I've actually read this book before. It's an excellent classic science fiction work that no doubt inspired many writers. Initially published in 1920, I've actually read this book before. It's an excellent classic science fiction work that no doubt inspired many writers. Initially published in 1920, "We" came before both George Orwell and Alduous Huxley (and I would personally argue is better than Huxley's book). It's a lesser known work, but an extremely powerful one. I honestly don't have much more to say on the book itself.
So why am I reviewing it? Because I got a chance to read Bela Shayevich's new translation for free before its release in November. What do I think of this new translation? It's delightful. Very readable, well done, captures the emotions better than Clarence Brown's (the only other translation I have read) and is overall wonderful. The sarcasm and irony truly shine here... and yes, I find it a significant improvement to what was already an amazing read.
Should you read this book? Absolutely. This is a classic of both Russian literature and science fiction. It's a gem of a book that sadly goes unnoticed far too much. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up if you want to read an amazing early dystopian novel. 5/5 stars
My thanks to Netgalley and Ecco for providing me a copy in exchange for an honest review....more
Agatha Christie rather famously hated her most famous character Hercule Poirot. There’s even a quote from her that goes:
There are moments when I haveAgatha Christie rather famously hated her most famous character Hercule Poirot. There’s even a quote from her that goes:
There are moments when I have felt: Why-Why-Why did I ever invent this detestable, bombastic, tiresome little creature? ...Eternally straightening things, eternally boasting, eternally twirling his moustaches and tilting his egg-shaped head... I point out that by a few strokes of the pen... I could destroy him utterly. He replies, grandiloquently: "Impossible to get rid of Poirot like that! He is much too clever."
This is the fifth novel in the series, and I honestly think she already hated the character by this point. He is truly in top arrogant form here. “My name is Hercule Poirot,� he says, “and I am probably the greatest detective in the world.� What a way to introduce one’s self! (As a side note, the makers of the new Murder on the Orient Express film must have liked that line too, as it’s used in the trailer). The only reason that “probably� is there is because Poirot does not make definitive statements without all the facts, and, alas, he has not traveled the entire world� yet.
At another point he introduces himself. When the person does not seem to recognize him, he responds, “Permit me to say that you have been badly educated. It is the name of one of the great ones of this world.� This is a man whose arrogance knows no bounds. With many authors this type of character would come off as annoying (indeed, Christie obviously thought he was), but personally, it only adds to the charm for me. This book is by no means one of the greatest Poirot novels, but it exemplifies what I love about the character. Poirot, is an arrogant ass, quite possibly the most arrogant detective in literature (which is saying something) and yet, his arrogance seems utterly justified and, dare I say, a part of his charm. Usually I would hate this type of character, but not Poirot, he is just too much fun.
The novel is something of a mess if I’m to be completely honest. It alternates characters frequently, thus meaning that many clues the reader notices are not ones seen by others. I solved the crime not by clues pointing towards the killer, but by seeing scenes from other points of view that cleared the other characters. Clues were presented without Poirot’s knowledge, and thus he got them through different means than us, often without us knowing when. It felt� awkward. Still, an improvement after the previous (dreadful) novel, The Big Four.
The plot is worth 2 stars. In that regard this is nothing special, but the characters here are very good. Christie came up with a wonderful cast for this one, and I found myself interested in where each were going. Thus, the rating is raised to a solid 3/5. Recommended more for Christie fans than casual readers, but if you like Poirot, you could certainly do worse. ...more
See that rating? That's a one star rating. Had you asked me a week ago I would have said that Christie did not write oneWhat the hell did I just read?
See that rating? That's a one star rating. Had you asked me a week ago I would have said that Christie did not write one star books. Sure some are of much lesser quality, but one star seems rather much. Had this book been written by some other author with some other character it would have possibly been entertainingly bad enough to receive two stars. Here it is an insult to the characters and a bit of a train wreck.
This is bad... like so bad that if feels like it was written by someone with a vague notion of the Poirot cast of characters, but unfamiliar with what the books were actually like. The plot follows Hercule Poirot as he deals with a group of super-criminals hellbent on world domination and using super-science (not to mention a master of disguise). These super-criminals known as the Big Four are even fronted by a Chinese Mastermind.
To say this book is a product of its time is both an understatement and also baffling as it is so utterly bizarre that it doesn't really feel appropriate for any time save for possibly an alternate timeline where Poirot was perhaps a comic book character.
Seriously, there is a line in the book, and I am quoting here, that goes: "Yes, you are both in the trap - the trap of the Big Four!" This is not Christie dialogue, this is bad comic book dialogue.
You know it's bad when Hastings' makes more sense than any of the other characters with his initial disbelief of the situation. Hell, my usual issues with Hastings were mostly dismissed as not only did he seem completely natural in this bizzaro world we were presented, but he also came off as a borderline voice of reason at times.
This is just such a surreal book. It reminded me somewhat of those old RKO serial films like Flash Gordon and Zombies of the Stratosphere (Yes, that last one is real, and featured Leonard Nimoy in an early role) where the characters are always placed in a ridiculous situation that they manage to get out of just in the nick of time, with increasingly silly plots that become tiresome to keep track of from a logical standpoint. This is what Poirot would have been like as adapted in such a format.
This is a book with over 30 named characters who come and go in a matter of pages. As for the mysteries (and yes, there are many in here) I kept feeling like I was missing clues as Poirot would make sudden announcements and logic leaps. As I continued reading, I began to suspect that poor plotting was the real culprit. A theory I stand by now that it is all over.
This book is so mind-bogglingly bad that I had to do some research, trying to find why it even exists, as in the well ordered world of Hercule Poirot, this book has no place. From what I could gather from a couple of different websites, Christie was in desperate need of money after her divorce. Espionage stories were "in" at the time and the novel was created from a reworked collection of short stories. Christie was apparently of much the same opinion about the book as I was as she is quoted to have referred to it as “that rotten book,� of which I must say she is far too kind.
An abysmal 1/5 stars. Not recommended to anyone save those trying to read all of Christie's novels or perhaps those who want to read what would happen if Ed Wood had tried his hand at Poirot....more
Poirot receives a letter from a man who fears for his life, imploring the great detective to come at once. Poirot arrives the very day of the telegramPoirot receives a letter from a man who fears for his life, imploring the great detective to come at once. Poirot arrives the very day of the telegram only to find the man was quite right to be afraid, as he was murder before Poirot could even get there.
This is an interesting one as it seems like it should be farther along in the series rather than the second novel. This is mostly because a large portion of the enjoyment I had from the book comes from knowing Poirot’s personality so well. He is meticulous in straightening objects, and while he seems to notice everything, he cares little for the traditional clues (footprints, fingerprints, etc�). In this he meets his opposite, a French detective who cares little about the psychology of the crime and all about those little clues, and can often be found digging through the dirt and mud (something Poirot would never do, for it would assuredly ruin his nice attire) looking for that left behind object. The only thing these two have in common is their arrogance and mustaches. They play off of each other nicely, down to a very amusing scene where they bet who can solve the case first.
This one was so, so close to being 4 stars, and would have succeeded if it weren’t for Hastings. I’ve made no secret that I don’t care for the character in my other Poirot reviews, but in this one his usual obtuse nature is played up so much that I just wanted Poirot to slap him and make him go over the clues again. Seriously, I could only imagine Poirot looking at him like this each time Hastings opened his mouth: [image]
Also, there’s a romantic sub-plot for Hastings that I won’t go into for fear of spoiling bits of the plot, but I will say now that it annoyed me that it was such a focus.
Those events lowered my enjoyment significantly� but the case itself is so damn good, that I couldn’t lower it too much. Half of the case is ingenious and the rest of it is still satisfying. This is one of those mystery novels where you have to examine it as a bigger picture to fully get the case, and Poirot explains it beautifully. While I did figure out the murderer before the end, I was most pleased that I did not figure out the entirety of the events until they were explained� and that is one of things that Christie can sometimes pull off wonderfully.
Recommended despite Hasting’s being particularly annoying in this one....more
There are some minor spoilers in this review. Nothing that gives away the main plot, but some characters are looked at in depth and some plot points aThere are some minor spoilers in this review. Nothing that gives away the main plot, but some characters are looked at in depth and some plot points are mentioned.
“In the beginning there was no east and west. Where then is there a north and south?�
This is the question that is at the heart of Tanizaki’s wonderful “Some Prefer Nettles.� At first, I mistakenly believed that this was going to be another east vs. west style novel, as it was a common theme in Japanese literature during this period. Understandable given that many Japanese traditional values were being replaced with more American/European ideals. Even the clothes were changing drastically, with kimonos leaving and suits becoming the norm.
Though these ideas are discussed, they are notwhat the novel is about... at least not in that direct of a way. In fact, if there is indeed an answer to the above quote, it seems that Tanizaki thinks that there is still no such thing as east and west, north or south.
Tanizaki constantly subverts any personifications of any specific core value, showing them to consistently be flawed. For example, O-hisa, who to Kaname seems to personify the eastern traditions, is scolded by the old man for using a compact at one point and she doesn’t like many of the traditional clothes. She even talks about preferring to read women’s magazines to calligraphy and such. In contrast, the most fully western character (as in the only one actually from Europe) is the madam who puts on a front of how European she is, but even after her brother’s death she refuses to leave Japan. This says to me that Tanizaki is saying that people are pretty much the same everywhere. We’re all fascinated by things foreign and new, but at the same time still uphold a lot of traditional aspects even unintentionally (this is further reinforced by Kaname saying that his marriage would maybe work in the west but would be unheard of in Japanese society towards the beginning of the novel, and then later the old man says how many relationships, including his marriage, are very much like theirs).
Kaname in particularly is in love with the perfect eastern personification, which is why he is fascinated by O-hisa, he even says that maybe he could end up with someone who is "more O-hisa than O-hisa actually is." (I don't have the book on me, so this is probably not the full quote, just the gist of it). Despite this, he regularly sleeps with a woman who looks as European as possible... practically the opposite of O-hisa. Yet despite opposites appearances, they are quite similar. It turns out despite her presentation as a European who escaped her homeland, she's of Asian descent as well. Thus any presentations as fully eastern or western are shown to be... flawed.
Beyond analysis though, my terms of the story as a whole; the book is ambiguous to the point of frustration. I found myself pondering throughout the novel, do they not want a divorce or do they and they are simply too lazy? It was frustrating, but intriguing. I loved the details about classic puppet theater that are presented, and found myself wanting to know more beyond what the book gave me, which is satisfying in its own way as well.
All in all this is a very satisfying read. I’m rather shocked that the book was never adapted into a film. While many readers may not think the plot would serve itself as a film, many Japanese directors of the 50s and 60s thrived on this sort of material, Ozu or Kon Ichikawa in particular come to mind (the later of which directed a film version The Makioka Sisters, which is another Tanizaki novel).
Highly recommended to all fans of Japanese literature, or those looking for a complex dysfunctional family drama. ...more
I’ve decided to go back and review all the Agatha Christie novels that I’ve read (or at least the ones I thoroughly remember) and what better place toI’ve decided to go back and review all the Agatha Christie novels that I’ve read (or at least the ones I thoroughly remember) and what better place to start than The Mysterious Affair at Styles, which was not only the first Poirot novel, but Christie’s first book in general!
The plot of this one is fairly conventional (wealthy woman is murdered, one person has an obvious motive, etc.) but it stands above your usual mystery in how well it is plotted. When I first started reading it, I realized that I already knew who the killer was having seen the David Suchet adaptation. Despite knowing “who done it� I found myself engrossed in the story. In fact, this is a pattern you may notice if you continue reading my Christie reviews. Her early work is so satisfactory of a mystery that even knowing how it was all done, I find the stories so excellently put together that it doesn’t bother me.
Now there are a few complaints with this one. It suffers from some early installment weirdness in that Poirot seems a bit� off. This was made noticeable to me because I didn’t start here. Christie was still very much figuring out her characters (and writing in general) so the Poirot of this book is not the one of her later novels. He seems much older here. While it seems to be a running theme throughout the books of him coming out of retirement, this feels very much like it supposed to be a much older man and a final case sort of thing.
This is also one of the books Hastings narrates and personally I’ve always found him to be an unnecessary character. The better Poirot novels tend to not have him, but that’s strictly my opinion, so that may not be a minus to some.
All in all, a good start to what will become an amazing series. ...more
This was the first Poirot novel I read, and still my favorite of the series. Here Christie plays with writing in a masterful way, giving us one of theThis was the first Poirot novel I read, and still my favorite of the series. Here Christie plays with writing in a masterful way, giving us one of the trickiest cases and a truly unforgettable solution. Looking back at some of the novels, I often wonder if I read it or not, and won’t remember until I actually start the book. Not so here. The solution is engrained into my brain where it is immediately the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing the title.
In the village of Abbot, a recent suicide creates a bit of a scandal. It was rumored that Mrs. Ferrars had murdered her first husband though one could actually prove anything� but it comes to the attention of one Roger Ackroyd, who had intended to marry the widow, that she was paying a blackmailer. Roger later receives a letter with the name of the culprit � of course as the title implies, Ackroyd doesn’t know for long. Luckily Poirot has made another attempt to retire to the countryside for a bit, and as everyone knows, he won’t let a crime such as this remain unsolved for long.
This is another book without Hastings, instead our narrator is Dr. James Sheppard who has more charm and is far more clever than Hastings could ever be. His dynamic with Poirot is more fascinating and complex than Hatsings is, and you pick up on a mutual respect for most of the novel. It’s really an interesting dynamic throughout.
Sadly I feel I cannot say much more about this one despite it being one of my favorites. What elevates this it to a full 5/5 star rating is the ending. While I will not go into it here, I will say it’s a stunning solution that is executed perfectly. One of the few mysteries where my immediate reaction upon finishing it was to go back and reread it looking for all the clues in plain sight�
Recommended for Christie fans, mystery fans and pretty much anyone in general. ...more
I'm supposed to love this book. It's a classic. It's the great American novel� as an English major I'm supposed to just worship every sentence of the I'm supposed to love this book. It's a classic. It's the great American novel� as an English major I'm supposed to just worship every sentence of the book and praise its brilliance.
I don't like it though. I really don't. In fact, I downright dislike this book.
I hate every character in it. I hate the supposedly brilliant prose. I hate the supposedly clever symbolism. There is not a single thing in this damn book that I enjoy.
But Tim, it's a metaphor for the American Dream and� I get it, of course I get it. The symbolism is so blatant, how could I not get it?
Maybe I should reread it? How many times do I need to read it to enjoy it? I read it in Highschool. I read it in college (twice) and read it again years later to give it one last shot. I'm done with it. May I never touch this blasted thing again. 1/5 stars and a hatred that burns with the passion and fire of a thousand stars.
�
Unless of course Gatsby is actually a Green Lantern, who is staring off into that distant green light as symbolism for his secret identity� he is also defeated by something yellow (a weakness of all green lanterns). Maybe when he's off at the parties he's actually off saving the world with super powers! Brilliant! 5/5 stars!
Loading...
