is actually kind of annoying. He proceeds to fall in love with the utterly normal woman that sent him on holiday in the first place. A doomed love triangle ensues and everyone ends up dead, miserable or both.
Apart from these two assets, the story is slow, predictable and full of classic, over the top romantic imagery: a castle on the river, a deep, dark forest, a placid lake. Some words are used so often that they become laughable (anmuthig is a prime example). And the mood swings of Bertalda, the square, conventional love interest of our knight, are a little too extreme.
In conclusion: this is a nice story that is in need to be rewritten by a modern author with a more rapid pace, new vocabulary and a little less romanticism. Until then, this piece will remain of academic interest only.