In a way I have liked Bruno a lot, as he is honest and cares about other people’s feelings, making him seem at times to be older than his nine years. An opinion which is sort of reversed when it comes to the people on the other side of the fence in general, and to Schmuel in particular, as Bruno behaves, when relating to them, in an unbearably childish manner (outrageously so in the scene where he is carelessly eating turkey in front of his friend). Perhaps his behavior is explainable by the fact he, with his young mind, couldn’t properly perceive what lied behind the fence (especially as Schmuel himself shields him from things). It is perhaps interesting to notice that the life on the other side even seemed attractive to Bruno in his simplicity: so many children to play with, and getting to wear comfy striped clothing all day long!

The style the book was written in is, I think, its greatest asset. Simple words in simple phrases, just as (probably) a child might think. The narration is shielded, no gory details, fit for children and a child’s point of view. Bruno notices things around him and tries to make sense of them as best as he can, but nevertheless he misses details (whatever cannot fit in his idea of the world is shrugged away). A whole other image is formed in the mind of a reader 50 years later — quite an accomplishment of the author I would say, his managing to give just enough details for the reader to realize what’s going on and at the same time few enough so as to keep Bruno (young, innocent Bruno) always guessing.

The book has been criticized by some, saying that it needs strong suspension of disbelief in order to be appreciated. For one, there couldn’t have been a nine year old kid wandering around in Auschwitz as children younger than 15 were either gassed or experimented with. Also, German children were indoctrinated about Jews from an early age so it’s not very probable that a nine year old son of a Commandant would have had no idea about who they were and what was happening to them. Some serious flaws indeed — which is probably why the book is subtitled “A Fable” and meant to be enjoyed as such. Which I did (mostly because I liked the style it was written in :) )

What I liked most: Despite the gravity of the situation Bruno’s thinking of the Fuhrer as “the Fury” (due to a mispronunciation) never failed to amuse me :)

What I liked least: The other mispronunciation, Out-With instead of Auschwitz. While I could imagine the Fury/Fuhrer thing all too easily (although I have no idea if they would sound alike in German too), the Out-With part seemed sort of unexplainable to me and bothered me throughout the book (I wouldn’t say it’s that big a deal though, to spoil a book that I otherwise liked).

Recommend it? Yes. Short and nicely written (albeit on a sad topic).

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Both Luther and Nora are just so… sketchy. There’s nothing much to be said about them other than they love their daughter. Luther is a bit cheap (understandably enough given that he was an accountant) and Nora is just an upper-class housewife. At least I was glad to see that their relationship was strong enough to resist both the attacks of their neighbors and the pangs of regret Nora sometimes felt at having to skip certain parts of the festivities along with the bad ones.

Now that I think about it I don’t quite know why I have started reading this book, having seen the movie a while ago and not quite enjoying it (it had a happy ending but that’s all I ever liked about it). If anything the book was blander than the movie (at least the movie sort of annoyed me seeing all those nosy and aggressive neighbors that seemed to have missed all of was Christmas is truly about — interestingly enough, even though the book sort of had the very same scenes, they failed to raise any actual feeling from me).

Furthermore, I sort of fail to understand the point the author is trying to make: skipping the mindless consumerism of Christmas is bad? I for one cannot but root for the Kranks, both because it’s their right to do what they choose with their time and money and also because Christmas is not about the tree you put up or the things you buy — nevertheless I had the impression that the narrator/author was secretly finding their plight ridiculous, and had a “serves them right” moment at the end where they have to hurriedly prepare everything they resisted preparing until then, with the predictable difficulties this implies (such as nothing actually useful left in stores).

What I liked most: I was a bit amused at the way Luther treated those who wanted to sell him stuff to help various charities: he didn’t buy anything at the moment but he promised them he’ll buy for the same amount or larger in the spring/summer/whenever they were raising money again. Which didn’t quite help his money saving goal :P

What I liked least: Meh. It was too bland overall for anything to actually stand out. What was it with Marty though?

Recommend it? Well, most people at Amazon liked it so don’t let me put you off. It’s a very short book so you might want to give it a try :)

Written by the same author:
Runaway Jury

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Incoming search terms for the article:

The characters were very well built in my opinion. Unfortunately I have found both Wally and Candy to be sort of cliche (the beautiful girl perfect in every way, torn between the love for the guy she knew since childhood and this new hero-type she just met; the beautiful guy perfect in every way, volunteering to fight for his country, presumed dead for a while but all this time kept alive by the memory of his girlfriend’s love and of his love for her), but all the others were plain great. My favorites have been by far Dr. Larch and his two nurses: all three devoting their life to doing good, to taking care of their orphans, to being “of use”, as Dr. Larch put it, all three getting older and older and frailer and frailer as the time went by but never giving up. Melony is sort of their opposite, a very destructive person, so much so that I have found her as a child quite disturbing. She used to scare me all throughout the book as I was certain she’ll end up doing some serious harm, but she sort of mellowed out at the end and I was actually glad to see her ending up happy at Lorna’s side.

I don’t know what to think about what the author has chosen to do out of Homer Wells. The reader gets the feeling at times (while Homer is living his nice apple-picking life) that he is wrong, he is wasting his life in compromising and denying his God-given talent. On one hand I like that because it makes Homer very much more human, very much more real, very much less than a character of a book. After all, so many people make bad choices, so many people with potential lived their lives in compromise and deceit, why wouldn’t such thing happen to Homer? The other hand, well, has to do with the idealist in me, the one that expects perfect things to happen at least in books if not in real life. I would have, of course, liked Homer to follow Dr. Larch’s footsteps from the very beginning. But then there would have been no book to talk about, right? :P

I have liked the way the story is somehow centered around rules, respected or broken (As Wally put it, “‘Some rules are good rules, kiddo,’ [...] ‘But some rules are just rules. You just got to break them carefully.’“). The rules (both legal and moral) about abortion, the rules written by Homer in the cider house (never read and thus never respected, people thought they were “something to do with the building’s electricity” as they were always tacked near the light switch), the rules of society, the rules the black apple pickers had between them, and, perhaps most of all, the rules Candy has once set for Homer (while in the cider house — I think these are the very rules that gave the novel its title), that “We share Angel,’ [...] ‘We both get to live with him. We get to be his family. Nobody ever moves out.’“, thus condemning Homer to a life of compromise, a life of lying to an invalid, a life of always wanting what he couldn’t have.

I think the abortion-related part has been handled quite well by Irving, as he lets the reader see both parts of the problem: not bringing unwanted children into the world versus the belief the fetus has a soul ever since conception. He does (obviously) lean towards one of the sides (and what’s more all characters agree that women should have the right to choose what’s best for them), but all in all I feel he has touched every important issue related to the matter — I liked that as I am fond of watching things from more than one angle :)

What I liked most: A moment that I was really touched by was when Candy has pregnant and was waiting to give birth at the orphanage, and everyone there was enchanted by her, especially the nurses: “we’re gonna have a wanted baby!”. It sort of tells a lot about the world they were all living in, a world where pregnancy was associated only with guilt, suffering and abandonment one way or the other.
Also, I was fascinated by Dr. Larch’s plan of reviving Fuzzy and making him a proper doctor, how detailed and complicated it was (all the correspondence Dr. Larch imagined, for once), how many years it spanned (over fifteen), how well everything was planned and how well it luckily turned out. Isn’t it interesting how easy to manipulate history is (history, who is supposed to be absolute), once someone puts his mind to it?

What I liked least: Many things were predictable but all in all it was too interesting a book to let that stand in the way of enjoying it.

Recommend it? Definitely. I find it a very well written book.

Written by the same author:
The World According to Garp

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

They say that one can see the true face of a man when in extraordinary circumstances. That couldn’t be more true in Schindler’s case. As his wife states, he was a man who’s done nothing out of the ordinary either before the war or after. In time of peace he was nothing but a man passionate of liquor, a spender and a womanizer. As the author puts it, “He was fortunate, therefore, that in that short fierce era between 1939 and 1945 he had met people who summoned forth his deeper talents.“. During those years he was reckless in his struggle for saving human lives, for providing better conditions to as may Jews as he could — so reckless that I couldn’t help fearing for him for a good portion of a book (although I knew, of course, that both him and his “Schindlerjuden” will get through the war unscathed). His courage in playing with the SS (his utter recklessness) are on the verge of incredible and the elements that differentiate him from any other Jew-helping person of those years — there were a lot of factory owners who made their Jew employees’ life more endurable, but no one that I know of took the risk Schindler dared to take.

You know, I have always thought Oskar Schindler a character too good to be true. Yet in this book I got to discover the man behind the myth — and the two were more similar than I thought they could be (speaking of which I have really liked the fact that Keneally warned the reader beforehand when a story people told about Schindler was not supported by evidence, so as to form an image of Schindler as close to the truth as possible — these cases were few and far between though; most of what’s told about Schindler is actually true).

A character worth noting is also Schindler’s wife, Emilie. He never treated her right and the couple would split about 10 years after the war ended, but during the war she was his very match. While she, as a woman, never encountered the risks Oskar took, she nevertheless did whatever in her powers to help the Schindlerjuden through the war — she cooked for them, she nursed them, etc., and I think lots of the Jews in Schindler’s factory owe their lives also to her careful nursing.

Leaving Oskar and Emilie aside, the book is a story about suffering. About hope (for the people in Oskar’s factory), but also about people who didn’t make it through the Holocaust alive, and the mind-bending tribulations of those who did. The moments that I have found the most frightening were some in the first half of the book, when the Krakow ghetto was raided repeatedly by the Nazi soldiers. There is a particular time when some people stand and listen to the megaphones announcing another raid and to the sounds of soldiers getting closer, and my mind can hardly contain their fright (or the fright I would have had in their place): of the horrors approaching, of the fact that these may very well be their last moments of normal life before going to a ghetto — or their last moments of life period. That part of history is truly a dark time, and I do know that this book is one that touches but little the many horrors that have passed. (I see that I use the word “horror” a lot; it is the single one that comes to my mind that I find expresses those happenings well)

This book has made me see some things from some new perspectives — for example, I have never thought about the way the normal, decent people of say Poland have regarded the brutality of what was happening around them. As the author puts it (on Schindler finding out about concentration camps):

“To write these things now is to state the commonplaces of history. But to find them out in 1942, to have them break upon you from a June sky, was to suffer a fundamental shock, a derangement in that area of the brain in which stable ideas about humankind and its possibilities are kept.”

On a personal note, I was amazed to find out the fact that Schindler has spent a part of his later years in a flat near the main railway station in Frankfurt. I myself have visited Frankfurt last year and have stayed at a hotel very near the main railway station — so it’s very possible that I have treaded the same streets he had treaded all those years before (at least metaphorically speaking as a lot can happen to the streets/pavements in more than thirty years). I feel sorry that I didn’t know that before as I am always very impressed when I happen to be in the same place as a historical character once was.

You know, at first I have thought of this book as a normal novel, and I have been a bit upset that it isn’t written as one — it is written as a documentary and as such it is hard to read at times and hard to relate to at others. At first I would have liked it to have, I don’t know, more dialogue, more things written about the people, perhaps the people’s feelings, not barely the things happening to them. On reaching the end I have understood though that this book isn’t meant to be read as a novel — it’s a testimony, from that time to ours, and as such it’s meant to be based on fact; the dialogues and description of people’s feelings could have only been inventions detracting from its truth.

What I liked most: In a way, what I have liked most (or what fascinated me the most — which is not necessarily the same thing) was the duality of Oskar. I have always thought that people are either good or bad, either moral or imoral. Oskar’s morality is… well, open to debate, as for example he never cared to hide at least from his wife the fact that he took mistresses. As the author once put it, “Just the same, the reflection can hardly be avoided that Amon was Oskar’s dark brother, was the berserk and fanatic executioner Oskar might, by some unhappy reversal of his appetites, have become.“. I cannot help feeling it was by a turn of chance, of incredible chance, that Oskar has been pushed, by some event, on this path rather than on any other that he might have taken (not that I want to debase his heroism or his humanity in any way). I’m probably mistaken.
Other than that, what I liked most (actually liked this time) was the fact that the author has been documenting a lot before writing this book: he visited places, he talked to people, he read documents, all that in order to have a book as close to the truth as possible, and I, as a reader thank him deeply for that. I have also liked the way the author follows the story even after Oskar and his Jews parted ways (this book focuses mainly on Oskar though, if you want to know even more of what happen to the Jews, their stories are told in another book written by the same author, Schindler’s Legacy)

What I liked least: Nothing. There is nothing to like least/not like about this kind of book.

Recommend it? If you’re interested in those years — absolutely!

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

I started reading this book rooting for Rambo — having seen the movie and knowing him to be the unjustly treated one. The book made me see everything in a different light though: war trauma or not, Rambo kills an awful lot of completed innocent people in order to satisfy his thirst for revenge, so my favorite character became Teasle in almost no time. While definitely not perfect the latter does at least value human lives a lot more (the fact that he personally knew almost all the people involved also helped, I know,but still). Teasle is also a war veteran, having fought one of the more important battles in Korea, but all his instincts are now rusty, and I liked the fact that the author kept him so (instead of, for example, making him turn into a killing machine too), as the story was far more believable that way. I have also liked Sam Trautman, I found him quite believable too, the way he is both proud for Rambo’s “achievements” as a proof he’s been taught how to kill and taught well, but also sorry that a product of his school has turned out to do all that damage.

I have to say I found all initial motivations (the intrigue of the book) a bit weak: Rambo reacts the way he does just because he felt like it, he felt like teaching this very sheriff a lesson, despite ignoring all the previous ones. Teasle felt like messing with this very man (or kid, as he calls him) because he was trying not to think about his wife that has recently left him. Both too unworthy motivations to justify such a bloodshed as will follow. And yet the story manages to unravel in a believable way.

As a bit of trivia, Rambo’s name is inspired both by the French author Rimbaud’s name and by a type of apples named Rambo. I must say that while I have often heard both about Rambo and Rimbaud, I have never thought about there being a connection between the two :)

What I liked most: The way the book is structured — here’s what the author had to say about it:

“I structured the novel so that a scene from Rambo’s perspective would be followed by one from Teasle’s, the subsequent scene from Rambo’s, the next scene again from Teasle’s. That tactic, I hoped, would make the reader identify with each character and at the same time feel ambivalent about them. Who was the hero, who the villain, or were both men heroes, both men villains?”

There is also another thing I had a lot of fun with:
*********************SPOILER*********************************
As we all know by now there are four Rambo movies, with a fifth being thought of as we speak. There are also three books, this one and two sequels (both novelizations of their respective movies, so I imagine they’re both starring Rambo).

But John Rambo dies at the end of the book !!!

For some reason I find that hilarious :D
End book 1:
… and so Rambo died…
Start book 2:
Rambo picked up his things and started walking … (or something, I have yet to find the second book :) )
*******************END SPOILER*******************************

What I liked least: What’s with all the “Teasle saw the world through Rambo’s eyes, thus knowing where to find him” stuff? Isn’t this highly unlikely, not to say impossible? I so hate it when that happens.

Recommend it? Yes, it’s quite well written. Not to mention surprising as it’s a lot different from the movie.

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Incoming search terms for the article:

The real main character in this novel is by far Africa – and the little farm at the foot of Ngong Hills. Almost every little detail of the story is there to give out something more of life in Africa, of African people, of African fauna and so on. About three quarters of the book are spent thus, presenting the country as an idyllic place, hardships vaguely mentioned or at all. Unfortunately the farm wasn’t going as well as it should have so in the end Karen had to sell everything and leave — the fourth quarter tells about how this came to be, how they all struggled to keep it from happening but how she had to let it go in the end. Her love of Africa is as pregnant as ever in these last chapters though – even more so as she knows she’ll have to leave the land behind for good in a short while.

I was amazed to see it in the form it had: an endless account of simple happenings, in no particular order. There are a lot of people mentioned, both Native and Europeans, including Berkeley Cole and Denys Finch-Hatton, but none of them holds a place in the story more important than Africa itself does, they all seem to be shown as accessories to Africa’s beauty. I was expecting something totally different having seen the movie a while ago. I was happy to see in the novel none of the sentimentality that had bothered me at times in the movie — in the book Denys is never clearly presented as more than a friend of Karen’s (not that his merely being more than a friend of Karen’s had bothered me in the movie :) ). What’s more, the movie Denys was really annoying for me, the way he put himself always first and always did what he wanted without much care for another’s feelings (including Karen’s). In the book he is said to be totally without self interest — which, needless to say, made me like him a lot more in this version. :)

Animals also take an important place in the story – Karen’s dogs, Lulu (the tamed antelope), the giraffes, the lions – all mentions of them trying to underline the farm’s communion and Karen’s communion with the African wild life, with Africa itself.

What I liked most: The feeling I get while reading, that Karen was really fond of Africa and had really enjoyed her stay there (you can sense her love for that land and its people in almost every word) :) Also, the fact that the story is said in bits and pieces in a non-chronological manner, a thing that I wouldn’t normally like but it seems to fit perfectly here :)

What I liked least: There is a particular scene I have found a little hard to understand: One day Karen and Denys drive by a dead giraffe. A lioness was eating from the body and Denis shot it. Then they drove away. All well so far. Only after a while they drove by the same place on the way back. This time a lion was standing on the giraffe’s carcass and both Karen and Denis were impressed by how majestic it looked. And then Karen shot it (!). And then they had a picnic on the spot (!!)(near the bodies of the two lions and the carcass that was getting pretty smelly by the time of their first drive by). So yuck.

Recommend it? Yes, especially to those who love to read about faraway places :) It’s a wonderful book to find out about the Africa of the beginning of the 20th century.

Some quotes:
About Kamante the cook:

“He had a great memory for recipes. He could not read, and he knew no English so that cookery-books were of no use to him, but he must have held all that he was ever taught stored up in his ungraceful head, according to some systematization of his own, which I should never know. He had named the dishes after some event which had taken place on the day they had been shown to him, and he spoke of the sauce of the lightning that struck the tree, and of the sauce of the grey horse that died.”

Also about Kamante:

“Kamante writes that he has been out of work for a long time. I was not surprised to hear of it, for he was really caviare to the general. I had educated a Royal Cook and left him in a new Colony. It was with him a case of “Open Sesame.” Now the word has been lost, and the stone has closed for good round the mystic treasures that it had in it. Where the great Chef walked in deep thought, full of knowledge, nobody sees anything but a little bandy-legged Kikuyu, a dwarf with a flat, still face.”

About the Ngong hills:

“And were my faith so strong that it could move mountains, that is the mountain that I would make come to me.”

About life in Africa:

“Now, looking back on my life in Africa, I feel that it might altogether be described as the existence of a person who had come from a rushed and noisy world, into a still country.”

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Roald Dahl opens the doors to a wonderful world filled with sweets and some little people called Oompa-Loompas, a world that I am certain would fill any kid’s dreams. Not only that but the author also tries to teach the kids (by giving them a counter-example and also by the little Oompa-Loompa songs) not to be greedy (like Augustus) or too spoiled (like Veruca), not to chew gum all the time (like Violet) and not to watch to much TV (like Mike), but to be good and polite like Charlie, the one that got a great reward in the end.

I was happy to see that the Willy from the book is nothing like the one in the movie – that Wonka was a bit psychotic, with an overinflated ego and finding all family ties absolutely repulsive, so much so that he shivers when he hears the word “parent” for example. The book Willy is a happy little man, a bit overenthusiastic but very likable, and also very open to familial relations, for example he isn’t bothered at all by having along the two sets of grandparents.

All in all a book filled with color and magic, that I am sure any child would like :)

Here’s a quote from it, about Loompaland:

‘Then you’ll know all about it,’ said Mr Wonka. ‘And oh, what a terrible country it is! Nothing but thick jungles infested by the most dangerous beasts in the world — hornswogglers and snozzwangers and those terrible wicked whangdoodles. A whangdoodle would eat ten Oompa-Loompas for breakfast and come galloping back for a second helping. When I went out there, I found the little Oompa-Loompas living in tree houses. They had to live in tree houses to escape from the whangdoodles and the hornswogglers and the snozzwangers. And they were living on green caterpillars, and the caterpillars tasted revolting, and the Oompa-Loompas spent every moment of their days climbing through the treetops looking for other things to mash up with the caterpillars to make them taste better — red beetles, for instance, and eucalyptus leaves, and the bark of the bong-bong tree, all of them beastly, but not quite so beastly as the caterpillars. Poor little Oompa-Loompas! The one food that they longed for more than any other was the cacao bean. But they couldn’t get it. An Oompa-Loompa was lucky if he found three or four cacao beans a year. But oh, how they craved them. They used to dream about cacao beans all night and talk about them all day. You had only to mention the word “cacao” to an Oompa-Loompa and he would start dribbling at the mouth.

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Incoming search terms for the article:

We are not told very much about the narrator, not even his name. We only know about him that he’s a struggling aspiring writer. As for Holly… I couldn’t fit her in any pattern :) She is a rather interesting person, always on the lookout for a place where she could belong, an as yet unknown place that will make her as happy as Tiffany does.

I was surprised to find it quite different from the movie. Including the ending. However, while I did like the happy-ever-after Hollywood version, I think this one is a better fit for Holly, as she kept traveling in search for her secret place. At least the cat ended up happily: “Flanked by potted plants and framed by clean lace curtains, he was seated in the window of a warm-looking room: I wondered what his name was, for I was certain he had one now, certain he’d arrived somewhere he belonged.”

Some say this book is written in relation to Marylin Monroe’s life (especially as the author and her were friends not to mention Capote wanted her to play Holly in the movie).

A quote, explaining both the title and a very important part of Holly:

She was still hugging the cat. “Poor slob,” she said, tickling his head, “poor slob without a name. It’s a little inconvenient, his not having a name. But I haven’t any right to give him one: he’ll have to wait until he belongs to somebody. We just sort of took up by the river one day, we don’t belong to each other: he’s an independent, and so am I. I don’t want to own anything until I know I’ve found the place where me and things belong together. I’m not quite sure where that is just yet. But I know what it’s like.” She smiled, and let the cat drop to the floor. “It’s like Tiffany’s,” she said.
[...]
It calms me down right away, the quietness and the proud look of it; nothing very bad could happen to you there, not with those kind men in their nice suits, and that lovely smell of silver and alligator wallets. If I could find a real-life place that made me feel like Tiffany’s, then I’d buy some furniture and give the cat a name.

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

The characters are quite courageous since they were able to face that bloody period of history. To tell the truth I was actually a bit amazed of their lack of moral issues when killing one or another. I mean I do understand that their lives were at stake and so on but nevertheless I don’t imagine killing is so easy for a 20th century person. However apart from their bravery the characters don’t quite manage to grab your interest or at least they didn’t manage to grab mine. Perhaps only Marek did a bit, given that he was the one with the actual knowledge and capabilities to survive in the past.

The books begins tremendously interesting, with all those time travel theories and stuff, but it kinda wears off after a while. We see the four protagonists being separated, looking for each other, being arrested and separated, looking for each other, being arrested and separated and so on. There are also quite a lot of discrepancies, some very important and some less. For example, the whole time traveling idea was that while one cannot actually travel through time (because time doesn’t flow, human beings do), one can travel to alternate universes.
Here’s an explanatory quote:

“Many physicists tried to explain the equations, Gordon said. Each explanation failed for one reason or another. Then in 1957, a physicist named Hugh Everett proposed a daring new explanation. Everett claimed that our universe – the
universe we see, the universe of rocks and trees and people and galaxies out in space – was just one of an infinite number of universes, existing side by side. Each of these universes was constantly splitting, so there was a universe where Hitler lost the war, and another where he won; a universe where Kennedy died, and another where he lived. And also a world where you brushed your teeth in the morning, and one where you didn’t. And so forth, on and on and on. An infinity of worlds.”

This is a very interesting idea but it becomes a bit contradictory in the book: if there are such things as parallel universes, a person that went to one of them is no longer in the same universe as before. So how can he send messages to it simply by writing on a piece of paper? Normally his message should have stayed in that particular universe, right? Else it would mean that anything done differently in a such universe would affect ours, which contradicts the idea of parallel universes which are supposed to be differing by some minor detail or another because they’d all be the same. Also why aren’t they allowed to have plastic with them (especially as they cannot interfere with the future in any way) but they are allowed to have that high technology first-aid kit?
There is also a language related issue: in the beginning of the book the English back them is presented as being very different from the one spoken today. However Chris ends up communicating with others in modern English using only a few archaic words such as aye and certes (my favorite part is where he tries to explain to Arnaud that the professor was taken prisoner; Arnaud doesn’t understand the word prisoner so Cris explains it to him in Latin; Arnaud’s reaction: “ah, you mean prisoner”(!?!)).

As for the theory presented in the book about how the future cannot be changed (as something would have to intervene and the thing that would trigger the change will not be accomplished), I once again find it hardly believable. For once the past was altered when the Professor’s message reached the students (a message that didn’t exist in the original “version”), and secondly I cannot quite believe that the fact that Marek has stayed behind and had no less than five sons had no impact on the future. He became quite a wealthy man and bought at least a castle so he definitely left a mark on the past. But the present isn’t changed at all (only we read about his life and see his statue); normally such as important a change so many years ago should have deeply affected the future.

There could be many more things to say such as why would a company with the power of time travel limit its uses to building theme parks but overall if you manage to ignore all these the book does have some interesting parts and it’s probably worth a read.

As a bit of trivia, the book has been made into a movie in 2003, with Gerard Butler starring as Marek.

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.

Incoming search terms for the article:

The love story is very intense and I liked both characters. The passionate lover who didn’t let anything, not even seventy years’ time, to stand between him and the girl he loved. The young actress who had never even dreamt about having such feelings for a man. There is also a movie made after this novel, with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour. I saw it years ago and I don’t remember it almost at all but I’m very certain the characters in the movie cannot be as intense as the one on the book. :)

All in all I loved this book very much. Not only because of the love story but also because of the time paradoxes scattered here and there (such as when, while still in his time Richard looks at the hotel registry from that time and sees an R.C. Collier and feels for certain it is him, even though he never signs his name that way; then, when he actually got there and the time came to sign the record he signed it R.C. Collier so it would be the same name he will get to see years in the future). I also liked the way Richard notices everything around him, marking the differences between his time and the one he’s now in. I find it very credible, as more then once I found myself thinking I’d have done/thought the same way in a particular situation or another :)

Definitely a book worth reading.

Some quotes:

The boy who owned that face was beautiful; the word was used, he heard it all the time. What did it do to him? Grown-ups, strangers even-smiled at him and, sometimes, stroked his white-blond hair and stared at his angelic features. What did that do to him? Girls stared too. Obliquely, as a rule. Sometimes straight on. The little boy did lots of blushing. Bleeding too; bullies loved to punch that face. Unfortunately, the boy was long on suffering. It wasn’t till they pounded him into a corner so tight that even he lost his temper that he fought back. Poor kid didn’t ask for that face. He never tried to cash in on it. He was grateful to get older when most bullies change their tactics to less obvious ones.

Hell, I’m sitting here talking about my own face. Why play the third-person game? It’s me, folks. Richard Collier. Very handsome. I can talk about it all I want. No one’s listening at the keyhole. There it is, world. Da-da-a-a! And what good did it ever do the guy behind it? Will it save him? Will that face rise up and slay the treacherous tumor?

——————-

Her breath was fiery across my cheek. “Oh, God,” she whispered. She was, literally, terrified. Something volcanic inside her was threatening to erupt and she dreaded to release it, thinking it destructive. “I don’t want to shock you, Richard. What if it engulfs you? It’s so strong, so strong. I’ve never shown a sign of it to anyone. It’s like a terrible starvation I have been negating all my life.” She stroked my cheeks with shaking hands. “I don’t want to swallow you alive with it. I don’t want to repel you or-”
I stopped her words with a kiss. She clutched herself against me like a drowning person. She seemed unable to catch her breath. She trembled uncontrollably, convulsively. “Let it out,” I told her. “Don’t be frightened of it. I’m
not. It’s not something to be frightened of. It’s beautiful, Elise. It’s you. You’re a woman. Let that woman have her freedom. Let her loose. Unbind her-and enjoy her. Feed, Elise. Don’t starve anymore. It isn’t shocking. It isn’t repelling. It’s wonderful-a miracle. Don’t hold it back another moment. Love, Elise. Love.”

——————-

I love you, Richard mine. Love you so that, were I outside, I would dance and collect a crowd and cheek a policeman and get took up and thoroughly disgrace myself with happiness. I would beat a drum and blow a horn and cover the walls of the world with twenty-four sheet posters all declaring that I love you, love you, love you!

As a bit of trivia, Elise’s favorite quote is “And love most sweet” which she says she’d heard in a hymn by Eddy Mary Baker. Richard then thinks something along the lines of “I’ll never tell you that you got the words wrong and I’ll never tell you what the rest of them are”. I’ve been quite curious about it and I looked it up. There’s no way of knowing for sure but I’m very certain that the hymn in question is the one called Love, ending with “And life most sweet, as heart to heart / Speaks kindly when we meet and part” :)

Written by the same author:
I Am Legend
What Dreams May Come

The links to amazon.com and bookdepository.co.uk are affiliate links. If you click one of them and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price. This being said, rest assured that the few cents I might thus make will never influence what I say or do not say about any book reviewed on the site.