Kate's Queen City Notes

Blundering through Cincinnati, laughing all the way

Tag Archives: 100 best books


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: THE MAGUS

That book was like a slap in the face, but only if by some perversion it’s enjoyable. I don’t think I know what happened. I certainly didn’t know what was happening while I was reading it. I thought things would become clear once I reached the end of the book. That’s just not the case.

Usually, I don’t Google books before I write my reviews, but this one left me so confused that I needed to be reassured prior to putting my thoughts out there. The book is about a young British man who teaches abroad on a little island in Greece. Everything gets confusing from that point on.

The young man meets an inhabitant of the island and then witnesses and ultimately participates in something that I will describe as live theater for economy of words. That’s not exactly accurate, but it gets close enough to the concept for you to understand what I am about to say. Reality gets difficult to identify. I think some of the confusion and disorientation that the main character experiences, is meant to rub off on the reader. The main character can’t make sense of what is happing to him in spite of his relentless search for coherence. As a reader, I was also on a relentless search for coherence. In that sense, I was in the book with the character.

I enjoyed this aspect of the book immensely. I liked the experience enough that I would like to read it again in a decade. I suspect that the experience of the book is colored by what the reader brings to it. I suspect I would feel differently about this book at other phases in my life. I’m excited to revisit this book in the future and test out my hunch.

 


by 2 Comments

100 Books by 40: MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

Are we carried along by destiny, or are we actors that influence the course of our lives? I haven’t given this much thought before reading Memoirs of a Geisha. The recurring theme in the book is that the characters are floating on a river and exert little to no influence on the course of their own lives. The book presents this belief as a sensible outcome of Buddist teaching.

I didn’t notice until reading this book how this idea might strike at the fundamental difference between Western religions and Eastern religions. I know my bias as an actor in my life stems from my Christianity-soaked childhood. The core of Christian thought is that we must exert control over our impulses and with God’s help can bend away from our natural inclinations. Sure Christians often say that they follow God’s plan for their lives, but I’ve rarely seen someone who truly lives like that. This diverges greatly from Buddism’s pushing people to stop resisting their human experience and embrace what is and what comes.

This book was great. I enjoyed all the thoughts it provoked in me. I enjoyed peeking into a world that feels fully foreign to me. I enjoyed the character’s perspective as a receiver for what life brought to her.

It’s very anti-American to consider your life as something that happens to you as opposed to something you influence and create for yourself. This idea flies directly in the face of that capitalistic mantra of pulling yourself up by your own boot-straps. That saying was originally meant to describe an exercise in futility, given that it’s physically impossible to pick yourself up. Perhaps the current American meaning of this statement is illustrative of the conflict inherent in saying that God controls everything, and yet we must control our behavior.


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: THE THORN BIRDS

Catholics. They love their guilt. I don’t know what to think of this book. I’m trying to procrastinate thinking of the book by considering the made-for-tv miniseries. It was the second-most watched miniseries coming in behind Roots. I am sure it was considerably less difficult to get such an audience back in 1983, when there were only three TV stations to choose from. TV producers had it easy.

SPOLIER ALERT

The book describes the lives of three generations of women. The book was published in 1977, but the books starts of in 1915. The book focuses on a forbidden romance between a priest and an Australian rancher’s daughter. Shenanigans ensue. Shenanigans like the woman gets pregnant but hides the pregnancy from the priest. The woman feels victorious in that she’s stolen a child from the priest. Years later victory is snatched from her with her son chooses to enter the priesthood. Victory is stolen from everyone when the young man dies in a swimming accident.

I think the author wants me to feel bad for the woman. I don’t feel bad for her. I do, however, feel bad for the way in which most of the characters failed to connect with each other. The woman gets angry at the priest for choosing his career/calling over her. She marries someone out of spite. Is it really a wonder that it didn’t turn out well? Characters withhold information from each other with alarming frequency. Should we be surprised that the relationships suffer from a lack of authenticity?

This plot comes straight out of a soap opera. The deception and ulterior motives all say Guiding Light. I can’t connect with characters like that. I did like reading about Australia though. So, yeah, I won’t be reading this again. I might be watching the miniseries, mostly because I don’t understand how Richard Chamberlain got cast as the incredibly attractive priest. Should you read this book? If you love soap operas, have at it.


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: A SUITABLE BOY

Wow. I really didn’t enjoy this book. It seems like the BBC editor that put together this list might have added some tokens. Token non-British writes to assuage any guilt, he or she might have felt at their very, very white list of authors.

The book is 1400 pages. Clearly the author’s real passion was discussing post-colonial India. The plot and the characters are all in service to discuss and explore that cultural environment and political challenges.

The lack of character development is enough to turn me off, but the author is also obliviously sexist. The female characters seem to have zero thoughts or conversations about anything outside their husbands, sons, fathers, or future husbands. The men have thoughts and conversations about religion and politics. The author seems completely unaware that he’s created such one dimensional female characters. I realize that this was supposed to be written in the 50’s. I also realize that feminism is a bit behind the curve in Indian culture. But, really?

Sexism is what made me hate this book. Honestly, I skimmed once I discovered how lacking the female character development was.

Here’s an update on my reading list.
Reading now:
64. The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough
67. The Magus, John Fowles

Finished reading:

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
4. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
7. Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
8. Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
9. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, CS Lewis
10. Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë
11. Catch-22, Joseph Heller
12. Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë
13. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks
14. Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier
15. The Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
16. The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
17. Great Expectations, Charles Dickens
18. Little Women, Louisa May Alcott
19. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Louis de Bernieres
20. War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy
21. Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
22. Harry Potter And The Philosopher’s Stone, JK Rowling
23. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, JK Rowling
24. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, JK Rowling
25. The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien
26. Tess Of The D’Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy
27. Middlemarch, George Eliot
28. A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving
29. The Grapes Of Wrath, John Steinbeck
30. Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
31. The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson
32. One Hundred Years Of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez
33. The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett
34. David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
35. Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
36. Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson
37. A Town Like Alice, Nevil Shute
38. Persuasion, Jane Austen
39. Dune, Frank Herbert
40. Emma, Jane Austen
41. Anne Of Green Gables, LM Montgomery
42. Watership Down, Richard Adams
43. The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald
44. The Count Of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas
45. Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh
46. Animal Farm, George Orwell
47. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens
48. Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy
49. Goodnight Mister Tom, Michelle Magorian
50. The Shell Seekers, Rosamunde Pilcher
51. The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett
52. Of Mice And Men, John Steinbeck
53. The Stand, Stephen King
54. Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy
55. A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth
56. The BFG, Roald Dahl
57. Swallows And Amazons, Arthur Ransome
58. Black Beauty, Anna Sewell
59. Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer
61. Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman
60. Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
63. A Tale Of Two Cities, Charles Dickens *I read this when I was too young to appreciate it; I would like to read it again as an adult. I will do so if I have time.
65. Mort, Terry Pratchett
66. The Magic Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton
70. Lord Of The Flies, William Golding *I’ve read this twice. I will read it again if I have time.
77. The Woman In White, Wilkie Collins
87. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
90. On The Road, Jack Kerouac *I’ve read this twice. I will read it again if I have time. I have the unabriged unedited version and will probably take on that if time allows.

Pending reading:
62. Memoirs Of A Geisha, Arthur Golden
68. Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
69. Guards! Guards!, Terry Pratchett
71. Perfume, Patrick Süskind
72. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell
73. Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
74. Matilda, Roald Dahl
75. Bridget Jones’s Diary, Helen Fielding
76. The Secret History, Donna Tartt
78. Ulysses, James Joyce
79. Bleak House, Charles Dickens
80. Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson
81. The Twits, Roald Dahl
82. I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith
83. Holes, Louis Sachar
84. Gormenghast, Mervyn Peake
85. The God Of Small Things, Arundhati Roy
86. Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson
88. Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons
89. Magician, Raymond E Feist
91. The Godfather, Mario Puzo
92. The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel
93. The Colour Of Magic, Terry Pratchett
94. The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho
95. Katherine, Anya Seton
96. Kane And Abel, Jeffrey Archer
97. Love In The Time Of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez
98. Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson
99. The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot
100. Midnight’s Children, Salman Rushdie


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: ARTEMIS FOWL

I listened to this as an Audio book. It’s about trolls and twelve-year old villains. The book explains that this boy has been left unattended due to his mother’s hysteria over his father going missing. This boy is a genius, and attempts to trick fairies out of their gold.

I’m glad that I listened to this book. As stated in other blogs, I don’t enjoy children’s books for the most part. Half-listening while cursing the rolling-speed-bumps on the highway couldn’t have been more perfect. I get why the boy’s autonomy and hired help would appeal to kids. There’s so much of their lives that they can’t control. It’s probably a shared childhood fantasy to have control. Isn’t that the main reason we long to grow-up?

But as an adult reader, I just find the boy’s behavior so implausible. One would think that I would say the same about the fairies. They are less obnoxious, as they are wholly fictional entities. I know twelve year-old boys. I don’t know any fairies. Fairies have flying suits? Sure. Twelve year-old boys are genius criminal masterminds? Not so much.

Had I found this book as a child, I would probably like it. As an adult, I notice that the best developed characters are the non-human ones. I won’t ever read this again, but I would be happy to suggest it for anyone under the age of fifteen.


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: THE MAGIC AND FARAWAY TREE

Kids books. I’m not that into them. I don’t have kids, and I am thirty-eight. I’m not going to have kids. I have no reason to be into kids books. The Magic and Faraway Tree is a kids book.

They climb through the trees. They see magical lands. They get into scrapes.

This book told me nothing useful about life. it’s cute, but wholly useless. There’s a lot of things like that. Cute but sans use. Do I suggested it? Not really. Will I read it again? Certainly not.


by 1 Comment

100 Books by 40: MORT

I read this book while very sleep deprived. I was on a twenty-two hour train ride. The more fantastic aspects of the plot just rolled over my sleepy brain.

The story takes place on a planet other than Earth. A hapless apprentice is take by death for training. You read that right, Death. It’s what you think. He’s a skeleton and rides a horse.

Have I mentioned that I often dislike science fiction? Yes, well this is obviously science fiction. And I failed to connect with it, as I often do. The characters are never developed enough for me to feel engaged in what happens to them. I was supposed to care about Mort turning into death. I was supposed to care who Mort decided to marry. I know how all of these things ended, but I just didn’t care. The only character that I ended up caring for was death. *****************SPOILER ALERT***************** I love that all death wanted to do was be a short order cook that feeds stray cats. I love that death clearly has a thing for cats and India food. Otherwise, I just didn’t engage with this book. I know I am supposed to be intrigued by the idea of destiny, and if it’s possible to cheat it. I just wasn’t feeling it.

This read was so short. If you like science fiction, read it. If you don’t like science fiction, don’t bother.


by 2 Comments

100 Books by 40: Brideshead Revisited

Welcome to my experiment post. I am cranking out a post in twenty minutes. I will read though this next week and evaluate the results of the experiment. I expect lots of grammatical errors and convoluted points. Here we go.

And yet another book about morality and religion, that’s what Brideshead Revisited is. Granted there is some beautiful writing in there. But like Anna Karinina, the author is pontificating about God. The main character describes his relationship to a Catholic family across a couple of decades. There’s lots of suffering. There’s lots of guilt. There’s lots of agonizing about one’s own guilt.

Given that the family is Catholic, I shouldn’t be surprised that guilt takes the staring emotional role. Everyone in the book is miserable. When they are indulging themselves, they are miserable because they feel guilty. When they are making morally sound choices, they are miserable. That makes reading this book miserable.

This book was written in the 40’s. There is one openly gay character, and a homosexual attraction. This is my theory. The author is Catholic and gay. When I realized that I was gay, I felt hopeless. Both of my paths forward looked bleak. Either I say in the closet and sacrifice having the meaningful connection that we all crave, or I come out and disappoint almost everyone I knew. I couldn’t see a bright future in either of those choices. After considering how much I would need to hide my genuine self, I knew I couldn’t stay in the closet. I would rather face judgment than lose my authenticity. Feeling like you have no good option is oppressive. That’s what I was sensing in this book.

A quick internet search confirmed my suspicions. And after wallowing in his self-loathing for the hours it took to complete the book, I was reminded of that place I was in. What a prison. I found the book trough to get through because of my own experiences that I found echoing in those pages. Now then, I am stepping back out of my closet. That place was miserable.


by Leave a comment

100 Books by 40: Naughts and Crosses

I like the idea of this book. But wow, it was heavy-handed and overly dramatic. The author describes a dystopian alternate universe. In this place, white people ,naughts, were enslaved by black people, crosses. The books opens when the naughts are beginning the struggle to have equality.

This is a young adult book. The story centers around a young naught and cross who are in love. The story is about how they struggle with their love while occupying such different positions in their society. This is the least interesting part of the book.

The concept of flipping the script on race relations works. The story covers a bit about history, and the fact that it’s only written by the dominant race/culture. She lists naught inventors that were left out of history books, that results in leaving the students with the impression that only crosses are capable of making advances in science. The naughts that she lists are actual black inventors that are skipped over in most history books even today. She addressed the roll of media, and how the content can also further in accurate impressions of naughts as they are only covered when they engage in criminal acts. The TV show COPS anyone?

Did I like this book? Not exactly. I liked the concept. I didn’t like the book. Would I read it again? Certainly not. Should you read it? The concept is pretty great. And the book is an easy short read. Because I like the concept so well, I would suggest picking this book up. Just prepare yourself for out dramatic it is.


by 2 Comments

100 Books by 40: Anna Karinina

I don’t know what Tolstoy was getting at. Or, I should say I don’t understand the point he seems to be reinforcing. He meticulously describes the inner live of a woman who falls in love, and leaves her loveless marriage. He also describes an ethical atheist as he embarks on his family life. It seems like Tolstoy is genuinely sympathetic to both of these characters.

****Giant Spoiler Alert*****
Then he proceeds to have her throw herself into an oncoming train, and has the atheist character get religion. If he wanted to pontificate about morality, I think he could have spent far less time telling us about the inner life of Anna Karinina, the unfaithful wife, and Levin, the atheist. I feel vaguely annoyed every time an author is so simplistic in doling out morality. Anna Karinina had to die because she’s an adulterer. Levin had to find God because, well god.

The only thing that doesn’t really fit here is Anna’s husband. He doesn’t come to a particularly great end. He seems really distraught about loosing his wife and falls into chicanery and fanaticism. His career stalls after Anna’s affair becomes public; and he is judged harshly for not calling out Vronsky, Anna’s lover, for a duel.

I liked reading about life in 19th century Russia. I was interested to read that Anna was punished for adultery, and yet she was only honest about what most others were doing in private. It was also interesting that her isolation from society probably exacerbated her paranoia over Vronsky falling out of love with her.

Did I like this book? Not really. Would I read it again? No. Should you read it? I don’t know. It’s awfully long to conclude in such a predicable way. How interested are you in 19th century Russia? Not so much? Don’t pick up this book.