Book review: "War and Peace", by Leo Tolstoy

Synopsis: Starting in 1805, War and Peace takes the reader through Napoleon's disastrous attempted invasion of Russia from a Russian perspective- from the original Russian response (a.k.a. "STOP HHIIMM!"), the truce and alliance, Napoleon's sudden change of heart / aggression, the War of 1812, and Napoleon's subsequent (and hasty) retreat from Moscow. Although it's historical fiction (the characters are based on real people, but it's made quite clear that they are essentially figments of Tolstoy's creativity), it's famously historically accurate (particularly when referring to the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino), and it gives Tolstoy the chance to show that he's not only a competent historian, but also a brave guide who can lead you through no-man's land to show you the daily lives of the people who live at equidistance between war and peace.

Review: Writing a review of this book (rather than a literary analysis essay which, I realise, this could easily turn into) will require great discipline on my part. With that in mind, I'm going to anticipate questions that would-be-readers may have, and answer them (for FURTHER questions, you can always contact me here!)

1) Q: Is it historically accurate?
     A: Largely, yes. Tolstoy relieves himself of the pressure from historians in his last chapter (Published in Russian Archive, 1868) where he writes:

"The divergence between my description of historical events and that given by the historians was not accidental, but inevitable. A historian and an artist describing a historic epoch have two quite different tasks before them. As a historian would be wrong if he tried to present a historical person in his entirety, in all the complexity of his relations with all sides of life, so the artist would fail to perform his task were he to represent the person always in his historical significance".

Tolstoy's basically saying "I'm not a historian (or I'm an amateur one at best)! I'm an artist- I have a license". Having said this, several footnotes (available on the kindle) suggest that Tolstoy did extensive historical research. At no point do you feel that Tolstoy has a far-fetched imagination- nor do you feel that he's completely biased towards the Russians (on the contrary- Tolstoy clearly knows his countrymen well, and is not afraid to delve into the "Russian psyche", flattering or not). Rest assured, though, there is plenty of Napoleon bashing to be enjoyed throughout!

2) Q: So, it's historical fiction?
     A: As a huge fan of historical fiction, I would say it's the Everest of historical fiction. Huge, legendary, majestic- the book all other historical fiction books look up to and aspire to be.

3) Q: And what about the characters? (No spoilers, please!)
     A: They're portrayed with a supreme level of detail (which is one of the main reasons for the length- you'd break your leg if you fell off the paper-back copy!). Take Pierre, for example (many believe he's based on Tolstoy himself). Recently divorced from his promiscuous wife, he finds a new spring to life after joining the Masons. However, as Napoleon's troops approach Moscow, he becomes a would-be assassin (having interpreted from scripture readings that he is destined to kill Napoleon), but is instead captured after a failed attempt to save a woman's honour (a gesture which he is never thanked for, by the way), and forced to retreat with the French troops during the harsh Russian winter. Or Natasha who, having promised herself to the heroic Prince Andrew, is lured into an affair with Dolohov, in which they decide to elope. When he fails to keep his promise, Natasha (who has already broken it off with the prince) attempts suicide, and is only later given the chance to make amends with the then severely injured former fiance.

This pattern of real-life tragedy and occurrences is repeated with between 15 to 20 characters (again- look at the length!). Needless to say, there is no shortage of character development... although don't get too attached. It turns out that Tolstoy is the George R.R. Martin of 19th century Russian literature, mercilessly killing people off, no matter their age or how recently they found love. However, to help us through these arbitrary deaths, Tolstoy helps to console the reader by exploring his own theories on the soul and the afterlife (which is a hell of a lot more than some HBO based T.V. shows offer us!).

4) Q: Speaking of theology- is it pure storyline, or can I expect it to get all philosophical?
     A: Aside from his own musings about our existence in the universe, Tolstoy makes some sound philosophical points about the nature of war according to the time. A personal favourite is when he dispels the myth that "War is like a game of chess". It's with great pleasure that Tolstoy refutes this, pointing out that in chess:

1) You can have as much time as you like to think about your next move (which in my case is usually between 20 and 30 minutes, if I'm in a hurry).

2) In chess, a knight is always more powerful than a pawn, and a bishop is always subordinate to a queen. But in war, a battalion can become stronger than a whole army if properly inspired, and an entire army can be completely wiped out if they're not fighting for the right reasons. Again, troops tend to be more blindingly obedient and self-sacrificing in chess...

3) On a chessboard, there is nowhere to hide/ambush. Everything is in plain sight for the keen eye (not true in a battle!)

This is just one example in which Tolstoy (much like Victor Hugo on the theme of revolutions) became a philosopher about his chosen subject; namely, war. More specifically, the archaic idea of "fair-play"warfare, and the much more progressive (for the time) and effective notion of "Guerrilla warfare" (the differences between these two styles would prove crucial in the outcome of Napoleon's ambitious late-summer excursion to Moscow).

However, a noticeable difference between Hugo's "Les Miserables" and Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is that in the latter, the STORYLINE dominates. Yes, Tolstoy will go on tangents (a particularly aggressive one includes the fact that a military genius doesn't exist, and that even if they DID, Napoleon wouldn't have been one of them!)... but he never loses sight- or at least, he never loses sight FOR LONG- of the plot. It's a book you can pick up at any point and bang out a couple of pages. "Time to jump back in time to Napoleonic Europe!" you can say to yourself, without having to get into a particularly deep or profound mindset.

5) Q: Finally, is it "the greatest novel ever written", as many critics have called it?
     A: I was afraid you were going to ask that question! I can see WHY people would claim that- after all, it has everything: war, some peace (although this is largely interrupted by all the war), love-interests, affairs, secret societies, serfdom, Napoleon... and it all gallops along like a light French cavalry brigade running towards Eastern Europe while being followed by a couple of thousand of pissed-off (and half pissed) Russian militia. All I'll say is this- I, PERSONALLY, thought it was one of the best books I've ever read, but I know many people who've started it and never finished it, claiming it to be boring (FYI they were all French... just kidding :D). If you're into your history, and you've already read quite a few classic books, then maybe it's time to take on the Everest of historical fiction. Much like no-one is ever quite the same once they've climbed Everest, War and Peace will leave its mark on the soul of all who accept the challenge.


Score: 10/10

Book review: "The Metamorphosis", by Franz Kafka

Synopsis: Gregor Samsa wakes up to find that he is a giant beetle. As his secret is revealed to his family, and as they slowly begin to realize that his transformation is irreversible, the relationship between the family and their former breadwinner declines. Despite the fact that he maintains his human mind, he's unable to be understood, creating further distance with his loved ones, causing the family's once understanding feelings to suffer a metamorphosis of their own...

Review: "The Metamorphosis" (or "What not to do if you one day wake up and find you're a giant beetle handbook") is a true original. Firstly, it's a mini-novella, meaning you can read it within the space of an afternoon (which I did, quite comfortably).

So, what's it all about? Well, on the surface, as the synopsis describes, it's the nightmare we all secretly fear of turning into a human-sized insect overnight. However, even the most novice of bookworms will be able to spot a subtext here- it's really an exposure of the very human reaction to one of your loved ones being a giant beetle or, more generally and realistically, losing their aesthetic "normality" and even being deprived of the ability to communicate properly.

Kafka's analysis throughout is "How will the family react to this sudden change in circumstance?". As the author, he plays the early-twentieth century version of "Big Brother" (the T.V. show, not the overlord in "1984"), or that weird, backwards-wearing-hat guy from "The Truman Show". Kafka asked himself, "What will happen if I take an ordinary, hardworking family, and introduce a provocative variable, namely: turning their main brother and son into a burdensome monster? Will I get entertaining, shocking reactions from the remaining parties?" For anyone who has watched enough "Big Brother challenges", the answer is obvious- "You will, sir... but at what cost?".

And so, from the book we learn something that we all secretly know inside, and yet try to convince ourselves isn't true- that we are affected by appearances. Nothing new here, although what IS new (and was no doubt shocking at the time) is the frankness around which the story takes place. Firstly, Kafka offers no explanation as to WHY Gregor becomes a beetle... which is unsettling enough. Then there's the speed at which Gregor becomes a burden to his family. Rather like watching an episode of "Big Brother", or reading "Lord of the Flies", one realizes with what ease ordinary, upstanding people crack under pressure, they themselves turning hideous... all the while under the watchful, giggling jeer of the author of their fate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "The Metamorphosis" feels like the literary version of those entertaining and novelty "science experiments" you used to do as a teenager. "What will happen if I burn my arm hair with a bunson burner?" (Answer: It stinks). "What will happen if I freeze my bottle of coke?" (Answer: If you're lucky, it won't explode, and all you'll be left with when it thaws is cold, flat coke.). "Will a giant beetle in the family create an uproar?" (Answer: Undoubtedly).

Score: 8/10

Book review: "Great Expectations", by Charles Dickens

Synopsis: Pip, a poor orphaned boy who's being raised by his sister "by hand", falls unwittingly into favourable economic circumstances that promise to lift him out of his rustic routes, and "make a gentleman" out of him. Funded by a mysterious and elusive benefactor, he discovers that the road towards supposed success and wealth in this world is a treacherous one, that life has a habit of being unpredictable, and that in following one path instead of another, he's in danger of losing the treasures that he's been looking for all along. 

Review: Often sighted as Dickens's best novel, it certainly has the qualities to be in the running for such a title. A compromise between a compelling page-turning storyline, a series of thinking points and life lessons (the foolishness of taking life on face value alone, and the lie of financial security being just two), and the hum-drum normality of everyday descriptions (which allow the reader to be able to hear the stagecoaches passing on the cobblestone streets, and the chiming bells over a smoggy Victorian London) await the reader.

Character development is (as you would expect from such a large book) rife within. There's the young, impressionable Pip, his ever-loyal and loving friend Joe (unwavering throughout), the proud siren Estella (the temptress who drives Pip semi-mad with her flirtatious ways and dismissal of him)... the list could continue for a long time, but the point is that these are all real people we know. To such an extent, that it's difficult to read this book without casting each character as a person you're acquainted with in your own life! (Be careful when doing this- you may accidentally ruin some friendships!). REAL, BELIEVABLE characters and human reactions to true(ish) circumstances- this is as much Dickens's strong suit as it is Victor Hugo's.

A further testament that this could only have been written by Dickens is the darkness that you don't see, but that you can feel (aided, no doubt, by the London smog previously mentioned). The world described is a misty one- full of crime, deceit and secrets. The streets are dirty and smoky, the clothes are ragged and unwashed for days... everything just feels a little bit grimy. The flickers of light in Great Expectations are brought sparingly by the charming quirks of the side-characters. Notable examples include Herbert, who upon meeting Pip affably invites him to fight (for a reason that is never explained), only to be thoroughly beaten... and yet decides to go easy on Pip, despite being put on his back more than once. Or Mr Pumblechook who, strongly convinced over a weak claim that he is the sole reason for Pip finding his fortune, and believes himself to be the steadfast stone bridge to his better life, takes every opportunity to ride the wave of fortune to improve his status in front of his peers (again- we all know this person!).

Right from the off, Dickens lays out little threads of storyline for the reader to pick up and follow, only to find that they lead to a supposed dead end. While your mind is working on the new, apparently more reliable thread, the original lead will stay silent and content to be irrelevant until it's forgotten... all the while making his cunning plan to come storming back into the forefront of the narrative, changing the character's perception of reality forever. It's in this picking up, losing and returning (much later on) of character's plots that leave the reader on edge, and never quite convinced that they've seen the last of anyone. An example (Go on- just one! Indulge yourself!)- the desperate yet appealing (and almost heroic) escaped criminal at the beginning. As he's re-arrested, he leaves a cryptic message to his captors within earshot of Pip, only to be rowed off by the authorities over the dark waters into the thick mist... If the reader is disappointed that this thread leads nowhere, then they won't be by the time they finish the book! It seems a shame to compare this book to a soap-opera, as Dickens was a master of surprise- a puppeteer of suspense. But, if it WERE a soap-opera, his characters would be bursting through doors to the shock of everyone with impressive frequency.

Dickens likes his goodies good, and his villains bad. Everyone in this book fits either into one column or the other, and receives their reward or punishment justly. Taking no prisoners (after all- he had Fagin hanged in Oliver Twist!), Dickens is a clear believer that the just will rise, and the dark will be consumed by the darkness. With this knowledge, rest assured that he will not abandon his heroes, but also that villains will not be spared.

Why is Great Expectations such a classic? Simply put, it's for the following reason- because it takes uncomfortable truths that any experienced adult should know (namely, money doesn't make a man, that wealth is a treacherous and unreliable friend, and that, as David Brent from "The Office" puts it, "You should never assume, as it makes an ass out of you and me!"), and turns these well known yet often denied or forgotten lessons into a piece of literature. Add some fictional yet genuine characters to gravely carry these truths along (like funeral bearers) to its inevitable end, add a single twist (make it a big one, and all the little surprises will follow), and there you have a truly spectacular read.

Score: 9/10

Book review: "Stalingrad", by Antony Beevor

Synopsis: Detailing what most historians attest to be the turning point of the Second World War, "Stalingrad" takes readers through the build up to the horrific 5 month battle that would eventually prove that Hitler's troops were stoppable. With the deterioration of the Nazi-Soviet pact (the agreement between Hitler and Stalin that they could share Poland), Hitler's true objective, his campaign towards the East and the destruction of Bolshevism, becomes clear, and it's evident that war in Russia is imminent... As the Nazi troops storm across the Russian steppes, they push the Russians back against Stalingrad, on the Volga river. It's in this city, with the whole world watching, that the bloody, tactical and often hand-to-hand standoff between two ideologies, two worlds, will change the course of the war, and in doing so, write the words "The Battle of Stalingrad" into "The Big Book of unlikely outcomes".   
                                                                               

Review: If you're looking for a thorough, well-researched study of the Battle of Stalingrad, you're unlikely to find a better one than this. Beevor strikes an elegant balance between the facts and figures, and the personal reality of the war on both sides, occasionally speculating (but not without written testimonies from the soldiers as evidence) as to their personal feelings and views of the battle at the time. Furthermore, he even includes a faint narrative. This is not the focal point of the book (Beevor is, after all, a historian, not a historical story-teller), but does serve to keep the prominent generals in their place, allowing even the most novice historian (like myself) to keep track of events (of which there are a lot!) instead of getting mixed up in a whirlwind of Panza troops and Soviet generals.

Beevor provides photos- striking pictorial evidence of bleak eyed, freezing Russians in hasty retreat; jolly, bare-chested German soldiers loading artillery guns in summer; a black cloud of violent smoke rising like deadly mountains over the rubble of the city, with bright, flaming ships sitting helplessly on the river in the foreground, waiting to sink; a captured, solemn German general, snapped by surprise and against his will, being marched by soviets into captivity... past the frozen and disfigured corpse of a German soldier. It's these photos that shockingly remind you "This is not a fantasy- this was a reality that both sides lived". With that in mind, it's a shame that you have to wait to the very end of the book to see them (or partake in some relentless flicking back and forth!), instead of having them appropriately spread out within the text.

Something that is evident throughout "Stalingrad" is a fact that I think a lot of Western propoganda has omitted over the years- that the Soviet Union was Hitler's real nemesis. He had this whimsical fantasy that Britain would become his ally eventually, and although he was nervous about America entering the war, he didn't HATE them... but the Russians, he both feared AND hated. There was no negotiating or bargaining with the Russians- they received the brunt of Nazi aggression because Hitler believed that Russia could not be occupied like France, or become allies like Italy or Spain... they had to be completely wiped out. This may be best illustrated as so:

Has post-war propaganda convinced us otherwise? The apparent stream of WW2 based films being shot out like cannonballs from Hollywood every couple of years would certainly seem to confirm that. But in writing this book, Beevor has taken a large step in helping bust this myth. A quote from Napoleon (who, himself broke the golden rule of avoiding a Russian winter invasion!) seems appropriate here: "What is history, but a lie agreed upon by all?" 

So, "Stalingrad" dispels the fallacy about the insignificance of the Eastern front. However, one more important truth remains prominent throughout the book, which it seems only right to clarify right now. Up until 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union (and possibly beyond), Russian text books would tell you that Stalingrad was a communist victory- the greatest achievement of the party, and a lone testimony to the strength of the ideology. However, throughout the book, it's evident and well attested that many ordinary Russians hated Communism almost as much as they hated Hitler. There is a description of Ukrainian peasants taunting Russian troops as they hastily retreat towards the Volga river, laughing "The Germans are coming to get you!". It describes countless tales of Russian soldiers deserting their positions and risking their lives to surrender to (and even join) German troops as a Nazi victory at Stalingrad looked inevitable (this problem was so rife, that Russian generals would execute soldiers who were caught discussing desertion)...

So, if love for "Comrade Stalin" was so overblown and exaggerated, and the victory didn't belong to the Communist regime, then who's victory was it? Frankly, the answer lies in the feeling that you get throughout reading this book, and that is that a combination of luck (Hitler underestimating the Soviet strength), daring tactics and surprise (essentially, besieging the besiegers!), circumstance (Russia's shear size and notorious winters), and Russian desperation (fueled by having the eyes of the world upon them, and facing imminent extermination) appear to be the main cornerstones of the outcome.

Let's leave it at this: if you're thinking of invading Russia any time soon, then just follow these 4 simple rules:

1) Don't invade Russia.

2) If you're going to invade Russia, do it in 9 months (before winter starts).

3) Don't get encircled, because Russia is too big and too cold to sustain you for long.

4) DON'T INVADE RUSSIA!

Score: 8/10

Book review: "The Picture of Dorian Gray", by Oscar Wilde

Synopsis: Oscar Wilde's only novel, it describes the young and handsome Dorian Gray who, after having a picture painted of him, is advised by a friend that he will not always have his good looks. Troubled by his fate to age, he wishes that the painting could bear the weight of his frivolous lifestyle, and he could stay young... a wish which is granted. He's then plagued forever by the shame of the painting, as every sin he commits ages and disfigures the painting a little, until his soul is laid bare on the canvas, and his attempts to conceal it from the eyes of the world become more desperate...

Review: Although not as good as his short stories ("The Selfish Giant" and "The Happy Prince" come to mind), it is still full of the intellect and with that Wilde was known for. Sadly, though, it lacks the variety of themes to be called a truly great novel- essentially, the folly of youth, the desire to be at the peak of beauty forever, and the fact that the soul is damaged by every sin we commit are where the insights end (more on that shortly)...

The characters are vaguely likeable, but not especially memorable (to the point where I'm starting even now to forget their names!)... with the possible exception of Lord Henry Wotton. The friend of both the artist (Basil Hallward) and Dorian Gray, he is essentially the catalyst for the proceeding story-line. It's him who reveals to Dorian that his looks are temporary, and any attempts to avoid his fate are futile. By far the most intellectual of the group, from whose mind and speech Wilde projects his own philosophies of life, his rants and monologues lend an appealing tangent to the story. Combined with the fact that he's the proverbial sh*t stirrer throughout, delighting in provoking both characters with his philosophical "wisdom" and knowledge gained from life, he's without a doubt the most engaging feature of the book (despite the fact that he's a Lord, and even though you get the feeling that, if you were to meet him in real life, you'd scarcely be able to resist the temptation to punch him in his smarmy, "know-it-all" face). 

Back to the message- never before has this moral been so applicable, in this "vacuous" and "superficial" generation, with "selfies", "facebook" and "instragram" being the current buzzwords (we'll see for how long!). We live in a time in which unless something has photographic evidence to accompany it, be it going to the gym, flexing your muscles in front of the mirror having been to the gym, or a home-made sushi roll, then it DIDN'T happen. Am I saying that, by reading this book, the youth of our time will be snapped out of a spell upon closing the back cover, and receive a spiritual washing, in which they look at a person's soul and character before looking at their facebook page? Probably not- greater writers have tried and failed before, and it would take more than the scribings of even the sharpest literary intellect to alter that route even slightly...

And yet, I realize already that I've been too harsh on this generation, so let me make a mends. The point of this book is that society has always been vain; humans have always feared aging (a precursor to our eventual death), and have consistently gone to extreme lengths to delay the process. This attitude is no more abundant today than it was in Wilde's time. It's possible that one could argue that nowadays, it's closer to the surface, more accessible and publicly available than in previous times, but that makes it no more or less real, or more or less of a vice. No Western civilization, ever since Western civilization has existed, can honestly say that they truly revere and rejoice in gradually deepening facial wrinkles.

The point being- is there any truly great philosophy inter-twined within the book? Not especially. As already mentioned, it really only has one theme, which is maybe a little over-stretched throughout a whole novel. Which brings me back to my original point- that Wilde's strongest hand is in the art of short-story writing.

Score: 6/10

Book review: "Les Miserables", by Victor Hugo

Synopsis: Following the life of Jean Valjean, a convict freed after 19 years in prison, "Les Miserables" describes his troubled conscience, and the path to towards redeeming himself that he follows (sometimes timidly) throughout the remainder of his life. Encountering countless opportunities to decide between right and wrong, the light and the dark, God's way and man's way, Valjean interacts with the highest and lowest of French society, in the turbulent period after Napoleon, as he tries to find what many seek, and yet few find: personal redemption.

Review: It's difficult to read this book without spontaneously bursting into song, so legendary is the theatre production/movie based on the book. And, while mentioning those, it's fair to say that, considering the sheer enormity of this novel (you would break your leg if you fell off of the paperback version!), they did an admirable job of getting the basics in there. You read the book, then watch the film, and you can confidently say "Yep- that's pretty much the gist of it!".

In terms of gained information about the characters when reading the book (which there obviously isn't time for in the play), it is largely on an emotional basis, rather than a superficial one. For example, in the play, (conforming to time restrictions), Jean Valjean has a mini soliloquy as he struggles with his conscience as to whether or not to admit to the court that he's the convict they're looking for. In the book, this is much more stretched out, and one feels the intensified moral anguish stirring within him. Far from gallantly striding as fast as he can towards the proceedings, he looks for any excuse not to go, and there's a brilliant bit where his cart breaks halfway between the town and the courtroom. After trying to do everything possible to fix it, he says "Well, it must be fate!", and heads back home... only to be stopped by a child who says that his mum can lend him a cart. He reluctantly accepts, and heads towards the courtroom, where he confronts his past and his conscience.

Hugo has a talent for the following- dismantling, brick by brick, the tower of each character's soul, and then slowly (or sometimes, immediately) rebuilding it, according to the trials they've endured and the present circumstances. At first, the heroes (Marius) are pure, the villains (the Thernadiers) are true rouges, and the law is inflexible (the police officer Javert)...  and of course, Jean Valjean is a man on the path to redemption. However, despite their clear positions as heroes, rogues and the law, none of them remain pure manifestations of what they symbolise for long and (as in life), with the progress of the story comes a change within the soul. All sin against their former self- all act out of rebellion against what they "should be". Rightly or wrongly, in breaking out of the mould that they were cast in (the hero, the law, the convict), they grow. The book's length is largely due to an in-depth exploration of human emotional development (a complex and lengthy topic at the best of times!) at the very moment of the conflict between the old and new. Will Marius the pure save Thernadier the rogue? Will Javier the strict release Jean Valjean the criminal? Will Jean Valjean the liar reveal the truth? It is at these points of growth, the precipice between what was and what will be, that these questions are answered. Either side of each answer are great pools in which the reader can explore the caverns of the human psyche, and in these pools lie the grandeur of this book.

The development of each character's personality, however, is far from a smooth ride. As is well attested in another superb book, "A pilgrim's progress" by John Bunyan, the path to enlightenment is an arduous one. It takes the near loss of his grandson (Marius) for Monsieur Gillenormand to forgive him his political views. It takes 9 years of sacrificial love for Cossette for Valjean to throw himself into danger to save Marius... and it requires Javert to place his life to the hands of a criminal only to have it spared (a paradox which he didn't ask for, and which is too much for him to stomach). 

For these characters, a quote from Christ himself seems appropriate (Hugo, according to the evident theme of God-like forgiveness throughout the book, would hopefully agree!), and that is this:

"Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who persecute you". 

Essentially, it is the characters who applied this policy who (even though they died), lived greatly, as they found that their enemy was confused, lost, confounded by this upside down response. Thernadier is the only one who's character remains completely unaltered unto the end and, like many a rascal, is one of the only characters who doesn't meet a tragic or premature demise. Yet, as he was incapable of doing good, he lived foully, and it was not a life to envy. 

There are countless examples throughout for a reader to ponder over and to put each character up for the "But who's my FAVOURITE?" elections.... 

But a personal preference of mine is Eponine. Tragic and lost from the start, at first complicit towards Thernadier (her father) and his wishes, as she matures and grows wise both to her love for Marius and the robbery that her father and his thugs are looking to pull on him, she valiantly stands up to the whole gang in front of his house, eventually forcing them to retreat. A vivacious and rebellious spirit, which epitomises the very emotion of the imminent rebellion itself, one can see that she is destined to die in battle... 

(SPOILER ALERT!)  

... which she does, while defending Marius.

Obviously, this is a classic of epic proportions. More than just a book, it is SEVERAL books in one- a mountain range of giant themes- philosophy, social commentary, religion, history... with the story line weaving it's way past these monuments. With it's greatness, however, comes a necessity of patience when traversing this novel- the side-themes are simply huge. For example, a full account of the history of the Battle of Waterloo means you'll never have to read a single book on Napoleon in your life. However, it is all highly interesting and adds to the experience of the book... with one exception. Hugo, in my opinion, spends an excessively large amount of time describing the convent in which Jean Valjean and Cossette take refuge, detailing not only the history of the sisterhood, but also every quirk and ritual that they practice. This, in itself, lends little to the story, and could easily have been summarised in a couple of pages (instead of what felt like nearly 200).

It is amazing how much one can learn about real life from reading fiction, and I think Les Miserables is the best example I've come across of that. Real life lessons- the importance of bravery, forgiveness, and the development of the spirit- they vibrate right on the surface throughout. In another way, this is more than a book- it's a life experience. Surely, in years to come, upon the deathbed of anyone who has held this book in their hands from beginning to end, upon receiving the question "What were your greatest experiences in life?", the answer "... reading Victor Hugo's masterpiece..." will surely make the list.

I think the best way to summarise the underlying message of Les Miserables is with a quote from the Swiss Catholic priest, Hans Urs von Balthasar:

"What you are is God's gift to you. What you become is your gift to God".

Score: 9/10

Book review: "1984", by George Orwell

Synopsis: Written in 1948, it describes the life of Winston Smith, a 39-year-old government worker who lives in Orwell's vision of London in 1984- a distopia where everything is spied upon and controlled by the government, known simply as The Party, and with overall control in the hands of "Big Brother". Winston works for "The department of truth", where he's in charge of editing history to conform to the version that Big Brother desires, keeping the public ignorant that they are being oppressed, and channeling all negative feelings and anger towards irrelevant outside sources, and away from The Party. Slowly, Winston starts to rebel against the system, and conspires to bring it down from the inside...

Review: A terrifyingly accurate prediction of the future (which is now the past and the present!), this book has been referenced multiple times since it was written, and has become as much part of our society as the governmental tricks-of-the-trade that it deplores. The media control, the "Two minute hate" (in which citizens are shown a daily video of Emmanuel Goldstein, Big Brother's elusive enemy, in order to persuade them to focus their anger on him, rather than rebel against their true oppressor), the state of constant war which the state perpetuates in order to produce for the economy, only to have the products disappear in a cloud of smoke, or sink to the bottom of the ocean rather than being given back to the people... these are all realities that we are living today in the 21st century. This isn't meant to be a political rant, but it's impossible to review this book without mentioning them. It is also impossible to read 1984 without stopping frequently to look up and murmur "Oh, my God..." to yourself, and you realize that you've witnessed a method of The Party that very day.

On the one hand, it's tempting for me to write the following: "Had people believed that this future was possible back in 1948, no doubt some (if not many) would have tried to have it banned. It's only the fact that it was well ahead of it's time that it wasn't subject to a book burning". However, this is only the half truth, as there are clear and obvious references to both Hitler and Stalin's regimes throughout, therefore making it as much of a historical analysis as a gloomy futuristic fore-telling. As I'm sure many political thinkers at the time observed, though, the wheel of history revolves by it's very nature and design, and it was only a matter of time before the memories of those terrible times started to fade, and the attitudes of oppression, lying and scape-goating could creep their way back into the public sphere (I'm looking at you, Thatcher and the post-1982 British Establishment!).

These apocalyptic predictions, and the frequent eye-opening insights which challenge the reader to review their own political conscience, combined with Orwell's consistently engaging tempo and page-turning writing style make for a simply fantastic read. As I've always thought of Orwell (and as 1984 proves)- his writing style was so ahead of his time that you could be forgiven for thinking that this book had been written within the last decade. He recognizes the modern reader's lust for a constantly moving story-line (especially applicable to the post-WW2 generations, who are famously more attracted to instant gratification than their predecessors). In this way, as you're reading 1984, you start to realize that as you rush down the white-water river of the story-line, buzzing with the excitement of getting soaked and trying to avoid the rocks, that you are also collecting valuable philosophical and political insights along the way. Seldom can a writer achieve both- either he lumbers along the river in a steam-boat, pausing frequently to ponder existence and genuinely taking his time about life, or he goes down the hill as fast as he can on a toboggan, believing that every second counts in order to get the reader to the end as quickly as possible, and therefore skipping huge areas for literary insights. Orwell, as mentioned, strikes a balance, and does both, therefore appealing both to the philosopher and the story-junkie within me.

As my closing, I have to share with you a segment, which I think of as a direct route to the message of 1984: 

"Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him...

... By the time we had finished with them they were only the shells of men. There was nothing in them except sorrow for what they had done, and love of Big Brother. It was touching to see how much they loved him. They begged to be shot quickly, so that they could die while their minds were still clean".

Orwell is saying that, no matter how small your protest, how minute your resistance, as long as you have the words "I don't love Big Brother" or (in plainer terms), "I am not happy with the way things are" written on your heart, then Big Brother can never truly destroy you. On the other hand, no matter how grand your gestures, or how many people may think that you are rebelling, as long as you have the mantra "I love Big Brother", or "I am content for things to stay the same, as I am benefiting from them" chanting in your soul, then your actions are mute, and you are a slave to The Party.

Read this book, and when you've finished, see how differently you look at the world.

Score: 9/10

Book review: "The Cicero trilogy", by Robert Harris

Synopsis: Beginning at the start of Cicero's public life (in the middle of the first century B.C.), the trilogy takes you through the rise, fall and eventual death of Cicero through the eyes of his loyal secretary Tiro, during one of the most famous and tumultuous times of the Roman republic. Cicero, an upstanding and moral lawyer from humble beginnings, climbs the corrupt and power hungry ladder of the Roman republic, and constructs an admirable career as a Roman statesman while largely managing to keep his moral code intact. A firm believer in democracy and the power of the people's right to elect, he sacrifices much in order to have moral superiority. Living in the political world of historical greats, such as Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great and the Emperor Augustus could not have been (and apparently wasn't!) a walk in the park, and as Cicero's' life has demonstrated, the Roman empire was a far from peaceful place. Essentially, whoever had the most money, the least morals (and biggest private army) ruled the roost... for the time-being. Trapped between trying to uphold the ideals of the republic, ensuring that a publicly elected senate firmly holds the reigns of power, and sometimes merely trying to survive to see another day, Cicero's colorful life is a clear testament that neither joy nor sorrow last forever (as he himself said, "Nothing dries quicker than a tear"). Finally, as the greatest empire in the world slowly starts to collapse around him, he begins to realize that not only was he a cornerstone on which the might of the empire was built, but that he also had a hand to play in it's imminent demise...

Review: As an overview of Cicero's life, it certainly hits all the keys points (with impressive accuracy, throughout). Reading the Wikipedia page of "Cicero" is like reading the greatest overall summary of this trilogy.

Considering that it covers over 30 years of his political life, Harris can be excused for moving forward "a little TOO fast", at times. But, with the notion that it is a source of entertainment, and not a historical essay, this can be forgiven (I think, in fact, that it would lose some of it's appeal if it were any longer). Harris does well to advise the reader at the beginning that, when faced with the historical fact and the literary preference, he always tried to find a suitable compromise... but when necessary, chose the latter over the former.

A criticism could be that, in spanning a whole 30 years of Cicero's incredibly active and engaging public life, it does get repetitive at times, to the point where, if you're not concentrating, you can easily lose track of who's friends with who / who's stabbed someone else in the back (largely figuratively!) / who's shagging who... and you'll have to go back a few pages to catch up. One thing we can take away from it is that it was certainly a sordid world that the Roman's lived in- bribery, corruption, betrayal, incest, affairs, murder... these are all daily themes in the life of a political elite in the era of Cicero (How they ever got any roads built is beyond me)!

On separate charges, this book could be pulled up for crimes against realistic Roman dialogues- at times, it feels like you're reading a movie script. An example:

"So you can save your breath as far as that's concerned and tell me instead what's become of Milo's bankrupt estate. You remember the sale was fixed so you got it all for next to nothing, and then you were supposed to sell it at a profit and give the proceeds to Fausta?"

You see? No Hollywood director in their right mind could convince themselves that they were producing an authentic Roman replication of the Latin way of thinking, talking and phrasing when faced with such dialogue. If one takes the fact that the speech so obviously doesn't try to follow a Latin way of thinking too seriously, then this book runs the risk of losing it's authentic feel.


However, I wouldn't condemn Harris too quickly. There are certain books, such as Les Miserables, which greatly benefit from the antiquated language to give the reader the genuine feeling that they're stepping back in time (in the case of Les Mis, into the grubby streets of post-Napoleonic Paris). However, this trilogy doesn't feel like it's lacking in authenticity, as it makes up for it's 21st century speech rhythms in so many other areas (such as the obvious accounts for all the dates and facts, as well as the characters). In the end, you just brush the contemporary dialogues off as a minor point. It certainly doesn't hinder the pleasure in reading, and without a doubt makes the characters more accessible to a 21st century audience. 

In conclusion, Cicero is truly brought to life through these books- you get a real feeling of the man, like you know him personally. You accept him, despite his imperfections (a fickle allegiance policy being the main one), and because of his many virtues (him being courageous, headstrong, decisive, and with a far stronger moral compass than those surrounding him), and one cannot feel that they are saying goodbye to a great man, and a well-loved friend as they close the final book. In all sincerity, having known nothing of Cicero before reading this trilogy, I feel like I've not only been absolutely entertained, but also that I can take away with me some well treasured knowledge about this prominent historical figure.

Score: 8/10

Play review: "An inspector calls", by J.B. Priestly

Synopsis: Set in 1912, shortly before the start of WW1, the play begins in the dining room of a wealthy upper-class family in England. A dinner party is taking place, and the members are congratulating each other on their various successes, and generally feeling pretty pleased with themselves. However, the atmosphere is interrupted by the entrance of a local inspector, who has come to report the suicide of a young woman. As it is slowly revealed that each of the party guests had a hand in causing her death, the tactics of blame and accusations, and the overall shame and sorrow mean that the night will be the most memorable night of their lives...

Review: There is an obvious exposure of the hypocrisy of the upper classes throughout the play, which Priestly does not shy away from. Inspector Ghoul, the worker's hero throughout, provides the mouthpiece for a subtle call to social justice, as he systematically dismantles each of the party goers defenses, whilst deploring their actions. The very human reactions of each of the characters upon discovering that they share a handful of guilt is an important factor to the plays overall realism and enjoyment, and you feel that it's as much of a psychological analysis as it is a piece of evening entertainment (which is probably why it's part of many teenager's GCSE reading list!). Having read the play rather than seen it, it is a truly fantastic evening read, as you can picture the reactions of the characters as if they were in front of you. What's more, the themes are so universal, that you could easily picture modern adaptations across the world- a rooftop party in Beverly Hills, with Denzel Washington entering as "Detective Ghoul" is a personal favorite of mine ;)                    

Score: 9/10 

Book review: "One hundred years of solitude", by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Synopsis: Starting at the birth of a tiny, isolated village deep in the Colombian jungle, the book takes you through the highs, lows, and inevitable death of this endearing and yet tragic mini-society. Focusing on the Arcadio family, it touches on a number of ideas throughout, and is more than just a story. It's a reflection of society, family life, and the journey that our short time on earth picks up from and that our descendants will carry on...

Review: It's easy to see why this won a Nobel Prize- it holds the weight of a great novel, and is quite unlike anything previous. Garcia moves quite quickly through their lives, convincingly covering the hundred years, and yet still giving the reader the appropriate glimpse into their contribution to the village. A tip, however- it would be worth having a copy of the family tree beside you when you read the book, to keep track of who's who... Names are frequently repeated, and without a visual aid for guidance, you could find yourself asking "Who's he, again?" "What did she do when she was young?" quite a few times throughout.

Oh, and also- there's A LOT of incest...!

Score: 9/10