The Slynx, Tatyana Tolstaya (2007)

Reviewer: Elle Ewok

Rating: 4 Raisin Pierogies (good but not for everyone)

Review: Although my love for classic Russian literature is well-documented on this website, I have virtually no exposure to contemporary Russian authors. Indeed, the most "current" Russian author I had read (prior to reading this book) was Nabokov and he died in 1977. My younger brother, who is fluent in Russian and has lived there twice, gave me The Slynx for Christmas telling me that its author is one of the most well-respected contemporary Russian authors.

She should be, her great-uncle is Leo Tolstoy for God's Sake! That's quite a literary pedigree. The Slynx is a dystopian novel written in 2007 (in Russian) by Tatyana Tolstaya and it is her first novel. It takes place in Moscow (or what used to be Moscow) two hundred years after some undefined  apocalyptic event which involved large amounts of radiation. The government is run by a succession of petty despots who rename the city after themselves. The population is small and lives in extremely desolate and harsh conditions (think the slavic middle ages). They (almost) all suffer from strange physical deformities and mutations from the radiation exposure and they are all complete morons. They are superstitious, cruel, violent and just extremely dumb. It it not explained whether the population's idiocy is the result of having to start civilization from scrtach or because of the radiation. I'm guessing it's the radiation.

The source of food, clothing and commerce in society are mice. Books are prohibited and the current ruler plagerizes the old Russian literary masters and claims their writings as his own. The Slynx is narrated by Benedikt, one of the despot's scribes. Benedikt eventually discovers books and falls completely in love with them although he is unable to derive any meaning, philosophy or morality from them.

I really really enjoyed this book but I would only recommend it to certain people. It feels exceedingly ....foreign. This is a book seeped in Russian history, Russian politics, Russian literature, written by a Russian for Russians. From an American perspective, the language is odd, the setting is odd, and the writing is odd. I am certain I missed much of the meaning of this book because of my limited knowledge of Russian political history. That said, the world Tolstaya created fascinated and amused me to no end. There is a ton of dark humor in this book originating mainly from the idiocy of the characters. In fact the entire premise is darkly funny. Here is a culture that has not yet figured out fire and has only recently discovered the wheel yet somehow it managed to retain all the hyper-beauracratic machinery of the Soviet Union. It's rather hilarious. Additionally, this is a very literary book. The writing is artisitic, unique and profound. Readers who enjoy studying the craft of writing itself will appreciate this book. Although I enjoyed this book immensly personally, I can understand totally why most people probably would not. It is dark, dreary and depressing. The characters are virtually all unlikeable including the narrator. There isn't really much in the way of plot for the first 75% of the book and the ending is one of those vague, metophorical endings that can (understandably) frustrate readers. It is also a really dense book. It took me a long time to read even though it is a relateively short 275 pages. Our narrarator likes to go on long stream of conscious diatribes, that I'm sure have lot of symbolic meaning, but are challenging to interpret and can get a bit taxing.

My feelings on the end are mixed. The truth is I don't really "get" the ending (although superficially I liked it)  so I can't say whether I truly liked it or not. I hope someone else will read this book so I can discuss to with them. That said, the ending didn't negatively affect my good feelings towards the rest of the book so I consider that a success. Also, my Liberatrian impulses were gratified as this book offers a scathing critique of statism (or maybe not - that is just how I interpreted it). While, it may sound good to give the goverment the power to pull all resources out of the economy so it can be distributed "fairly" to the population - this book points what history has proven over and over again. A corrupt bureaucracy and/or political class inevitably develops that keeps all the good stuff to themselves while throwing scraps in their discretion to the population. The result? No motivation to achieve on the part of the population, stunted cultural and moral development and a lower standard of living for everyone - rich and poor alike. But, hey, at least no one will feel bad if their neighbor has a better car because no one will have a car. Okay - gratuitous libertarian rant of the day ended.

If you enjoy dark, weird stories this book will hit the spot. If you are patient and like heavy literary books this will work for you as well. If you don't like either of these things you should probably read something else. For what it is worth, I loved this book.

Coraline, Neil Gaiman (2002)

Reviewer: BeezusKiddo

Rating: 4 Mrs. T's pierogies (not good enough to be homemade)

Review: I was super-excited when the Coraline movie came out. and loved it.  Then I was at Half Price Books the other day, and found a copy of the book in the Clearance section for $2. What?! Yes please!



Coraline Jones is an adventurous girl, who moves with her family into an old large house that has been converted into flats.  One other flat is vacant; Miss Spink and Miss Forcible, elderly former actresses who can't admit that the past is behind them live in another; and Mr. Bobo, who runs a mouse circus, lives in the fourth.

Coraline spends her days exploring, and discovers a mysterious door that leads into a strange world inhabited by her "other" parents.  Although Coraline's parents are constantly working and seem to be too busy to spend time with Coraline, the Other Parents dote on her, and have creepy buttons for eyes.  Coraline quickly learns that not everything is as cheery as it seems, and her Other Mother is a monstrous creature, who has already captured Coraline's parents and other children.  Coraline must use her wits to free her parents and the other children, and to save herself from this monster's grasp.

Coraline is about 175 pages, and the pages are small and the type large.  It only took me about two hours to read the whole book.  It's a Young Adult novella, so the language is quick and light.  I like reading short, fast books because they make me feel accomplished.  I feel like some kind of genius reader, blasting through a whole book in one sitting.

Anansi Boys is the only other Gaiman book I have read. I picked it up for reading on vacation (a rained-out camping trip) and thought it was perfectly good for that purpose, but I wouldn't count Gaiman amongst my favorites.  Coraline didn't sway my opinion one way or another--I'd be happy to read more of his books, but I also wouldn't really go out of my way to pick them up. Gaiman's a good author to read on an airplane or on the bus, where you want something to easily keep your attention, and don't want to think too much.

We don't have much bookcase space in our house, so if I buy a book, I usually give it away to someone else or sell it to a used bookstore very shortly after finishing it.  Although it's scary, I think Coraline would be a great book for Baby Beez to read when she is old enough to start getting into the YA genre, so I'll hold on to this one.

The Blind Assassin, Margaret Atwood (2000)

Reviewer: BeezusKiddo

Rating: 5 pierogi

Review: I loved this book.

 

The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favorite books ever, and Oryx and Crake was fantastic as well. As far as I'm concerned, Margaret Atwood can do no wrong (and she and I share a birthday!)

The Blind Assassin is not one of Atwood's dystopic novels, it does have a brief sci-fi component to it, but it's more concerned with families, relationships, and interpersonal conflicts.

The Blind Assassin follows two sisters-- Laura and Iris-- through their pampered childhood as daughters of a button empire, through the market crash and dissolution of their fortune, through Laura's tragic suicide, and Iris' slow decline into old age.

I didn't much notice it before someone pointed it out to me, but Atwood weighs heavy on description. Not visual description, but description through metaphor, which is gripping and effective. For example, in reflecting on the sisters' relationship, Iris explains:

I no longer knew how Laura would have answered these questions. She had become unknown to me, as unknown as the inside of your own glove is unknown when your hand is inside it. She was with me all the time, but I couldn't look at her. I could only feel the shape of her presence: a hollow shape, filled with my own imaginings.

 

Description-heavy passages by other authors would slow the novel's pace down, and might even become distracting. That is not the case with Atwood's style. Her novels are engaging and move at a smooth pace.

There isn't anything specific about the plot that drew me in. With The Handmaid's Tale, I was entranced and terrified by Atwood's projection of the future. The Blind Assassin's plot is not nearly as gripping, but it is easy to become invested in the protagonists. Atwood's use of language is such a joy to read, that she could probably write about the grass growing and I'd be thrilled to read it.

Allie Iris' 2011: A Year of Reading in Review

Editor's Note: Welcome Allie Iris (formally known as "Pumy's Mommy") to Yinzer Bookclub. She is frequently mentioned but has yet to make an appearance...until now. Allie Iris loves cats, books, Pittsburgh and hockey so she should fit in just fine. Those are our four requirements for membership in SL-YBC; literacy is totally optional as you may have already noticed.

Pumy's Mommy 2011: A Year of Reading in Review

2011 brought with it many new adventures, including our lame book club convincing Elle Ewok and Beezuskiddo to join in the fun.  However, the year also brought with it more than one trip to Buckheads (don’t judge me) and multiple trials.  As a result, my reading went straight to hell.  Despite all that, I was able to get through many good (and many not so good) books this year.  I’ve wanted to write a piece for this blog for some time now, and I thought this would be a good way to ease my way into it.  After all, my cat has already made an appearance… I think it’s time for my brilliance.  Or nonsense.  Whatevs.

Despite my absolute love for books, I couldn’t pick a good book for book club to save my life this year.  I’m shocked book club didn’t disband altogether.  I’m pretty sure all the drinking helped.  My first pick was A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick.  Contrary to what the Google machine tells you, this book made me want to stab my eyes out.  The rest of book club wasn’t thrilled either.  I wouldn’t even give this book one pierogie.  Even a botulism-filled one. 

Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse, I picked What Alice Forgot by Liane Moriarty.  I wish I could have forgotten how to read instead.  It was filled with clichés (much like this post, but far less funny) and was so predictable it took any shred of enjoyment right out of it.  I truly don’t mind chick-lit sometimes.  But this one was bad.  Boo.

I also choose South of Broad by Pat Conroy.  You know, that Prince of Tides guy.  I thought it was “Eh.”  It didn’t make me jump for joy, but also didn’t make me want to hold my breath until I passed out either.  I’ll put it this way, with so many great books out there, I felt like reading this was kind of a waste of time.  However, there were some in book club that thought it was great.  (Trust me, “great” is a strong word). 

Never fear, there were some books I read this year that I absolutely ADORED!  If you haven’t read these, you should, STAT:

• Sarah’s Key – the only good book I picked for book club. Okay, so the story line seemed a little unbelievable to me.  I liked it all the same.  Plus, it gave me insight into the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup which I literally knew nothing about.
• The Kitchen House – this book was so good.  I could not put it down.  It’s one of those books that made me want to skip work and just keep reading.
• The Help – yes, it lives up to the hype.  On a side note, I just saw the movie.  Unlike the other movies that I’ve seen this year based on novels, I really thought the Help stayed true to the book.  I really, really enjoyed it.
• Water for Elephants – I can’t remember when during the year I read this.  However, I distinctly remember thinking at the time “this is my favorite book of 2011.”  At some point I read The Help and The Kitchen House and the Book Thief, so I’m not sure this stayed my favorite, but it was definitely up there.
•  In the Garden of Beasts – this is another book that took me some time to get into.  I ended up enjoying it.  Though I’ll say, it’s definitely not as good as the Devil in the White City.
• The Book Thief – I complained the first few chapters…. I admit, I was wrong.  I am so glad that I continued reading this.  Once I got into it, I could not put it down.
• Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - 42.  Need I say more?
• BossyPants –  I picked up this beauty at the airport on my way home from someplace and read almost all of it on the plane.  There were laugh out loud parts.  Like the kind of laughter that makes the people sitting next to you uncomfortable.
• Those Who Save Us – Aunt Darlene recommended this book.  Her book club went through a similar Nazi/Holocaust book phase.  I found this book to be wonderfully written, heart wrenching, and made my insides all warm and fuzzy.  All at the same time.  I know, weird.
• The Hunger Games Trilogy – who doesn’t love young adults books?  I started the series after all the books came out.  I sat down and just started reading.  And couldn’t stop.  I’m not embarrassed to say that I literally went to Target at 8:55 to pick up the last book as soon as I stopped reading the second.  So good.
• Columbine - this book was about, well, Columbine.  Despite knowing a fair amount about the tragedy, this book gave me such an insight and different perspective on what happened.  It also infuriated me and had me reading follow up books and articles.
• Room – though I wanted to punch mom in the face on many (many) occasions, I thought this book was great.  I’d given it to everyone to read.  I haven’t heard a true complaint yet.
• The Shack – okay, so technically I “listened” to this book.  And only because my mom made me do it.  I’ll be honest, I found it to be really interesting.  I’d recommend it.  Plus, it’s short (yes, I own the book version).

I also liked the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.  But maybe that’s just because Elle and I saw Rebecca Skloot speak.  And she has a Pittsburgh connection.  I read the Unnamed by Joshua Ferris and I thought the ending was stupid.  I totally skipped Faithful Place by Tana French.  What?  I was busy!!!!  After the ending of In the Woods, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

Looking back at my 2011 reading list, there are several books crossed off that I simply can’t remember anything about.  So, they might have been terrible, they might have been great.  You’ll just have to take your chances with these:

• Look Again
• Firefly Lane
• Bad Marie
   

Like Elle, I have a ton of books on my night stand that I’ll put on the 2012 list (although with the leftovers from 2011).  Here are a few:

• Thunderstruck – Okay… so book club is in a week.  I have plenty of time to finish.  Plus, I read Beezuskiddo’s review.  FINE… I didn’t read Night Circus either.
• Moloka’i
• The Secret History
• Bel Canto
• Farenheit 451
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
• Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – I’ve tried to read this book 3 times.  I don’t know what is wrong with me.  But, as our friend Jill says, “Loads of stupid people have read this book, we should be able to too.”  You can’t argue with that logic.

Hopefully I’ll write a real review of some book soon… assuming Beezuskiddo doesn’t beat me too it. 

Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer (2003)

Reviewer: BeezusKiddo

Rating: 3.5 pierogies

Review: I borrowed this book from Elle Ewok (click link for her review). I was considering not bothering writing a review, because her review skilfully captures my same thoughts.
Krakauer tries to explore the mysterious history of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, as well as tell the story of its many fundamentalist spinoffs, in addition to the violent story of the Lafferty brothers. Combining all three of these topics is a delicate undertaking, and should be done carefully. Krakauer fails to do that.

I understand that because the history of the LDS church is not widely known to much of the American public, it is necessary to discuss the church's history generally, before getting into the more specialized issues of the fundamentalist spinoffs. Krakauer fails to do this with care, and as a result, I felt that Krakauer gave the mainstream LDS church an unnecessarily bad rap.

Every religion has a history in blood, and most don't flaunt past tragedies. I'm comfortable in saying that most every religion has made efforts to cover up past bad events. The LDS chuch wouldn't have acted uniquely in hiding, or discouraging conversation over, tragedies like the Mountain Meadows massacre. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but that's the nature of organized religion.

All the bad things about the fundamentalist LDS spinoffs are easy to see. I felt like Krakauer blurred the lines between the LDS church and the fundamentalists, or at a minimum, didn't do enough to distinguish the fundamentalist sects as fundamentalist. The fundamentalists are excommunicated from the LDS church, they are by definition not part of it, even if they claim to be of the same religion. Krakauer drops disclaimers about that here and there. However, I wasn't the only one who didn't find the disclaimers to be particularly effective, as the publication of this book spurned outrage from the LDS church. Krakauer spends a 20 page addendum responding to the LDS church's objections, which quickly got boring. I read only about 3 pages of it.

I know very little about the history of Mormonism. Anything I know about fundamentalist sects, I know from watching Big Love. This book was fascinating to me. I felt guilty about that fascination, because I felt like Krakauer didn't give the mainstream LDS church a fair shake.

I recommend this book highly, but encourage you to read it with an open and critical mind.

Elle Ewok's Reading Goals for 2012

All my goals for 2012 generally relate to being a more productive person. I thought it would be fun to memorialize my reading goals for the coming year and see how I do come this time next year...

Reading Goal #1: Finish the 4 partially read novels that have been sitting on my nightstand for years. The sad part is these are not books I have purposefully abandonded. I have really like them so far and I'm not sure why I haven't finished them yet.

• Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand (1957)
• In the Name of the Wind, Patrick Rothfuss (2007)
• A Feast for Crows, George R.R. Martin (2005)
• The Agony and the Ecstasy, Irving Stone (1961)

Reading Goal #2: Read the following Novels:

• The Slynx, Tatyana Tolstaya (2007)
• A Dance With Dragons, George R.R. Martin (2011)
• In Cold Blood, Truman Capote (1966)
• Pale Fire, Vladimir Nabokov (1962)
• Enders Game, Orson Scott Card (1985)
• The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins (2008)
• Song of Kali, Dan Simmons (1985)
• The Sound and the Fury, William Faulkner (1929)
• The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie (1988)
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Ken Kesey (1962)
• Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein (1959)
• Dune, Frank Herbert (1965)

Reading Goal #3: Read at least 5 Non-fiction Books TBD.

Reading Goal #4: Read 2 short story collections preferably Nabokov and Flannery O'Connor.

Now look at how cute Gimli is:

Thunderstruck, Erik Larson (2007)

Reviewer:  BeezusKiddo

Rating:  3 Pierogies

Review: Erik Larson knows he's got a formula that works, and he employs it with success time and time again. Like The Devil in the White City, in Thunderstruck, Larson juxtaposes important historical events with a grisly story of murder.

 

  would have liked Thunderstruck a lot more, if I hadn't read The Devil in the White City less than a month ago. The tone and pacing of both books is identical. All you do is swap out the historical facts, and you've got essentially the same book. Don't get me wrong, Thunderstruck is well written and engaging...I just don't recommend reading the books back to back, as it becomes tiresome.

Thunderstruck tracks Gugliemo Marconi's development of radio transmission technology alongside the story of Hawley Harvey Crippen, a meek, mousy doctor with a detestable fame-seeking wife. It's no secret Crippen is involved in murder (it says so on the book jacket), but the book hardly gets around to the murder part until the very very end. With the buildup in the description, I expected more gore. It wasn't scary, and I'm obviously watching too much American Horror Story, because I didn't even think it was that gruesome.





The last part of the book is pretty exciting. Scotland Yard begins investigating him, he tries to flee, and an exciting cat-and-mouse game ensues involving Marconi's radio technology. It's an interesting connection, even though I didn't find the Marconi storyline very interesting.

This book isn't a bad use of your time if you have some time to kill in an airport, but if you have something else to read that you're really excited about, I'd read whatever that is first.