A book on the Holocaust written for youth. While it is an introductory crash course on what the Jews endured, I don't think it is especially unique orA book on the Holocaust written for youth. While it is an introductory crash course on what the Jews endured, I don't think it is especially unique or superior to the many other WW2 YA books I have encountered. The characters and setting fall flat for me.
I dislike that it trains young minds in postmodernism. I understand that most books on the holocaust tend to be postmodern, but I wouldn't want my young child being trained in this mentality, especially when they will encounter it extensively in their own lifetime. There's the extreme distrust of stories and information that has not been personally witnessed (much like Goya's "Yo Lo Vi" painting), the added level of chaos of the many Yiddish and German words lacking any translation, the willingness to reject faith and God's presence due to the inhumanity around them, and an acceptance of the world/nature as being cold, meaningless, and indifferent. If this were not geared for middle schoolers, I might give it a 3.
Moreover, the concept of the book seems to have begun with the moral to never forget, to give life to those who died by remembering, so the book tends to be didactic. This girl is annoyed at having to celebrate Seder and remember what her ancestors have gone through, up until she herself must survive it. There is some transcendence at the end, however, when Chaya takes the place of her friend, allowing another to live in her place....more
Tennessee Willaims is a genius, capable of writing in such a way that instills his readers with compassion, grief, and love. When I read this in my eaTennessee Willaims is a genius, capable of writing in such a way that instills his readers with compassion, grief, and love. When I read this in my early 20s, I thought the characters were simply deceptive and cruel. Now I read it and understand how genuinely they're portrayed. The story is written post WWII, and viewers responded sympathetically because they understood--it grapples with brokenness and loss. The men are survivors of that war, having been taught to live on brutish impulse and violence, Stanley being a Master Sergeant in the Army. Meanwhile, the women had to grapple with their loss and fear, having suddenly received the role of breadwinner and supposed independence--they're to try and succeed in what has been predominantly a man's world. The women in Tennessee's stories feel entrapped, helpless, shamed, with nobody to save them. There's a rift between the men and the women, as they grapple to arrive at a new way of life.
"A Streetcar Named Desire" portrays a woman who has lost Belle Reve (Beautiful Dream), her aristocratic house from the Old South, along with her wealth, status, morale, and respect. Not only did she nurse all her family members on their deathbed (remaining amid the deterioration, while Stella left to pursue her own dreams), but she also experienced immense romantic tragedy. Williams must have included Allan to project his own confusion and hurt that he experienced as a homosexual. For him desire accompanies death and loneliness; in fact, he uses a streetcar to symbolize desire, a cold, mechanical artifact that bangs and grinds (words with both sexual and violent connotations). Stanley becomes a symbol of this modern world, crushing and damaging anyone too fragile and sensitive.
Williams interweaves music and light into his play in order to conjure nostalgia and grief. His symbols are fantastic, and he returns to them throughout the play. Light and darkness take on various meanings. Blanche, when describing her relationship with the poet, says, "Love was like you suddenly turned a blinding light on something that had always been half in shadow." Therefore, love is associated with light, and the loss of it is darkness, hence, she cowers in the darkness; moreover, the darkness hides all her deception. She claims that she tells what ought to be truth, suggesting that because she lives in an oppressive world, she must lie in order to obtain the life she desires. She also sings "It's Only a Paper Moon," which suggests superficiality, illusion, and make-believe. She clings to an idyllic past that doesn't exist for her anymore, and she's left with delusions of grandeur.
It's a postmodern work as it deals with an unreliable main character, disenchantment, disillusionment; furthermore, Williams at times blurs the lines between realism and memory.
The 1951 movie with Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando is a masterpiece, the actors breathing life into these roles. Brando's coolness and temper, along with his passionate cries for Stella, are simply unforgettable. I don't appreciate that the directors changed the ending, having Stella run away from him and claiming a new life. This changed the tone of the play, creating hope where there wasn't. Williams concluded his play with a pervading sense of injustice and deception. The audience is supposed to feel unsettled and uncertain as Stella was, mourning for Blanche and her ruined dreams....more
Gogol (1809-1852) was ahead of his time, writing in Magical Realism before it was even truly developed by Latin Americans mid 1900s. This genre arose Gogol (1809-1852) was ahead of his time, writing in Magical Realism before it was even truly developed by Latin Americans mid 1900s. This genre arose as a response to Postcolonialism: the tension between the magical and the realism are just as much in tension as the two colliding cultures, thus it was a way for them to consider their ontological doubleness before reconsidering their new identity. Russia at the time was in the midst of a cultural crisis: were they European or Russian, and what did that mean for them? It makes absolute sense why Gogol played around with Magical Realism, setting the story in St Petersburg, the symbol of the West. Furthermore, the fantastical elements distort reality, allowing readers to perceive the world with new vision.
The story is all about a man who sacrifices for an overcoat, only to have it stolen from him. It is a deeply troubling story of social injustice, and although Akakii does not inspire greatness, he does demand compassion. Close to the ending, Gogol says, "There vanished and disappeared a being protected by none, endeared to no one, of no interest to anyone," thereby asking the question, who will protect the little man? Everyone failed him, economy, bureaucracy, police, even his coworkers, who made fun of him every chance they had. The narrator goes on to blame the Petersburg climate for exacerbating his fever, eventually killing him.
While it is a deeply troubling story, it is, nonetheless, incredibly humorous. Gogol somehow combines the Magical Realism and the humor to pierce through the ennui and rationale of the Russians, elevating them to some transcendence previously denied them, as well as to a certain childlike attitude. When Akakii cried out, seeming to say, "I am your brother," we all should be convicted over our own inhumanity.
Many articles have been written on the significance of the overcoat: was Akakii materialistic? Was the overcoat his corruption? But I don't think he is the problem (in ancient Greek, the name Akakios means innocent one). The truth is, in St Petersburg, an overcoat was essential, and his negligee wouldn't suffice any longer. The problem lay not in his desire for warmth but in the society: his company failed to pay him enough, so that he could not procure necessities; there was an incredible divide between the upper and lower class, and it was in the poorer neighborhood that he was robbed; the police and bureaucrats were highly indifferent and oppositional, failing to act in his favor. Akakii, humbled and silenced all his life, finally found his voice and confidence after his death, and his hauntings helped clean up the corruption: the police were more on guard, and the important man improved his behavior).
It's also interesting how his phantom grew in size, almost as if to demonstrate the growing number of the oppressed.
I love this story, and I enjoy revisiting it....more
An example of the postmodern theatre of the absurd. Hamm has lost his vision (there's no meaning in his life), and he's surrounded by emptiness. As isAn example of the postmodern theatre of the absurd. Hamm has lost his vision (there's no meaning in his life), and he's surrounded by emptiness. As is expected in Beckett's writing, there is no plot, although the characters do move around a lot (Clov moves around the room, repeatedly retracing his steps to find either the ladder or the telescope). The play is apparently post-nuclear war (a gray sun, desiccated nature, blurred vision), and the survivors are attempting to find meaning in their lives, through stories, prayer, and orderliness. Hamm tells of a tailor who after three months still couldn't produce a pair of pants, so his client reminds him that God created the world in 6 days, to which the tailor laughs, "Look at the world and look at my trousers." So much is left unsaid in this quote.
What is most interesting about Beckett is that he intertwines the tragic with the comic: while it is a most dark and sinister play, it is, nevertheless, humorous; this comedic element is possible because of Beckett's vision of friendship/community in a chaotic world. Hamm recognizes how undeserving he is of Clov's service, and although Clov says he'll leave, he never does (the ending is intentionally ambiguous). The last words in the play are, "You...remain." Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" is incredibly similar.
Postmodern elements: fragmented stories within the minimalist overarching story; death of the older generation and their traditions (the parents are literally living in ash bins); break down of language and story; paranoia; and rejection of transcendent meaning.
The first time I read this, I remember feeling sympathy for the Byronic Hero, Pechorin--the misunderstood and tortured hero who was true to himself. TThe first time I read this, I remember feeling sympathy for the Byronic Hero, Pechorin--the misunderstood and tortured hero who was true to himself. The interesting thing about Byronic heroes is that they are simultaneously repulsive and appealing, so I was willing to overlook his faults.
This time through though, I am amazed at how ahead of his time Lermontov was in creating a postmodern work in 1840 at the age of 24! Because the book's form is that of a journal, one encounters a stream of consciousness. Embittered and cynical, he views others as a means to get what he wants, even if it ruins them in the progress. He pretends to love Vera, most likely because he knows he can't have her, and he plays with Mary's emotions because he enjoys the challenge; nevertheless, he confesses that he views love as empowerment, and that he loves his freedom too much to be under anybody's control. He's an overthinker, nihilistic, and a Romantic, thus deeply individualistic. He's embittered against humanity, and with good reason: Grushnitsky and his friends all agreed to give themselves the upper hand in a duel, while also slandering Mary's reputation; moreover, Vera thinks only of herself and causes him further resentment and alienation. Pechorin is disillusioned and appalled at the lack of values; nevertheless, he has not shown any values whatsoever all along: he's deceptive, vengeful, judgmental, and corrupt. He freely admits, earlier in the journal, to being a "moral cripple," one "incapable of noble impulses."
It remains to be asked how he became like this, and why he is considered the "hero of our time?" He seems to reflect his deeply flawed society: he is bored, cynical, and spiteful, just like everyone else. He is named after a Russian river, Pechora, that is mostly frozen year-round. He laments life being absurd and nonsensical, and how there is "no more constancy on heaven than there is on earth." He has no meaning in his life, and he's left lost and confused. Through the transparent journal entries, people see their own reflection and are disturbed; through him, we see our own faults and what can happen when one is led by the appetite with no principles (think C. S. Lewis, Men with no Chests). Therefore, he is a satirical hero, meant to question our standards.
The scene in which his horse dies is rather similar to an occurrence in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which I think may be intentional on the latter's part. When he complains about the sun not delivering any warmth, I am reminded of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich."...more
First, I want to say that I love the idea of reimagining secondary characters from famous literature and making them the protagonist (many modern bookFirst, I want to say that I love the idea of reimagining secondary characters from famous literature and making them the protagonist (many modern books accomplish this), especially by perceiving the story through Grendel's own perspective! John Gardner explores the apparent injustice of Grendel's situation, how he is fated to be evil because of a choice Cain made long ago. More importantly, however, the book asks who the real monster is and what does it mean to *be* a monster. Grendel develops extreme cynicism as he witnesses the people's inhumanity against their own kind, especially their rampant bloodshed as they wipe out entire villages; then they turn against him and attack him out of fear, begging the question, why is their life more important than his own? After speaking to the dragon (who embodies greed and nihilism), he accepts his philosophy--the universe is meaningless, abandoned, fragmented, absurd. Every so often, he senses beauty (such as in the Shapers' songs and in Wealtheow's sacrifice and love), but he always rejects it in favor of power and violence. (It is interesting to contrast the dragon and the lady, ancient images that take us straight to Genesis). Readers who know the Beowulf story know the outcome of Grendel, know that he will die by Beowulf's hands. The book can therefore be interpreted in this nihilistic fashion, that nothing matters in the space of time, that one must either kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. However, we can also interpret the story as Beowulf ridding the world of evil--goodness triumphing. Gardner is very much playing with other postmodern and modern writers, including Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Camus' The Stranger, Robert Browning's Caliban Upon Setebos, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (one cannot read this book and not think of Frankenstein's monster looking through the chink, experiencing anger and loneliness). Because of the nature of the book, the exploration of Grendel's thoughts, one could easily apply Lacan's psychoanalysis to it, the imaginary, symbolic, and real. While I'm glad to have read it (I absolutely enjoyed seeing Beowulf's world from Grendel's perspective, watching Unferth's character develop, and observing the various Grendel illustrations), I would not read this book again. It is a dark, sinister, chaotic world that I feel relieved to leave behind....more
**spoiler alert** I listened to the audio book version narrated by David Pittu; if it had not been for his impeccable rendition, I doubt I would have **spoiler alert** I listened to the audio book version narrated by David Pittu; if it had not been for his impeccable rendition, I doubt I would have ever finished the novel. I'll most likely revisit only the last hour of the book, which was really the only part of the book I truly enjoyed.
Overall, the story is about a person's need for beauty, how through beauty one encounters something eternal--beauty takes one out of the self and expands the soul. Theo describes his response to "The Goldfinch" as a religious experience: when he felt where the nails upheld it, he was as Thomas touching Christs' own hands. It was the painting that granted him the meaning necessary to continue surviving in a chaotic world. Tartt's writing, the perpetual listing, creates a world of possibility, of hope, which fits well with her content.
Now for some aspects I enjoy. I did appreciate the genuine depiction of grief and guilt. I also like the way she revisits the Noah's Ark imagery throughout the story. Mr. Hobie owns a wooden set of Noah's Ark with various animals, and this carpenter-like man along with his renovating antique store become a place of refuge for the boy (Theo likens himself to a dying little Pitbull that his mother rescued). Welty wears a sailor uniform in the photograph of him standing below The Goldfinch, representing his ability to navigate life’s difficulties. Andy's death by drowning alludes to Theo's current situation, his constant fight for survival. Compare the constant rainfall in NY and especially in Amsterdam to the aridity of Las Vegas: in the former, he had recollections of his mother, yet in the latter he lost himself in drugs and alcohol. Rain is a beautiful image, because it symbolizes not only cleansing, growth, and grace but also justice and torment. The presence of rain is better than the lack thereof.
I can understand why many say this book will be a classic, because she does draw heavily on other thinkers, such as Dickens, Dostoevsky, Emerson, Proust. Toward the end, she challenges the modernist mantra, "Believe in yourself and trust your heart," because the soul requires so much more than what the self can provide. Her inclusion of the Russian culture is intentional, because she plays on their philosophies, such as that of the elusive eternal feminine, purposeful suffering, human dignity, and psychological investigation. Both Boris and Mr. Hobie tell Theo that good can come from bad, that the transcendent can intertwine with the mundane--a message that the prominent Russian writers have all explored....more
There's so much I want to say about this play--a play I've loved since the first time I read it. The Wingfield family is a microcosm of the whole worlThere's so much I want to say about this play--a play I've loved since the first time I read it. The Wingfield family is a microcosm of the whole world: it's fragmented, fragile, and cruel. The play is teeming with tensions that are inseparable: longing and loss, sweetness and sorrow, death and resurrection, past and future, desire/memory and reality. Tennessee Williams masterfully wrote this successful play in 1944, and it resounded with the people of their time, people tired of the war, people who sympathized with Tom's predicament. Many people regard this play as exploring women's desperate plight in a modern; however, while it does explore the misery and confinement of women, it does so much more. It's also about the destruction of the family unit, already fractured by the father's absence, the death of the American Dreams, America's social and spiritual decay. More importantly, it's about Tom, for it ultimately is his memory, and he provides us with soliloquys before almost every scene. It's his confession, lamentation, and justification. It's about his duty to his art vs his duty to his family; it's not only his grief but also his release. The characters are stuck and unable to move forward. Amanda lives in the past, recollecting her days in the Old South as a Southern belle, a time when she would receive 17 callers. Jim lives on his former high school glories and hopes to make something of himself by focusing on progress and science. Laura lives in a world all her own ensconced among her glass menagerie. Laura desires beauty and harmony, but her world is incompatible with her desires. Tom did what he had to do in order to move forward, but memories of his sister weigh down on him; therefore, he tells her to blow out her candles to relinquish him. What I find so interesting is that when Ibsen wrote Doll House, how the lady freed herself from the oppressive household, the world applauded Nora for her feminism; yet the world laments Tom's decision for abandoning his family for self-improvement. I believe there may be deliberate attempts to refer to this play when he describes Laura as being a bird. He, restless and embittered, leaves them helpless and desperate, literally in the dark. However, what could he do for them? They wouldn't move forward. There is an intriguing similarity between Tom's sitting in the dark theatre waiting for something to happen, and Laura blowing the candles out at the end; more importantly, Tom left the audience sitting in the dark, once Laura blew the candles out. The play is a wake-up call for people to do something with their lives. Jim tells Tom to wake up, and Tom in turn tells his viewers to wake up. In the beginning of the play, Tom had said he will present the truth disguised in illusion. The illusion is that you can sit around and wait for something remarkable to happen, that love will arrive and save you from your predicament, but that is not the truth. Tennessee, whose grandfather was a pastor, knew the religious symbols well, so he introduces them in the text (wine, baptism, candles, martyrs) to suggest the failings of the church/religion. The Church of Eternal Rest was burnt down by lightning, and Tom says that lightning is all that is left in the world. It is, indeed, the postmodern attitude that one must make their own quest for meaning in a meaningless world. Sartre's No Exit was published the same year, and there are many similarities. There are 2 women and one man who thrive among memories, refusing to leave their room in hell. Garcin does not leave, even when given the chance; however, Tom succeeds, but this liberation is tinged with lamentation. I love all the symbolism throughout this play: blue (Blue Mountain, Blue Roses) is a color for the water (Tom's freedom) but also depression and coldness; the moon represents wishes as well as demise/heartache; the rainbow depicts beauty but also its elusive and fragmented quality. This play reflects Williams' own life and his relationship with Rose who later had a lobotomy. The unicorn, a wonderful symbol having multiple meanings also can suggest Rose's lobotomy, where she lost her identity. I appreciate the imagery on the cover, a likely allusion to Picasso's Guernica painting, a social commentary on the rampant chaos and violence. The characters' names are also suggestive: Laura comes from the name laurel, meaning victor, which is incredibly ironic, since she does not succeed in anything. Tom means being a twin or having a doubleness (it is also Tennessee's original name before he changed it to Tennessee), which reveals much about his own split, ambiguous character.
The story is rife with Christian allusions and imagery, all offered ironically and despairingly. Amanda, in the production notes, is to be lit like a Madonna and later reminds Laura of the suffering Mary; the waiting at the table to say grace for both Tom and Laura (there is an obvious absence, however, that of the father, which hints at their continual lack of grace). The magician Malvolio is the only one who experiences a resurrection that they all desire, freeing himself from his own coffin. The magician turns water into wine (whiskey), presents a fish (the symbol of Christianity), although it is only a goldfish. The only paradise available to them is the Paradise Dance Hall. Laura and Amanda await a Savior, and Jim arrives (Jim O’Connor, whose initials are similar to JC). Rain accompanies his arrival, hinting at the possibility of relief and fertility. He offers Laura “life-savers� and wine, an image of the sacrament. But in the conclusion, there is no savior, there is no divine help, the alter candles are blown out, and they are all left in the dark (including Moses from Amanda's joke). The universe is cursed and abandoned. The prayer offered is ironic as well: Tom thanks God for His mercies just moments before the lights turn off.
There is a deterministic fatalism that encompass Laura and Amanda, and the rest of the world, quite frankly. It is an accusation of God’s abandonment of the universe. There may have been a Church of Heavenly Rest, but the lightning struck it down—it’s not their doing, but rather God is at fault. The rain can also serve to allude to the flood, where the masses were left to be destroyed. If Tom were to stay, he’d become a sort of vermin depicted in Kafka’s Metamorphosis, sacrificed to maintain a family that was unable to survive in the harsh realities of the modern world. ...more
How to describe this book? It is a memoir that retells Kurt Vonnegut's own survival of the bombing in Dresden; it is historical fiction, teeming with How to describe this book? It is a memoir that retells Kurt Vonnegut's own survival of the bombing in Dresden; it is historical fiction, teeming with realities of WW2; and yet, there is an abundance of sci-fi that does not detract from the book's satire and truth. It is as if he is saying the atrocities of WW2 and the bombing of Dresden should be just as preposterous as an alien abduction; unfortunately, it really happened, and over 100,000 people died in Dresden, not counting the other thousands of lives taken during ww2.
I have never read a book quite like this: it is humorous and somber, entertaining and informational, both fictive and factual. I was convicted the entire time and wept. Sadly, the world continues fighting in wars, and people continue to die.
It is modern in that the story is out of order: Billy Pilgrim travels through time to various parts of his life, which serves to only strength Vonnegut's anti-war sentiment and satire. At one point he is a prisoner of war, when suddenly he jumps back in time as a baby being held by his mother, which alludes to O'Hare's wife complaint of the war being fought by babies and the explanation of the Children's Crusade.
The effective repetitive use of the phrase, "So it goes" after a death, 106 times throughout the novel, presents the narrator as dispassionate or detached, while simultaneously emphasizing the countless deaths and the inability to process such a tragedy. The majority of the book is about a soldier dealing with PTSD and trying to grapple with his experiences.
Vonnegut criticizes our passivity toward war, our utter disregard for life, and our lack of love for ourselves and others.
There are cuss words, sex, and violence; it also mocks Christianity (which is expected considering Vonnegut was an atheist), but this books merits 5 stars. It is a masterful work of art....more
This tale is more heartbreaking than I had anticipated, with a very modern feel. A traveling salesman who transforms into a “monstrous vermin.� It is This tale is more heartbreaking than I had anticipated, with a very modern feel. A traveling salesman who transforms into a “monstrous vermin.� It is a classic and with good reason, as it considers existential angst and alienation (he’s locked in his room, and nobody can communicate with him). The story develops a social-constructionist theory, depicting the self's identity as corresponding to one's social relationships; therefore, one is only as necessary as he is useful. Initially, Gregor sacrifices extensively for his family, until the point of exhaustion; once he is unable to provide, however, his family excludes him, considering him a burden. As his position in the family disintegrates, so does his sense of self. Kafka seems to be asking his readers to consider whether Gregor deserved love and moral support due to his “uselessness�. As long as Gregor had devoted his life to paying off his parents� debts, his family members were incompetent, weary, and weak; however, once Gregor is incapable of working, they all obtain good jobs. If they had all worked together and shared the burden, Gregor may not have ever reached his vermin state, frenzied, exhausted, and defensive.
There’s an interesting turn at the end, when the narrator focuses on Greta� blooming beautiful body: she too experiences a transformation of her own, something akin to a butterfly. The story contemplates the environments� effect on the individual’s soul—it’s only in the sunny country, outside their apartment, that she has her metamorphosis, rather unlike Gregor’s stultifying, dreary confinement inside the four walls of a bedroom or a tram. There is also a suggestion of the parents turning their children into vermin as they consider their child’s utility (thus the children lose their status of a human being made in God's image and having an eternal soul).
Consider the original German word for our English translation of "vermin" or “insect�: the original word provides clarity to the story's development: ungeziefer—an old high German word that refers to animals unsuited for sacrificial offerings. Therefore, once Gregor’s sacrifices are insufficient, his family abandons him—his family considers his humanity only in relation to his utility. He remains a human despite his bug-like appearance, for he desires beauty and harmony as he ventures out of the safety of his room to hear his sister play the violin and uses his body to protect the picture of the lady.
At one point in the story, his father throws apples at him, lodging one in his body. The apple is a symbol for the fruit of good and evil which inflicted death on humanity. Thus, the apple rots in his flesh, causing his eventual death. It also recalls to mind Arthur Miller’s play when Mr. Lowman complains of being discarded after sacrificing his life to the job: “You can’t eat the orange, and throw the peel away—a man is not a piece of fruit!� This is exactly what has happened to Gregor: he was neglected and forgotten as soon as he became a burden to society....more
**spoiler alert** Camus was an atheist existentialist, and this book demonstrates his rejection of nihilism: It is possible that Camus subverts the re**spoiler alert** Camus was an atheist existentialist, and this book demonstrates his rejection of nihilism: It is possible that Camus subverts the reader’s expectations, depicting an isolated and unhappy individual to exemplify the outcome of somebody who has not only decided that nothing at all matters but has also surrendered himself to sensual pleasures. Camus underhandedly seems to be arguing that one must create their own meaning in an absurd world, because if not, Meursault is the type of person he will inevitably become. It is a very sad depiction of a man who has rejected God and tries to find happiness in whatever the present presents.
The title "L'etranger" implies stranger, outsider, foreigner, and exile. Meursault experienced restlessness and a feeling of never belonging in this world; moreover, he felt like a stranger in his own society, never adapting to their norms and values. The only time he felt a sense of belonging was at his own trial.
Rather than Meursault being responsible for the murder, he presents himself as being a victim of chance, a victim of nature (the ever-scorching, oppressive sun being at fault). He never accepted responsibility for his actions; he blames fate instead, an example of bad faith. Plato and subsequent followers had seen the sun as symbolizing ultimate meaning, the source of all light and truth, yet Camus subverts it to depict oppression, suffocation, and meaninglessness.
It is interesting to decipher when Meursault wrote this narrative due to his constant change in tense from present to past to future. The first part seems to be his justification for the murder, whereas the second part is his judgment.
A postmodern book exemplifying the pessimism, loneliness, indifference, and malaise of the age. Camus writes in monosyllabic, choppy sentences--the cold facts, no room for interpretation. Often the language itself is unstable, leading to isolation and an inability to communicate.
Aspects of this novel remind me of Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and Kafka's "The Penal Colony."...more
Loading...
